Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2009

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

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


Contents

Galveston Bay Area[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to move this toward GA. Some editors have raised some serious concerns but have refused to discuss or provide details. I'm hoping for an actionable set of suggestions so that we can nominate the article in the near future.

Thanks, Mcorazao (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The article has three major cleanup banners, all dated September 2009. Peer review requires that articles be free of such banners (see Nomination procedure on WP:Peer review page). If you are in dispute with the editors that posted them, could you find a non-involved editor to determine whether they are still valid? Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Further note: Having read through the article, I don't think the alleged violations justify the retention of major cleanup banners and I have removed them. The editors concerned have been invited to bring their concerns to this review. My initial comment is that there are certain POV issues to be addressed, along with uneven citations and several other problems. I will post a list of my detailed observations in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Review comments: I have got as far as the end of the History section:-

  • Lead
    • Does this lead provide a complete summary of the article's content? It seems on the short side.
    • The infobox map of Texas in uninformative. It has no proper caption; the red dot which signifies the Bay area is almost indiscernible. Better to replace with a properly captioned map of the coastal area of Texas, on which the location of the Bay area can be clearly seen
    • The word "sleepy" should be in quotes, not italics
  • Boundaries
    • Again, the map and its caption are very confusing to people (like me) who are unfamiliar with the area's geography. What is the significance of the different colours?
    • The use of bullet points within text should be generally be avoided
    • Referencing: citations should normally be at the ends of sentences/paragraphs, otherwise it can be unclear what information is covered by the citation. For example, the phrase "some sources use a more limited definition", and the second sentence of the second paragraph, do not appear to be cited at present. In any event you need to amplify on "some sources". (Note: the issue of mispositioning, or lack of, citations appears to be recurrent through the article)
  • Municipalities
    • "is typically considered to at least include..." is very clumsy wording. I suggest the first two sentences be rewritten thus: "The Bay Area generally comprises Pasadena, Clear Lake City (a part of Houston and Pasadena), League City, Webster, La Porte, and neighboring communities,[8] together with the nearby bedroom communities such as Deer Park, Dickinson and Friendswood.
    • Second paragraph: reword to avoid the repetition of "as well". Also, make it clear what you mean by "this loosely defined term".
    • I suggest these two short paragraphs be combined to form one paragraph.
  • Subdivisions - minor point: If possible avoid writing very short, single-sentence paragraphs as this militates against smooth prose.
  • History : There are citation issues throughout this section
    • Preamble: Has no references at all, and reads like individual opinion.
    • Early history: First paragraph, only the first sentence is cited. Also, the last sentence of the colony, about the abandonment of the pirate colony, is uncited.
    • Mexican dominion: The latter parts of the first and third paragraphs are uncited, and the second paragraph has no citations at all.
    • U.S. annexation: This section is generally well-referenced, but I wonder if the title "U.S. annexation" is really appropriate, since the text covers over a half-century's history following the annexation.
    • Modern times: the tendency continues, in the second, third and fourth paragraphs, of ending paras with uncited statements. Also, again there may be an issue with the title - can 1901 really be considered as in "modern times"?

I am going to be away, and largely offline, for several days - will return to the review next week. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I think Brian was scared away by the acrimony that was going on as he tried to help out. I don't think anybody else is going to chime in so I'm going to end this request. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Giro d'Italia[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to get it up to Featured Article status, to hopefully make 2009 Giro d'Italia a featured topic. I think it's probably pretty close, as mclean's GA review was extremely comprehensive, but the more eyes the better.

Thanks, Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 10:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that a lot of worj has gone into this article, I think it needs some more work before it is ready for FAC. With WP:WIAFA in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. I did not see much if anything on this being the centennial race beyond the lead, for example. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article also has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the flow. One is in the lead, and the Other classifications section also has many one sentence paragraphs. These should be combined with others or expanded where possible to improve the flow.
  • Article needs more references, for example the list of bullet points under the bold text Jersey wearers when one rider is leading two or more competitions has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There are also some places where more context has to be provided for the reader. For example in the lead I would explicitly say that Milan - Sanremo is another bicycle race in The eleventh stage also went over the Passo del Turchino, a climb used every year in [the] Milan – Sanremo [cycle race]. Or in On 22 July, the International Cycling Union announced Di Luca's A-samples tested positive for CERA on 20 May and 28 May.[4] I would add "banned substance" before CERA and perhaps add more there (saying what kind of substance it is).
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race is also on men's cycling and is a FA and may be a useful model.
  • The hardest criteria for most articles to meet at WP:FAC is the one (1a) for a professional level of prose. This needs a copyedit - here area few examples (not an exhaustive list):
    • Avoid needless repetition to make the text tighter. Avoid "ninth stage" twice in one sentence: Controversy arose during the ninth stage, when the riders staged a protest of what they viewed as unsafe riding conditions in that ninth stage, and those that preceded it.
    • Or is "themselves" needed in Six different riders themselves won multiple stages – Cavendish, Petacchi, Menchov, Di Luca,[40][56] Carlos Sastre,[43][57] and Michele Scarponi.[58][59]
    • Or this sentence could be rewritten to avoid three uses of "classification": The fourth classification was the young rider classification, calculated the same way as the general classification, but with only riders born on or after 1 January 1984 eligible.
    • Sentence does not need both "additionally" and "also" here: Additionally, there was also a points classification, indicated with a mauve jersey.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed two other articles while waiting for comments on this one. Thanks for the review. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 17:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the points that I feel improve the article (which is most of them). Please realize that saying "see WP:CITE" and such as if I've never read them is quite condescending and insulting. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 06:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am closing this peer review, as I don't expect any further feedback and would like to go to FAC. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 07:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Dennis Johnson[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve this to FA status. Thanks, —Chris!c/t 19:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I will take a look later today. Speech is a bit flowery at firsy glance but I actually think it works rather well...more later and I will explain what I mean then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.—Chris!c/t 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments – The first thing I am going to focus on is the sourcing, because this is so important for any article that is being prepared for FAC. If the references aren't high-quality, an article isn't going to pass. I found a couple of concerns there that should be addressed as soon as possible. I'll also do a quick scan for prose issues.

  • What makes http://www.celtic-nation.com/interviews/dennis_johnson/dennis_johnson_page1.htm a reliable source? The title makes it sound like a fan site, which will quickly be detected and questioned at FAC. I recommend finding replacements for this site, especially considering some of the things it's sourcing, such as his "choking" (the worst thing that can be said about an athlete's performance).
  • I believe this qualifies as RS because it records an interview with Dennis Johnson himself. I will try to replace some but it will be difficult.—Chris!c/t 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Be very careful with the Dennis Johnson bio on NBA.com. That would be considered a primary source and should be used carefully, and not for interpretations. The NBA is naturally going to present their players in the best possible light. This is one problematic example: "and was finally named NBA Finals MVP." The "finally" comes off as POV, which could be unintentionally reflected from the source.
  • "finally" is gone now. I will double check to make sure it is pov free.—Chris!c/t 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure the bit about his NBDL coaching needs to be in the first sentence. It's not nearly as important for him as his playing career, and the mentioned job wasn't his only NBDL job. In fact, it's curious that this is in the lead and his stint as an interim NBA coach isn't.
  • "A prototypical late bloomer, the 6'4 Johnson overcame early struggles and had a successful NBA player career." I can guarantee that "late bloomer" will be seen as jargon at FAC, and I'm not even good at spotting it. Also change "player" to "playing".
  • "He eventually led the Sonics to their only NBA championships in 1979". "championships" is incorrect and should be singular.
  • Consider linking some things like All-Star and All-NBA Team in the lead.
  • "Johnson was known as a clutch player who made several decisive plays in NBA Finals history." I'd consider making a change to better match the source, which seems to be referring to the playoffs in general, not just the finals. Makes sense, since that includes the 1987 Detroit game.

The sourcing issues will require some thought, so I'll stop after reading the lead. Let me know when this has been looked at and I'll leave more thoughts on the writing. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Fixed most issue. I don't really think "late bloomer" is a jargon because it is often use. I can't think of another way to say this.—Chris!c/t 20:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Came back to read beyond the lead, aiming to find prose issues.
  • Link Little Leaguer since that may not be clear to non-sports fans.
  • "This is a trait which would follow him through the next years of his career." How many years? This comes off as quite vague, and should be expanded upon if the source allows.
  • "However, the Sonics finished with a mediocre 40–42 record". "Mediocre" might be seen as POV by some FAC reviewers, even if it's largely true. Eliminating this word won't change the meaning in any way, so I suggest doing that.
  • Remove hyphens in "Hall-of-Fame".
  • "Remarkable about this period was the fact that Johnson played shooting guard and was then known for his aggresive slam dunking, in contrast to the more cerebral roles he played later in his career." "Remarkable" may be overstating things slightly. Go a bit easier on the hyperbole.
  • Any suggestion?—Chris!c/t 23:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Replace the beginning with a simpler "During this period" and possibly drop "then"? Giants2008 (17–14) 02:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "in which the sophomore guard missed all of his 14 field goal attempts." Should "sophomore" be changed since he wasn't in college anymore?
  • Several POV concerns in the 1979 section: "strong 52–30 record", "powered their way", and "inspired Johnson" (like he wasn't inspired to perform well in 1978?). Sports articles often have language like this that needs to be altered. The best approach is to simply describe what happened.
  • "smothering defense" may be lost on non-NBA fans. If it seems like I'm emphasizing possible jargon, it's because I am. Avoiding confusing language is vital for professional prose, and sports articles often have problems with this.
  • Little tip: Having a link to shooting guard isn't necessary when there's an identical link in the previous section.
  • "before disappointingly bowing out in the first round in Johnson's last year." Another POV word in this context: "disappointingly".
  • "Like in Seattle, he often clashed with coach John MacLeod". This could be misinterpreted to mean that he clashed with MacLeod in Seattle. Try tweaking the wording to eliminate this vagueness.
  • Any suggestion?—Chris!c/t 23:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps something like this: "Like in Seattle, he often clashed with his coach, John MacLeod." Still not ideal in my mind, but an improvement nonetheless. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Choose between All-Defensive First Team and All-Defense First Team. I see both at various times.
  • Looking ahead a bit: "the Celtics succumbed to the Los Angeles Lakers 2–4 (flip?) because Lakers playmaker and Finals MVP Magic Johnson was unstoppable." I'm sure he wasn't literally unstoppable. Needs rephrasing.
Hopefully these will show what FAC reviewers are looking for on the prose side. The best thing you can do before FAC is to secure the services of a good copy-editor, who can help smooth out the writing where necessary. Good luck. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Boston Celtics: Inconsistent usage of "Hall of Fame" and "Hall-of-Fame" is present. I believe the former is correct.
  • "Johnson described this loss as one of the toughest". Of his career? That's not clear as the sentence stands now.
  • Have you thought of using a quote box for the Johnny Most game call? I've seen centered boxes with quotes in other articles, which would be a perfect way to present this quote.
  • Comma after "In the 1987 NBA Finals".
  • Magic Johnson doesn't need to be linked twice in this section. It would be a good idea to check for similar overlinking throughout the article, as that is commonly checked for at FAC.
  • "and his team made the 1989 NBA Playoffs on a meager 42-40 record, but were immediately eliminated in the first round." En dash needed for won–loss record, and "were" should be "was" since "team" is acting as a singular word.
  • Hyphens needed in "35 year old".
  • What does this mean: "Johnson played 'rejuvenated'"?
  • The image of the green number 3 is cutting into the Legacy section header. Try moving it so that it appears alongside the first paragraph.
  • "Hall of Famer known for strong defense rather than spectacular scoring, like Johnson". An "a" should be placed at the beginning of this, inside the dash.
  • Capitalize "colleague" in the next sentence. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Done all—Chris!c/t 02:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Casliber's comments - prose is not looking too bad. I have made some alternatives as I read through- revert any tweaks you feel worsen instead of improving the prose.

In Phoenix, Johnson further established himself as a quality player. - is a bit 'fluffy'
What do you suggest?
the Celtics had repeatedly lost in the previous NBA Playoffs campaigns to the Philadelphia 76ers - what, lost to the same team to bow out of the playoffs...how many times?
Did I make it flow better?—Chris!c/t 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I am still left feeling a little curious/unsatisfied for more information on why Johnson hasn't been inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame too. Is there any more on this?
Let me see if there is more to add here.—Chris!c/t 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Montana: Hits Remixed[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I don't if Hannah Montana: Hits Remixed could be expanded or ever nominated towards GA. I ultimately want the article to be at its best state.

Thanks, Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a really short article so there is not a lot to review, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The language is rough and in places I was not even sure what was meant. This will have to be improved for any attempt at GA. For example, just in the lead the first sentence is not very clear Hannah Montana Hits Remixed is the second remix album by American pop recording artist Miley Cyrus, under the fictional character/alter ego of Hannah Montana, and the seventh album released by the franchise. I know Cyrus plays the character of Montana on a TV show, but this sentence does not make that clear enough. I am also confused as the infobox / navbox at the bottom of the article seems to show this is the fifth album from the Hannah Montana franchise, but the lead says it is the seventh (assume that HM is the franchise meant). So perhaps something like Hannah Montana Hits Remixed is the second remix album by American pop recording artist Miley Cyrus, in the role of her fictional alter ego Hannah Montana. It was the fifth Hannah Montana album released (perhaps add the date of release here?).
  • The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD and be a summary of the rest of the article - as a summary nothing should be in the lead only, but being sold only at Wal-Mart is only in the lead, for example.
  • The article is missing sections normally seen in articles on music albums. There is not really a production section - I know it is a remix album, but who did the remixes? Did Cyrus have to rerecord any tracks?
  • There is also nothing on Critical reception, which needs to be in there
  • Watch tense - is and was in the same sentence It was released on August 19, 2008 under Walt Disney Records and is sold exclusively at American Wal-Mart stores.[4]
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on albums that would be potential model articles.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


2012 phenomenon[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is now relatively comprehensive and I was wondering what was needed to bring it up for promotion.

Thanks, Serendipodous 18:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read through this and it looks pretty good. The sources include some blogs and self-published websites. These might be OK for some purposes but they don't establish notability for the ideas they contain. What is to stop anyone creating a website on 2012 and expecting it to be reported in this Wikipedia article? The citations were a bit of a mix of manual and template and many of the websites missed off the accessdate -- so I've moved more to the cite templates. Hope you don't hate the templates :-) Colin°Talk 21:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources are kinda difficult to get around, because most third party commentators on the subject, being rational, find themselves all at sea over some of the concepts, and often get them wrong. Even though they've been studying the 2012 phenomenon first-hand for years a lot of them still doesn't understand the black hole alignment, because they can't think irrationally enough to grasp it. As for blogs, well most of the cited blogs are by noted professionals in their fields, such as Mike Brown and David Stuart. Serendipodous 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Some of this seems familiar after my review of the Nibiru collision article, so apologize if I repeat some of the same things here. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • As before, I would strongly suggest getting someone who is an acknowledged reference checker for FAC (Ealdgyth comes to mind, there may be others) to look at this well before submitting it to GAN or FAC
  • First off it seems to me that this article should have more reliable sources available in theory as there are such for the Mayan calendar and texts, the film, etc. Given that I was a bit surprised that there are several places that need refs - all of the following:
    • Schele and Freidel note that creation date was inscribed at Coba as .... or 3 quintillion times the scientifically accepted age of the universe.
    • Author Terence McKenna independently arrived at a New Age prediction for 2012, which he later merged with the Mayan calendar end date after a discussion with Argüelles.
    • The first three paragraphs of the Galactic alignment section
    • The alignment described by Jenkins is only an apparent alignment caused by the Earth's wobble on its axis and has nothing to do with Earth's current location in the galaxy.
    • the last three sentences about the film
  • The lead seems a bit sparse - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but it does not seem to me to be the case here.
  • There are a few places I would provide more context to the reader - for example could the rough locations of the archeological sites be mentioned The Tortuguero site [in southernmost Tabasco, Mexico] dates from the 7th century AD and consists of a series of inscriptions in honor of the contemporary ruler.
  • There are also several places that use time words that are likely to change - for example in the section on the film there is this The picture currently on the website's "About" page shows the European Union headquarters building in Brussels as the IHC's own premises. but currently should be replaced with something like "as of October 2009" There are other uses of currentl or similar words that need to be looked at
  • Similarly I would add an access date for anything used as a ref with an external link in it, so for example current ref 59 is just "^ See the fictional publicity for the film by Sony Pictures Inc." with a link to the website
  • Other than that I thought this seemed generally well written and neutral.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


Aaliyah[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that this article may be able to be taken to WP:FAC, though I would like to get some fresh eyes on the article. It passed its WP:GAN nomination just over a month ago and, seeing as the biography is fairly solid, would like to take it to the next step.

Thanks, — ξxplicit 05:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick skim since I'm a little tired...

  • Images need Alt text.
    Will get to these shortly. — ξxplicit 20:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Much of the article, especially the "life and career" section, seems to have a very insecure citation style. Must every little thing be cited 2 and 3 different times? I guess too much is better than too little, but it just looks...yeah, insecure. Also, lower-numbered references should occur first when two or more are used together. This occurs several times in the article.
    It's not insecure citation, it's just that one source alone can not verify everything in one sentence, hence the addition of multiple references after one sentence. I'll make sure to correct the order of the references. — ξxplicit 20:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is the section on her death a subsection under "life and career?" I realize the section continues with posthumous releases, but that still strikes me as odd.
    This was brought up before on the talk page I believe. Another editor had moved the death subsection after the "life and career" section as a standalone section, which broke the chronology and flow of the article. I'm open to comprises. — ξxplicit 20:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Might have more later. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 06:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for giving the article a look. — ξxplicit 20:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Solar energy[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was reviewed in the past and I don't think any of the problems raised then apply any longer. The article has been stable for a long time, but there are many editors who are interested in this question and who would be able to fix any remaining issues. The article covers all aspects of solar energy in a balanced way. The sourcing is good. It has benefited from a split, whereby solar electrical generation is covered in Solar power. So I think a further peer review is long overdue.

Thanks, Itsmejudith (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My comments:

  • The column of same-size pictures on the right is dull. Put some on the left, and customize the sizes.
  • Per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Multiple columns, the notes are too long to break up into 4 columns. Choose the shortened or regular footnote format, and convert to that. And why not use the reflist template?
  • The Applications section takes up a disproportionate amount of space and its structure is confusing. It starts off by defining a split between passive and active techniques, which are then not used in structuring the section. It also throws in an extra set of labels, supply and demand, without ever explaining or using these again. And the link to supply-side economics helps to make your head spin even more. Then the structure suggests that heating, cooling and ventilation are not an architectural application, nor is water heating or solar lighting, since they are listed separately. If categorization is needed, only one categorization scheme should be used at a time, either by process (lighting, thermal, chemical, electrical) or by application (vehicle, architecture, agriculture, etc.) not intermixed together.
  • I don't think that energy storage systems deserve their own section in this article. The pumped hydroelectric storage paragraph is particularly out of place. Perhaps what would be more appropriate is a section discussing the intermittancy of this energy source (cloud cover, nightime, seasons, latitude) with references and hotlinks to storage techniques that can be used to compensate.
  • The development, deployment and economics section, which really could be three separate sections, never mentions a dollar amount, and only one capacity figure. Maybe this should be relabelled a history section?
  • The ISO section belongs in the article on solar water heaters, not here.
  • The See Also and External Links are mostly of little value and should be severely pruned. Wikipedia is not a link farm.

--Yannick (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Expansion suggestions:

  • This article discusses solar energy almost solely as an industrial resource. There's only a passing mention that some of it is captured by biomass, which again is discussed as an industrial resource. Even the agriculture section fails to note the role of unassisted solar energy in ordinary farms. If this article is really meant to be about all uses of solar energy, it may be a good idea to devote more space to solar energy's role in keeping the ecology alive, causing hurricanes, and keeping the planet warm. The Earths temperature, for example, is determined by the balance between incoming solar energy and outgoing thermal emissions into cold black space.
  • a section on origin of solar energy would seem appropriate: nuclear fusion in the sun, age and prognosis for the sun, variations in radiation due to the sunspot cycle
  • Extraterrestrial uses of solar energy may deserve mention: solar sails, helium-3 deposited on moons, solar powered spacecraft, weather on other planets

--Yannick (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


Dragon Quest[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what needs to be done before bringing this up as a FAC. As I have only recently started seriously helping with the article after creating the TF, please feel free to mention stuff that needs addressing.

Thanks, Jinnai 20:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I wonder if some of the pictures should be taken out. Your opinion? GamerPro64 (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Well it's still within the 3-5 set by FAs, however the Spinoff one is probably the least importance to the article. The logo is there for obvious reasons, the slime is the company's mascot and represents the basic artstyle, the battle screenshot depitcts the iconic nature of the game which was copied and the CD album, well without a seperate article on it, it is a notable album. So if any would be removed it would be the spinoff one as it's one of only many spinoffs.Jinnai 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
If it doesn't have an article then it is not a notable album. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I doesn't have its own article because that takes time. It is notable as a first of its kind.Jinnai 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Remove the image. It doesn't add anything to the article, and it's blurry anyway. If the album artwork had had critical commentary in the prose, then maybe, but since it's not even mentioned at all it's just decoration. It's a violation of WP:NFCC. The Prince (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Another question - should the spinoff series be coveted from table format to timeline per the main series, kept as is or something else? I'd appreciate some comments on this and elsewhere so we have less of a struggle when going for a FAC.Jinnai 02:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this needs some work before it is ready to pass at FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are two dabs - actually both are redirects to this page, and an article should not link to itself
  • The images seem to lack alt text, or at least need text that is different from their captions - see WP:ALT
    •  Done - The DQ logo is purely decorative.Jinnai 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I would also look at WP:NFCC for guidance on the fair use images
  • The first sentence in the lead seems too complicated for me - according to WP:LEAD The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" The information in the first sentence should be in the lead, but not all in the first sentence.
    • Edited that. I had to make it 2 sentances as it otherwise would have probably have been a run-on sentance due to its structure.Jinnai 21:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead does not seem to follow WP:LEAD as a summary of the article. My rule of thumb is that every header should at least be mentioned in the lead, but I did not see any of the common elements section headers explicitly mentioned in the lead (Gameplay, Monsters, Loto/Erdrick, Zenithia)
    • Added some info. I don't think the loto/Edrick and Zenithia are important enough to mention as they are just important as 2 trilogies, the latter of which wasn't originally canon.Jinnai 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I am confused by this sentence Four Dragon Quest installments were released on the NES with the first two concurrently released in Japan on the MSX;[5][6] ... I think it would be clearer if it said "[The first] four Dragon Quest installments were released on the NES..." (how I understood it) and the release dates given for the first four are not even the same year, so the concurrent part needs more explanation.
    • Changed the sentance. The concurrent was meant for the MSX and NES.Jinnai 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that need to be combined with others or expanded if possible to improve the flow of the prose.
    • Combined one of them. The rest appear to be talking about different items and that are broken in the manner similar to larger paragraphs.Jinnai 21:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Problem sentence Dragon Quest X has been announced for the Wii.[21][1][22] first can a year be added? Second, refs are supposed to be in numerical order, so here it would be "for the Wii.[1][21][22]"
Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The table of spin offs is a bit hard to understand as it has no title or introductory text - even if it just said "This is a list of all spin-off games released as of 2009." would help.
    • See my above question (just before your comments) about this. I'd like some comments about my ideas first before editing this section which I know does need editing.Jinnai 21:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There are many video game FAs that would be potentially useful model articles for ideas and examples to follow.
  • The automated tips (in the box) have several suggestions that should be looked at too.

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 ><>°° 23:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A bit more ,,,

  • The images need to have individual fair use rationales for each article they are used in - this is done for the image in the infobox and the album cover, but not for the other two currently in the article.
  • The images also need to list their sources better - for example the image File:Rockett.jpg has no source listed.
  • Make sure refs have publishers - for example current ref 74 is "^ "WEIRD AND WONDERFUL RECORDS". 2008. http://gamers.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/weird_and_wonderful.aspx. Retrieved September 17, 2008. Needs to list the publisher (Guinnes Book of World Records)

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the table vs the timeline - the timeline shows one data point per game (a year), but the table shows up to 5 or 6 - for example Dragon Warrior Monsters shows the original title (I owuld perhaps say "original Japanese title" here) and gives 3 dates in Japan (with game systems) and one date each in North America and the PAL region (I would link that too). I can see the list being made into a standalone article (list), probably with the other main DQ games (is there already a List of Dragon Quest games?). If that were made into a separate list, the timeline might be a nice way to show the most important info here. In any case, I would also consider making the list sortable (ask if you do not know how to do this). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the timeline for the main series was made to conform to other series like Final Fantasy, but I was asking more for the spinoff series. Thanks for your input.Jinnai 17:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping this article can get closer to FA status. It is currently a GA, and think it would be best to help further the article in development. I do not expect it to be immediately ready for FA status, but any feedback would be better than nothing.

Thanks, Gage (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Jujutacular (talk · contribs)

  • Images need alt text.
    •  Done Gage (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Some external links are broken (view them). Assuming these are sources, find replacements.
    •  Done For the most part. Replaced every source that was either a redirect or no longer exists. A few others still show up on the Toolserver, but they are mainly due to server problems, etc. Any help on that would be appreciated. Gage (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In the third paragraph of Early life, the cited source immediately following "Like a lot of animators... " - does not contain that quote.
    •  Done Removed quote. Gage (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In the fourth paragraph of Career in animation and television, it uses a quote from "a review by Jeff Cohen", but the following citation does not lead to a review by Jeff Cohen. Where did this quote come from?
    •  Done Removed the quote, as I was unable to locate the original source, only people using Wikipedia as the source of the quote. Gage (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In Activism and the 2008 Writers' Strike, it isn't clear what would be "a colossal dick move".
    •  Done Gage (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In Experience with September 11, 2001 attacks, quotation marks appear around "comedy" - but the marks do not appear in the source.
    •  Done Gage (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

War of the Worlds (2005 film)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I improved the article till 54 kilobytes. I listed the Production, Cast, Plot, Performances of the film. My edits weren't actually did in this article, but here, —User:World Cinema Writer/W. Before nominating for WP:GA, I want to make sure the article is fine, which is also the main purpose of this WP:Peer review nomination.

Thanks, World Cinema Writer (talkcontributions) 09:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S.; I certainly used Rob-B-Hood, Alien vs. Predator (film) and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull as my guide to write the article. To be honest, World Cinema Writer (talkcontributions) 09:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: Just for starters, if you click on the disambiguation tool in the toolbox next to this review, you'll see that it finds 26 links in the article that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

More Finetooth comments: This is interesting and seems comprehensive or nearly so. However, it badly needs copyediting. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

Lead

  • "Due to responsibilities, Ray protects his children and attempts a journey to Boston to meet with Ray's wife." - Shorten to "Ray protects his children and tries to go to Boston to rejoin his wife"?
  • I see a couple of comma-spliced pairs of sentences in the lead. Here's one pair: "Cruise admired Spielberg and planned to collaborate with Spielberg again, Cruise visited Spielberg during the filming of Catch Me If You Can. " The comma should be a terminal period.
  • Dates like 29 June shouldn't be wikilinked.
  • There's no need to wikilink the $ sign or to put US in front of the $ sign except, if you like, on the first instance.
  • "Cruise and Spielberg chose to develop The War of the Worlds into a film adaptation." - Movie titles should be in italics here and throughout the article.

Development

  • I'd suggest moving the text box down and to the right to avoid squeezing the text so much.
  • "Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise collaborated together for the first time in 2002's Minority Report." - Tighten by deleting "together"?
  • "Minority Report generally received positive reviews and gross approximately US$358 million at box office." - "Grossed" rather than "gross"?
  • "Since then, Cruise admired to collaborate along with Spielberg, either Spielberg does likes to collaborate with Cruise." - This sentence makes no sense. - Suggestion: "Since then, the two men have enjoyed working together."
  • "Spielberg stated that he just thought it would be fun to make a really scary film with really scary aliens, which I had never done before." - Who does "I" refer to?
  • "Numerous scripts were written for the film. Josh Friedman and David Koepp wrote the final script for the film, which Spielberg accepted it." - Delete "it"?
  • "The script was focusing on one family only, the Ferriers. Spielberg accepted the script after finding it has similarities with his personal life." - "Had" instead of "has"?
  • "Several similarities includes the divorce of his parents (Ray and Mary Ann's divorce) and other reasons by Spielberg was because the survival of the survivors reflects his own uncertainty after the devastation of the terror attacks of September 11 attacks." - Grammar. I'll stop the line-by-line critique at this point, but it's clear that the whole article needs copyediting. You might be able to find a copyeditor via the list at WP:PRV#General copyediting.

Cast and characters

  • I'd suggest eliminating all the bolding in this section, including the double bolding on the linked words. The only exception would be the head, which is automatically bolded. MOS:BOLD has details.

"General

  • I see quite a bit of overlinking. For example, it's not necessary to link Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg so many times or to link such common words as "blood" and "survival". WP:OVERLINK has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Done doing everything. Thanks for the comments. World Cinema Writer (talkcontributions) 08:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dusha[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve its quality and try to make it a featured article on wiki.

Thanks, Rubikonchik (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, but the article needs lots of work. Here are some suggestions.

Lead

  • WP:LEAD says in part, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." It should not include important material that is not mentioned in the rest of the article. The statement "It turned into a 1981 blockbuster and was watched by more than 57 million cinema-goers in the Soviet Union" is interesting, but it is not developed in the text sections below the lead. The same is true of the Krupny Plan and the kidnap threat.
  • Movie articles generally include a "Critical reception" section that tells us what reviewers thought of the movie. Information about box-office sales and video versions and sales might go here too.
  • The article could use the services of an experienced copyeditor. For example, the sentence "After a thorough medical examination, the doctor forbids her to sing for at least three months or else she would lose her voice completely" is awkward and includes a dangling modifier. A copyeditor might suggest something like this: "After giving Svobodina a thorough medical examination, the doctor forbids her to sing for at least three months lest she lose her voice completely." You might be able to find a copyeditor in the list at WP:PRV#General copyediting.
  • Generally a person's full name in a Wikipedia article is given on first use only; thereafter only the last name is used, not the first and not both first and last. In the Plot section, "Viktoria Svobodina" is correct on first use, but thereafter she should be referred to as Svobodina. Sofia Rotaru is correct on first use; thereafter she should be referred to as Rotaru. Mikhail Boyarsky is correct on first use; after that it's Boyarsky.
  • Instead of fancy quotes, Wikipedia guidelines suggest using blockquotes. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.
  • It's good to use bold letters sparingly. I'd suggest removing all the bolding from the "Cast" section. Bolding quickly loses its effect when overdone.
  • It's often helpful to look at featured articles with similar subject matters to see how other editors have solved problems. You can find a list of featured articles about movies at WP:FA#Media.
  • Common English words like "human" and "dignity" should not be wikilinked. Likewise, names like Sofia Rotaru should not be linked multiple times. Please see WP:OVERLINK for details.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Rumination syndrome[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently reached GA, and I hope to make it an FA and have it on the front page in hopes of making a few more people aware of the existence of this horrible condition. The main problem with the article is its adherence to the text of its citations (Which, though often similar, do not directly represent the citation in some places). This is a peer review to bring it up to FA quality.

Also, I am aware that it needs a classification section, and will do that (sometime...).

Thanks, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is interesting (though I am glad there are not any photos of people throwing up in it), but I think it still needs some work before FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • WP:LEAD says of the first sentence of the lead: The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1] To me, the first sentence is a bit too technical and involved. I had to click the link to see what postprandial meant. I would try to rewrite the lead so it is a little more of an overview for the non-specialist.
  • Since the lead is an overview, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the alternate name Merycism is only in the lead (and two ref titles) and is never explained (assume it is from someone's name)
  • Part of going to FAC is making sure beforehand that all the littlest details are taken care of. I note that it is postprandial in the lead sentence, but post-prandial in the infobox caption. Which is it? Pick one and be consistent (except for direct quotes).
  • Or is bulimia capitalized or not? How about diseases / disorders in general (should it be Pica or pica)?
  • I also note that at least some of the references do not include publisher (current refs 5 and 6 are published by the WHO, for example, but the refs do not say this). Please see WP:CITE
  • The hardest FAC criteria for most articles to meet is a near professional level of English. This needs a copyedit to polish the prose - two examples I noticed:
    • Hereditary here is not right - it is either "heredity" or perhaps "hereditary influence": There is little evidence concerning the impact of hereditary in rumination syndrome.[9]
    • What is "in-ordinary behavior"??? Such behavior, though termed rumination, is not related to human rumination syndrome, but is in-ordinary behavior nonetheless. I would rewrite this and say something like Rumination involving involuntary regurgitation, similar to what is seen in humans, has been described in gorillas and other primates. An unrelated process in ruminants (such as cows, goats and giraffes) is also known as rumination, but is just describing how they chew a cud and is considered normal behavior.
  • There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and a few quite short sections that break up the flow of the article - could these be either combined with others or perhaps exapnded?
  • Avoid words like currently or recently as they can become outdated quickly - see Recently, however, it has been diagnosed in increasing numbers of otherwise healthy adolescents and adults, though there is a lack of awareness of the condition by doctors, patients and the general public. COuld a year be added instead (since 1997 it has been diagnosed in increasing numbers) (guess on the year)
  • Make sure the use of italics follows WP:ITALIC

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


The Lion and Sun[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am prepare it as possible GA and FA articles. The article is comprehensive and covers all important aspects associated with the topic. The article is written based on scholarly sources and all information in the body of article are sourced. My first concern is grammatical mistakes in the article, since English is not my first language. I appreciate any comment on the article.

Thanks, WIMYV? (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article and while it is clear that a lot of work has gone into it, it needs more work to get to GA and especially FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • WP:LEAD says the lead should be 4 paragraphs at most - this currently has 6 paragraphs.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As an overview, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • There are many places where some context could be provided for the reader. For example the dates (years or even centuries) of many of the things referred to in the article are not widely known, so adding these would help the reader get a better understanding of the article.
  • Per WP:HEAD headers and subheaders should not repeat the article title or and subheaders should not repeat headers, so change "Zodiacal and Semitic origin" in the "Origin" section (perhaps use roots as is used later?)
  • Refs are in numerical order with no spaces between them, so fix things like The lion and sun symbol is based largely on astronomical and astrological configurations; the ancient zodiacal sign of the sun in the house of Leo,[2] [1] which itself is traced backed to Babylonian astrology and Near Eastern traditions.[2] [3]
  • The main reference used is another encyclopedia - this might not be the best source - see WP:RS
  • References need to be consistent - for example page is for one page, pages is used for multiple pages. See WP:CITE
  • Many of the images are so close to other similar images that they do not add much to the article - for example does the article really need two images with the caption "Flag of Iran (1886 AD)" or two of the Order of Aftab (2 years apart)? Or three images from the visit to France in 1715 (none of which clearly shows the symbol on my monitor)?
  • The article needs a serious copyedit - there are multiple typographical and spelling errors, and many places where the language is unclear or not syandard English ("motherhomeland" as one example).
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Awards.2C_decorations_and_vexillology that may be useful models.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


York Park[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article on a sports ground in Launceston, Tasmania. Close to FA standard and will be again be looking for FAC after review.

Thanks, Aaroncrick (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I've made a start, and am leaving some comments on the lead section. The rest will follow in a day or so, but these initial points can be addressed meantime.

  • Lead
    • Is "Launceston, Australia" the normal designation? I think the non-Australian world need to know that Launceston is in Tasmania.
    • Sentence needs reforming: "It has been known as Aurora Stadium under a six-year naming rights agreement with Aurora Energy since 2004." Suggest: "Under a six-year naming rights agreement with Aurora Energy, since 2004 it has been known as Aurora Stadium."
      • Tweaked to: "Holding 20,000 people—the most of any stadia in Tasmania—York Park has been known as Aurora Stadium under a six-year naming rights agreement with Aurora Energy signed in 2004."
    • "In the early years, it was exclusively used for North Launceston and state football games." Needs rewording for clarity; suggest: "In the early years the venue was used exclusively for Australian rules football, by the North Launceston club and for inter-state games."
    • The next sentence should begin "Other sports..." We know that Rules football was established there
    • The form "2–5 AFL" looks confusing. Low numbers need to be written out, thus "between two and five"
    • "from 2003 to 2006" should be "between 2003 and 2006"
    • "...under which four home and away season games and one National Australia Bank Cup pre-season match will be played at the venue each year." Played by what team or teams? How can a team play home and away games at the same ground?
      • Changed to "regular season". In other words non finals matches. Confusing for non AFL fans. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 03:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, here's the rest
  • History
    • "in "full [...] praise" is an awkward formation. Such an everyday phrase doesn't warrant a quotation; why not just say "full of praise"?
    • "At a council meeting in July 1901, Alderman Storrer..." etc. This alderman is not well known, so introduce him thus; "At a council meeting in July 1901 one member, Alderman Storrer,..." etc. Likewise, later, "although another member, Alderman Sadler,..." etc
    • There needs to be clarification about what is meant by "football" in this section. For example, you mention the start of the 1923 football season - is this Rules, soccer or what? What code does the NTFA represent?
    • Can you give an approximate present-day value, in Australian dollars, of the £20 prize?
    • There seems to be information missing between paragraphs two and three. Having been told that there was a competition, we should be told who won it. There is also information missing about how much the facility cost, and who supplied the finance.
    • Clarify that the opening on 1 January 1921 was before the facility had been completed. Had any of it been built at that time?
    • Who was John Orchard? Needs some description
    • "The Launceston Football Club won six consecutive premierships in the 1930s before World War II intervened. Matches were canceled in 1941, not to resume until the 1945 season, which began with two minutes of silence in memory of the 12 NTFA footballers who lost their lives during the war." How relevant is this information to this particular article, which is about a sports ground, not a sports team?
    • Time jump from 1945 to 1960. Did nothing of relevance occur during that period?
      • Nothing I can source
    • You need to clarify that the $6.4 million, and other dollar values in the section, are Australian dollars.
      • Previously removed as a previous figure in the article mentioned it was in Australian Dollars. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "...$2 million to erect a roof above 6,000 seats" - which 6,000 seats?
    • Say what Jim Bacon was premier of, don't require your readers to use the link.
    • "The insurance payout from the fire will determine whether the venue is expanded." A very curious sentence. Insurance payouts normally cover the cost of restoration; they don't finance expansion. Any explanation?
  • Australian football
    • "the North Launceston"? Should this be "the North Launceston club"?
    • "The stadium's sirens have since been replaced, and the ones will be put on display..." Amplify "the ones"
    • "began to make"? Surely you mean "made"?
  • Other uses: no comments
  • Structure and facilities
    • "several different stands" - why not give the number? From the diagram the number appears to be two (which is not several), unless the terraces count as stands.
      • Depends what you consider stands. The terraces basically are. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Next to Aurora Function Centre is the heritage listed Northern Stand, which connects the Northern, Southern and Eastern Terraces." The diagram shows the Northern Stand unconnected to any of the Terraces. It is separated from the Northern Terrace by a "Corporate Courtyard", and is nowhere near the other Terraces.
    • Second paragraph: You need to clarify that the information in this paragraph relates specifically to the ground's use for Rules football. I am not sure that all of this information is relevant to the "structure and facilities" aspects of the article.
  • References
    • Note says: "References using The Examiner may require registration for access." "Registration" should be "subscription", since you have to pay to register.
      • Done
    • Examiner references 56 and 57 are formatted differently from the others (no link to the archive).

I hope these comments are helpful. I am not watching my peer reviews at the moment, so if you have any queries or wish to comment on any aspect of the review, please contact me via my talkpage. Best of luck, Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


2010 World Monuments Watch List of Most Endangered Sites[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to publicise the release of the 2010 World Monuments Watch List of Most Endangered Sites and more importantly the plight of the great historic buildings and sites on the list.

Thanks, Bizegar (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This list looks to be in a fairly early stage of development. Here are some suggestions for moving it forward:-

  • Note C says that the information in the "Period" column is taken from the online Watch List site. I can't find this information - can you tell me where it is?
  • What was the basis for choosing the buildings which are illustrated on the right of the table, out of a list of 90+ items?
  • The information in the extensive captions needs to be cited to sources
  • The captions are in fact way too long; WP:Captions suggests that three lines should normally be the maximum length of a picture caption. It may, however, be possible to incorporate some of this information into the article.
  • The online Watch List site, as your main source, should be listed under References, with publisher and access date information
  • Refs 1 and 2 appear to be identical sources
  • The text before the list would be better as a single expanded lead rather than as three very short sections.

That's about all I have. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Gungnyeo[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article mostly based on Korean sources is relatively comprehensive but I am wondering whether English readers easily could understand it. I also want the article up to GA level. Thanks. Caspian blue 22:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is fascinating, generally well-written, stable, neutral, and nicely illustrated. However, the lead and the reference section need work, and it would be good to look for more reliable secondary sources. I also have a few suggestions about prose and style.

Heads and subheads

  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the important words in the title in the heads and subheads. It also advises against using "the" as the first word of a head or subhead. I'd suggest "Types" rather than "The types of gungnyeo" and "Roles", "Rank" and either "Number" or something like "Prevalence". I'd also recommend shortening "In the narrow meaning" and "In the broad meaning" to "Narrow meaning" and "Broad meaning".

Lead

  • The lead should be a concise stand-alone summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and to include nothing important in the lead only.
  • "Gungnyeo includes sanggung (palace matron) and nain (assistant court ladies), both of which held a rank as an officer." - Should this be "palace matrons" (plural) and "officers" (plural) to match the plural of "ladies" for consistency? If yes, then delete "an" also.

Establishment

  • "Although the first record of gungnyeo appears in Goryeosa, a compilation on the history of Goryeo, a provision was first made... " - It might be helpful here to insert the date range for the Goryeo.

Election and education

  • "the method of appointing gungnyeo and their social status differed from time to time" - "Appointed" doesn't seem to be the right word for "social status". Suggestion: "the method of appointing gungnyeo and assigning their social status differed from time to time".
  • "However, if circumstances allowed, people around the king wanted to pick gungnyeo from commoners' children, using a custom of early marriage in households that had a daughter over ten years old." - It's not clear from this what the connection was between marriage and picking gungnyeo. Whose marriage? Did the courtiers want to marry 10-year-olds to make servants out of them? Did the parents of lower-class girls want them to become gungnyeo for financial reasons?
  • "As a result, since King Gyeongjong's reign, daughters from the lower class were prohibited to be appointed as gungnyeo." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "As a result, after King Gyeongjong's reign, daughters from the lower class were prohibited from being appointed as gungnyeo."
  • "some female slaves of each government office were chosen to become gungnyeo since the reign of King Yeongjo" - "after" rather than "since"
  • The first two paragraphs of this section include many interesting specific claims that are not sourced even though they are not common knowledge. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph and to source any statistics or unusual claims as well.

In the broad meaning

  • "They were generally related to the concubine's family, and their salary was paid from the concubine's living expenses." - Since you use the singular "housemaid" in the sentence before this one, should this sentence say, "She was generally related to the concubine's family, and her salary was paid from the concubine's living expenses"?
  • "The system lasted until the end of the dynasty and the number of uinyeo was about eighty during King Gojong's reign. The uinyeo system disappeared when western doctors entered the court." - It might be helpful to give dates here.

Gungnyeo's roles

  • The refs should be inserted after the punctuation, not before. I fixed a few of these as I went along, but I see more in this section.

The number of gungnyeo

  • "Each of these residences would have twenty to twenty seven jimil nain and the other places would have fifteen to twenty." - For consistency, I'd recommend changing all of the numbers in this sentence to digits. In most cases, one to nine are written as words and the bigger numbers as digits. In a sentence with both big and little numbers, you have to choose either all digits or all words.
  • "During King Seongjong's reign (1469-1494)" - Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens, thus: "1469–1494".

Lifetime employment and payment

  • "Service was assumed to be on a day-shift basis." - It's not clear what this means. Does this mean they had duties only during the day? How free were they in their off-duty hours?

References

  • Many of the references are incomplete. For references to Internet sources, it's good to include the author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date if all of these can be found. The access date is the last date you viewed the page that the url links to.
  • Insofar as possible, it's best not to rely on tertiary sources such as encyclopedias. If you can find reliable secondary sources for any of the claims sourced to encyclopedias, that would be good. These sources might include newspaper and magazine articles or books. WP:RS has details. Please see WP:CITE for general instructions.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for the reviewing and commenting about the article. I will try to fix the said problems. --Caspian blue 04:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Kenhardt, Northern Cape[edit]

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

Thanks, LouriePieterse 08:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting start, but this needs a lot of work, so here are some suggestions for improvement. This is so short that there is not a lot to say about it.

  • Current lead is two sentences and should be expanded. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - see WP:LEAD
  • The lead image strikes me as odd - it is of a farm, but I do not recognize anything that looks like cultivated crops or even animals grazing. Is it more like a ranch?
  • Article needs more references, for example neither the Geography nor the Activities sections have any refs now. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure that the refs that are used meet WP:RS - refs 2 and 3 do not look especially reliable.
  • The language needs to be much more encyclopedic - do not use "you" in things like If you travel south from Kenhardt towards Brandvlei, you will pass through a huge landscape of nothingness for the next 200 km and more.
  • Much of the article reads like an advertisemnent and needs to be written in a more neutral style
  • Units need to be given in both metric and English - the {{convert}} template is very useful here.
  • Much information seems to be missing - what is the approximate population? What was the history besides 1868 and 1909?
  • There are many city articles that are FA that would be good models to follow for ideas and examples to follow

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


Ritual Fire Dance (de Falla)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could be rated as a C or B class article and would like others' opinions on whether it is.

Thanks, Pianoplonkers (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


I've reviewed the article, and made the following changes:

  • Slightly improved image captions per WP:CAP
  • Restructured sentences in the "Role in Ballet" section, and added a couple (lame-ish) wikilinks
  • Reordered "Recordings" table in chronological order

The following issues still concern me:

  1. I don't think that references should be appended to section headings. Instead, try putting it after the table, or at the end of the paragraph that draws from that reference.
  2. The entire section on "Structure" seems...odd. If someone wants to know how the piano arrangement is structured, wouldn't they just look at the score? If the section is to be kept, at least try to avoid the "this, and then that, then that, and then this..." redundancy in sentences. Spice it up a little; make it more than a bland, sequential regurgitation of fact.
  3. Citations should use the {{citeweb}} template or something similar. Include more than just hyperlinks.
  4. The article has two tables, but very little prose. Is there anything else to be discussed on the topic? How did it become popular? What cultural significance/impact does it have?

What rating the article deserves, I don't rightly know. I think it is probably a little below the C threshold, but I leave it to those who are more familiar with the fine arts to decide that. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


Angela Lansbury[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this actress is admired and well-known in the theatre community. Many accounts have been written about her career and life that can be accessed for information and used in this article. Furthermore, upon steady improvement, it can serve as an exemplar whose approach may be emulated in articles in the same or a similar category.

Thanks, —Major Seventh (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Dana boomer

Overall, this article looks well written. The largest problem (at least for moving the article to a GA or a FA review) is the lack of references. Here are my comments:

  • The lead could stand to be expanded to three longer paragraphs. It should be a summary of the article, without including new information.
  • There are a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs, especially in the Personal life section.
  • As I stated earlier, the major problem with this article is the lack of in-line references. For example, the sentence "It became one of the longest-running detective drama series in television history and made her one of the highest paid actresses in the world." (in the Film and television section, picked at random from the article) is just one sentence that needs a citation, for the "longest-running" part and the "highest paid" part. There are many other sections and paragraphs in the article that are partially or completely unsourced.
  • It might be worth considering to transfer the Work and Awards and nominations sections into separate sub-articles, and instead having short prose summaries of her most important work and most important awards. This isn't a major concern, but as I said, something worth considering.
  • Web references should include the title, publisher and an access date at the very least.
  • Ref #1 (Discover Tower Hamlets...) is a dead link.
  • What makes Playbill.com a reliable reference?
  • Ref #6 (Interview with Angela Lansbury...) dead links.
  • I see you have one biography about Lansbury listed in the References section, although it is not used in any in-line references. However, I don't see any other works that are specifically on Lansbury, such as:
  • What about a mention of Lansbury's book? There may be others:

I hope these comments help. I know the above seems like a pretty serious list, but overall the article is really nice. I'll be watchlisting this page, so if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me here. My talk page is also always open. Dana boomer (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Wildhartlivie

I actually don't think the body of work tables need to be spun off, however they do need to be reworked to incorporate roles and the awards listed below them. I am quite willing to work on that to meet the recommended table styles per WP:ACTOR and will do that. I also removed the "See also" section because they were both very general links that are not relevant to the life and career of Lansbury (category 1925 births and List of British actresses). I also added the "Template group" box to collapse the awards navigation boxes at the bottom of the page.

  • The lead needs to be expanded to adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD.
  • The references need to use a consistent style - either
  • There are two disambiguation pages that are linked in the article that need to lead to a definitive article ([1]).
  • All of the images should be free-use only and all need to have alt text added.
  • All of the images should have {{personality rights}} templates added to the commons image page.
  • I think besides the inline citations mentioned by Dana boomer, the article could use a good copy edit. I note one sentence paragraphs (one that encompasses 3 lines of type) and a number of run-on sentences.
  • I believe that the incorporation of some critical reviews for her work would enhance the career section.
  • The biography should be listed in a "Further reading" section rather than in references unless it is used.

Please let me know if you need any other help on this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


Evangelis Zappas[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review, perhaps it can be further improved to GA status. Any input would be appreciated! Regards.Alexikoua (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I had hoped that this review might be short and simple, but that's not the case. The article needs a lot of work. I have only been through the first half, and there are multiple issues, as listed. I have done some copyediting going through, and corrected some of the more obvious prose errors and typos.

  • Lead: first paragraph
    • Do any of the multiple sources give Zappas's actual birth and death dates, as distinct from years? It is normal in biogs to include these, especially if the subject is "internationally known".
      • Zappas' exact death date added. Birth date was impossible to find.
    • On this very point, on what are you basing the statement that he is, or was, internationally known? Personally I'd never heard of him (not that that's decisive), and others I consulted confused him with the musicians Vangelis and/or Frank Zappa. So perhaps a softer "He is recognised today..." would be more discreet.
      •  Done
    • The remainder of this sentence is very clumsily worded, apart from the brackets and misused hyphens, and it gives the misleading impression that the Zappas Olympics are still a going concern. The sentence needs rephrasing, to something like: "He is recognised today as the founder of the so-called Zappas Olympics, a Panhellenic version of the Games which ran between (year) and (year), preceding the later international Olympic Games."
      •  Done
  • Lead: second paragraph: A bit short; the lead is supposed to summarise all the content of the main article. Also, whereas you make a point of saying in the first paragraph that the games he founded were Panhellenic, you now say: "In 1859 he sponsored the first Olympic Games since ancient times and the first modern international Olympic Games" which sounds quite different.
They were not Panhellenic since participants attended from the Ottoman Empire and from Crete and neither the Ottoman Empire or Crete were part of Hellas. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Early years
    • Does it really require five citations to support the information on his place of birth and its being under Ottoman rule?
      • 5 reduced to 2.
    • Clumsy phrasing: "...left his village at the age of 13, due to his enrolment as a mercenary in the Ottoman army of Ali Pasha, the local ruler of Tepelena and then Ioannina." "Due to his enrolment as..." should be "and enrolled as...". Also, I'd end the sentence after "Ali Pasha" – the rest of the information is irrelevant for this article
      •  Done. Replaced it with "Ali Pasha, the local ruler."
    • He became "a member", not "member", and wars "break out", not "break up".
    • Neutral tone must be maintained, so best not use descriptions like "distinguished". Call him the "revolutionary leader".
    • "military personalities" is not a good description. "Military commanders"?
    • It's not sufficient to say he fought in "several battles". Mention at least a couple by name.
    • What are you trying to convey by using the adverb "characteristically"? It reads very non-neutrally – keep your personal feelings out of the article. I suggest you drop this sentence.
      •  Done
    • "It is said..." By whom? This wording implies a rumour. Surely the number of times Zappas was wounded is a matter of factual record than rumour?
      •  Done (claimed by himself according to latter coresponse).
  • Career in Wallachia
    • Parentheses in the first sentence are unnecessary
      •  Done
    • The term "practical doctor" doesn't exist in idiomatic English. As you have linked this to "Physician" I assume you mean a medical practitioner. If so, how on earth did Zappas – who had no schooling, became a soldier at 13 and was heavily involved in his country's fight for independence until he was 30 – qualify as a doctor? It doesn't look feasible. I suggest you check back with your sources to see exactly what they say.
      • Term "practical doctor" replaced with that of folk healer, I believe this the correct term in english. Actually he didn't had an academic background. Historically, in Greece, suppose in other Balkan countries too, practicing medicine without the appropriate academic background was something usual in rural areas during the 19th century.
    • "possessing vast amounts of land..." Again, "possessing" is not idiomatic in this context. You might say "owning". But "vast amounts" is far too vague, without some indication of the actual size of his land holdings.
      • I've changed the part about 'vast amount of land' to: "made a fortune in real estate and farming, owning and renting farmlands and wheat mills in Romania.". Also added an estimation on his fortune in the section's end.
    • Last sentence: probably only the first part of the sentence is relevant - it could end after "East Europe" (which should be written as "Eastern Europe".
      •  Done
  • Image: Zappas mansion.JPG: This image appears to be in copyright. You will need to add a fair use rationale to the image page, explaining why this image is essential to furthering the reader's understanding of this article. I don't think any convincing rationale could be made, and it might be better to withdraw the image.
    • Image removed.

I will complete the review when you have responded to these points. Please contact my talkpage, as I won't be watching this page. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article suffered recently from a minor edit war in the Olympic revival section and things were a bit tough to settle down. Hope the corrections I made, improved the quality of the article's first half enough.Alexikoua (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A few comments on the remainder:-

  • Revival
    • "Meanwhile, sporadic references to the revival of the ancient Olympic Games were made by various personalities of that era,..." Suggest delete "meanwhile" and reword: "The idea of reviving the ancient Olympic Games had been raised form time to time during the early and mid 19th century,..."
    • "Moreover" is unnecessary. And what is a "romantic lecture"?
    • "For months there was no official answer from the Greek side." What is meant by "the Greek side"? Wasn't eveyone involved in these discussions (Zappas, Rangavis, Greek politicians, the King) Greek?
    • Second paragraph: "On November 15, 1859 the first modern revival of the athletic Olympic Games took place in Athens. This first Olympic Games was held in a city square in central Athens" Reword to "On November 15, 1859, the first modern Olymic revival of the athletic Olympic Games took place, in a city square in central Athens."
    • Suggest the last paragraph is amplified, to clarify that Zappas funded the rebuilding of the stadium which was used for his Games onlyafter his death.
  • Legacy
    • "The time Zappas died..." Ungrammatical. Presumably "After Zappas's death..."
    • Phrases such as "wholly due to the incompetence of the Greek government" are not admissable in a neutral encyclopedic article. This sentence is out of chronological order anyway. Suggest you delete it.
    • You should not refer to "the second Olympiad" and "the 1870 Olympic Games" without specifying that you are referring to Zappas's games.

I'm sorry, I simply don't have any more time to spend on this review. A quick glance through the rest of the article shows that much of the prose remains tangled, and will require the services of a good copyeditor to sort it out. A couple of other points: first, online sources need to be properly formatted, with (minimally) title, publisher, and access date. Secondly, questions may be asked about the reliability of sources such as this - who is the site's publisher, and why should they be taken as a reliable authority? Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Future of the Earth[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article covers the expected future history of the Earth from a purely scientific perspective, while disregarding the potential effects of technological developments or random disasters. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know if there is anything that needs improvement, or if it is missing any topics.

Thank you, RJH (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments : This is fascinating, well-written, stable, and neutral. Very nice job overall. The illustrations are helpful, and the article might benefit from two or three more. (Maybe extroversion vs. introversion? Hydrogen fusion? Or perhaps Image:Venuspioneeruv.jpg to illustrate a supergreenhouse effect?) I have just a few other suggestions. These are the comments of a general reader rather than a scientist.

Article name

  • Would it make sense and be slightly more concise to say "History of Earth" and to replace "the Earth" with "Earth" throughout? No one would write "History of the Mars"; should Earth be treated differently?
    • Comment: But this is not an article about the history of the Earth, which would include the last 4.6 billion years. This article is only about the future of Earth. --Leptictidium (mt) 21:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Quite right. Every editor needs an editor. I should have said "Future of Earth". Finetooth (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Astronomy articles have normally been using "the Earth" rather than "Earth" to avoid the ambiguity. :-) —RJH (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
"Earth's future" might be even better. Just a suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the current name was intended to be in line with History of the Earth. Shrug.—RJH (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

  • I'd suggest adding an image to the upper right-hand corner of the article. Doing this is optional, but I think it looks better and draws the reader in. See Solar System or Earth, for example.
    • Unfortunately I haven't found a striking and suitably licensed image for that purpose.—RJH (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Glaciation

  • "glaciation occurs because of astronomical factors in combination with climate feedback mechanisms and plate tectonics" - Wikilink plate tectonics on first use?
  • "For example, the eccentricity changes over time cycles of about 100,000 and 400,000 years, with values ranging from less than 0.01 up to 0.05." - Would it be helpful to explain what those values refer to? That is, 0.01 of what? How is eccentricity calculated?
  • "However, a global warming period of finite duration will only impact the glaciation cycle for about 5,000 years." - Is that true for all degrees of global warming no matter how large? What is the meaning of "finite duration"? Can you be more specific?

Obliquity

  • Would it be helpful to explain obliquity or to link to axial tilt early in this subsection?
  • "This stability is achieved because the Moon increased... " - "increases" rather than "increased"?
  • "The rotational offset of the tidal bulge exerts a net torque on the Moon... " - Wikilink torque in the caption?

Climate impact

  • "As the global temperature of the Earth increases, it will increase the rate of weathering of silicate minerals. This in turn will decrease the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In another 100 million years, the concentration of CO2 will fall below the critical threshold needed to sustain C3 photosynthesis." - Would it be helpful here to mention a starting point for the timeline? Does "another 100 million years" mean 100 million years from now?
  • "the global surface temperature reaches 320 K... " - Wikilink K? Also render in °C and °F for readers who might not be familiar with K?

General

  • The images lack alt text, which describes the content of images and charts to readers who can't see them. They are not the same as captions. WP:ALT has details about how to write alt text and where to put it, and you can see current examples of alt text in articles at WP:FAC.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've implemented a number of your suggestions and will try to address the remainder.—RJH (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Khaldoon Al Mubarak[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I created this article back in September 2008 during the Manchester City takeover. I thought it was pretty good then, after a tidy up this week I am looking for comments to help me get this to GA. Thanks in advance for your comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments
  1. Per WP:LEAD, lede should summarize entire article.
  2. Early life is wholly unsourced.
  3. Early life should be expanded.
  4. Career sect could use some paragraph breaks.

Cirt (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have hopefully addressed these points where I can, however the early life is particularly difficult. There is no reliable information on parents, very early career, or him at university (in fact I haven't even found unreliable information about these things). And as you can see there isn't even a confirmed birth date. In fact in unreliable sources I have seen ages that contradict each other. With that in mind do you have any other suggestions of what I could do? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure, perhaps you could leave notices at talk pages of relevant WikiProjects to get more input. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Texas Oil Boom[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have completed a complete draft and would like advice on how to move this to GA/FA.

Thanks, Mcorazao (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Brief review by Charles Edward A nice article, but still needing some work. However, it is certainly of B quality, and I would recommend you change the project rating. Here are some items I see that could use improvement:

  • MOS issues
    • Your lead has five paragraphs, but should have a max of four. Check out WP:LEAD for more information. I would recommend moving the last sentence paragraph, and making it instead a hat-note and linking it to the correct article. See WP:HAT for instructions.
    • There are a number of short choppy paragraphs in the article. I recommend merging these with other paragraphs. See WP:Paragraph.
    • The reference section should follow the notes section.
    • Your reference and note section each contains multiple books. I would recommend removing all full book titles from the notes section and placing them in the reference section and then making footnotes with the author, year, and page. This will make the notes look less cluttered.
    • References # 2 and 58 do not have access dates, author, or publisher. I recommend using a "cite web" template, but you can add the information without it.
  • Prose
    • The article is fairly well wrote, and with just a little work the prose would be good enough for GA. It is still quite a bit shy of FA though.
    • Try tightening things up a bit, for example: "The era can actually be thought of as two separate boom periods, the one launched by the Lucas strike at Spindletop at the turn of the century, and the one launched by the Joiner strike in East Texas at the outset of the Great Depression." would be more concise as "The era contained two separate periods: the boom began by the Lucas strike at Spindletop in 1901, and the second period began by the Joiner strike in East Texas in 1930."
    • I find copy editing to be the most arduous and difficult task in writing an article. Getting a second set of eyes to proof read it before starting a GA of FA review can be invaluable. For some pointers read Wikipedia:How to copy-edit
    • There are alot of weasel words, and weasel like statements in the article. Words like "Perhaps", "Considered", and "Indeed" should almost always be removed and replaced. If you use words like Perhaps or Considered, you need to say "Consider by XYZ to be thus and thus" or "XYZ said it is perhaps the..." Words like that indicate an opinion is being given, and require the source of the opinion to be given. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words for more examples and solutions.
  • Images
    • All of your images are on the right. WP:Image recommends staggering them left to right, and any image where the subject faces right should be placed on the left.
    • File:Giant Poster.gif is copyrighted has not fair use rational (I don't think there is one) and should be removed from the article.
    • File:Gulf logo.svg, same as previous, no fair use rational and should be removed.
    • File:Abraham Gesner Photo.gif has no source, and is therefore not verifiable. Should be removed unless a source can be located
    • File:Lucas gusher.jpg, the source of this image is to vague. It needs to list a publication, website, etc. Something that verifiable shows it was published prior to 1923.
  • Referencing
    • There are significant referencing problems throughout the article, and in my opinion that will be your chief problem in getting through either an FA or GA review in its present state. As a rule of thumb, each new fact, statistic, and paragraph should end with a citation. See WP:Citation Here are some places I feel should have one, but don't:
    • "There is no widely agreed upon end date for the boom. For many small towns which became boomtowns during the 1920s as demand for oil soared, their often extreme dependence on a relatively limited petroleum reservoir caused their local economies to collapse in the late 1920s and early 1930s as production in their fields peaked and the onset of the Great Depression slackened demand. In the major refining and financing centers such as Beaumont, Houston, and Dallas, though the Depression hurt them their booms continued to varying degrees through the end of World War II. As the war ended, demand for gasoline and other petroleum derivates slowed nationwide and the more matured refining centers no longer saw the extreme growth patterns of earlier times."
    • "In 1900, the Great Hurricane struck Galveston destroying much of the city and killing thousands."
    • "The future growth of the oil industry in southeast Texas would largely bypass Galveston altogether as the city struggled to rebuild."
    • "Population in 1900, as today, was predominantly concentrated in the eastern half of the state, with major shipping points at the Galveston Bay and in Dallas-Fort Worth. With the notable exception of El Paso, West Texas and the Panhandle were sparsely populated making the eastern portion of the state more practical initially for the exploitation of natural resources."
    • "The success of the Corsicana field and increasing demand for oil worldwide led to increased exploration around the state."
    • "The new well produced approximately 100,000 barrels of oil per day, an unheard of production level at the time."
    • "Investment in Texas oil speculation in 1901 reached approximately $235 million US (roughly $6 billion in 2008 dollars). Interest in Pennsylvania and other areas of the country for oil production soon paled compared with Texas."
    • "Initially oil production was divided among many small producers."
    • "This allowed less populated West Texas and the Panhandle to again be explored more fully."
    • " His company, which was later absorbed by Magnolia Petroleum Company and then acquired by Standard Oil of New York, built the first modern refinery west of the Mississippi River."
    • "During the 1930s, a Dallas company known as the Great American Finance System, struggling through the Depression, began to finance drilling operations in the state using oil reserves as collateral. Dallas came to establish itself as a financing center for the oil industry. The Great American Finance System eventually reorganized itself as the Great American Oil Company of Texas, which became an oil producer in its own right (and was much later purchased by Phillips Petroleum)."
    • "Growing cities required many new homes and buildings benefiting the construction industry."
    • "The state's commercial centers grew tremendously as well during this period. Houston grew by 555% to 292,352. Dallas grew by 511% to 260,475.[citation needed] Fort Worth grew by 504% to 163,447. El Paso grew by 578% to 102,421. By contrast, New York City grew by 101% and even Detroit, the booming "motor city," only grew by 485%."
    • "Between 1910 and 1930 the percentage of urban dwellers (those living in towns of greater than 2500 people) increased by 32%, resulting in 41% of Texans living in urban areas in 1930."
    • "Wealthy Texans established elite suburbs such as River Oaks, which became a model for community planning in the U.S. Oil-related growth led to the establishment of numerous new institutions such as the University of Houston, the Museum of Fine Arts, Hermann Park and the Houston Zoo, and the Houston Symphony Orchestra."
    • There are quite a few other similar examples in the rest of the article.
  • Content
    • The environment section should be expanded significantly. I would recommend highlighting a couple of specific instances of trouble, and also put in some information regarding what specific steps were taken by the state or localities to protect resources or regulate the oil wells. Indiana Gas Boom might be of interest to you, which occurred in the decade before the Texas boom.
    • Is there a rough estimate of how many billions of barrels of oil were pumped in total from the fields?
    • What means of delivery was used to get the oil to market? Pipelines, trucks, ships?
    • Any idea how many people were employed by the oil industry in this period?
    • Did any workers unions problems or strikes arise during this period, especially during the depression, as was common elsewhere in the nation?
    • Is there any hard numbers on just how much tax revenue the oil taxes provided?
    • The biggest thing I see missing is there is no "Decline" section. Eventually the wells dried up, what happened then? About when did they dry up? Was it all at once or gradual? Was there economic fallout because of it, or had the economy diversified?
    • I notice there are no external links. Are there no websites with useful information on this topic?

Overall I think the article is of B quality right now. A fair amount of work, primarily on referencing, and taking care of the minor issues I've mentioned will bring it to GA quality. FA quality will require significant expansion still to cover more subtopics, and a significant amount of copy editting, on top of the referencing required to get it to GA.

I hope this review is helpful to you! The article is already an interesting one, with lots of good content and has obviously taken considerable research. Good job so far, and good luck in the future. Keep up the good work! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


The Political Cesspool[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, while it has already made Good Article status, I eventually plan to nominated it for Featured Article status and I would like to know if there is anything I can, or should, do to improve the page before I nominate it as a FAC.

Thanks, Stonemason89 (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I see that it is intended to bring this to FAC. If it is to succeed there, a lot of preparatory work will have to take place. In particular:-

  • Lead: this will need to be rewritten and extended so that it becomes a summary of the whole article, rather than the present brief introduction to the topic. The lead material should not be too detailed; the precise comings and goings of various co-hosts and other personnel can be left for later.
  • Foundation and History: at present this section reads rather disjointedly. Information about Edwards's pilot's licence is irrelevant, but some important details are missing. Information is needed about the date of the show's first broadcast, about initial audience ratings and public reaction. Why did they change stations in March 2005? What effect did this have on ratings? Did Edwards have any background in broadcasting - what did he do before assisting Buchanan in 2000? Come to that, what sorts of backgrounds did the other hosts have? All of this is highly relevant information which needs to be researched and included.
  • Guests: This section should appear later in the article, when we have learned more about the nature of the show. As to the section, a bullet-pointed list of over 50 names is inappropriate; summarise in text the general characteristics of the show's guests. The stories you tell of various guests' appearances are quite interesting, and should be kept.
  • Statement of principles: The section should not begin with "It..." - rather, begin "The Political Cesspool describes..." It would be worth using the preamble to the list of principles, as contained in your source, to present a more detailed description of the show's philosophy. Use quotation marks to indicate that the nine listed points taken verbatim from the show's Statement of Principles as shown on its website.
  • Views on race: This section is presented almost entirely in random anecdotal form. The style is journalistic rather than encyclopedic. The subsection on Stormfront is included with no description of what Stormfront is. It is also worth noting that, although race ideology is clearly a paramount concern of this show, its "principles" list other characteristic extreme-right issues (anti-gay, isolationist, etc). There is no reference in the article to how this broader agenda has been promoted by the show.
  • Activism: again, just a couple of anecdotes. The second seems to involve Edwards personally, rather than the Cesspool show. Is there a history of political activism promoted by the show, or was the Memphis incident a one-off?
  • Awards: these are not "awards" in the sense of carrying any general recognition of merit. This information may be included somewhere in the article, but it is not worth a separate section in the article.
  • References: all citations should include name of publisher; hardly any do at the moment.

My advice is that you do the necessary work as indicated above, then bring the article back here for a further review before nominating for FA. I'll be happy to look again then. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Stonemason89 (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kiyo Takamine and Zatch Bell[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve the article so it may reach B class and hopefully, if possible, Good Article.

Thanks, DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The article has two major cleanup banners, at least one of which has been in place since July. Peer review rules state that articles must be free of such banners before being presented for review. Can you briefly say what efforts have been made to deal with the issues raised by these banners, and also whether you have discussed these questions with the editors who posted the banners? Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I put them there myself. Since people say my grammar is bad, I was searching for where my mistakes are, but they sound normal to me. The expand one, I placed it there since I feel the reception should be longer but am unable to find anymore information on reception. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 18:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Peer review closed. Since there seems to be a huge back log, I figured it shouldn't waste other user's time with this article. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have not read this manga, though it sounds interesting. Here are some suggestions for improvement of the article.

  • Per WP:LEAD: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1] I think the current first sentence of the article is a bit too complex, could the original names go later in the lead, for example?
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As a summary, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but several of the sections seems under represented in the lead.
  • There are several places where the article needs to provide more context to the reader - for example in the Creation and conception section, could the years be given? See WP:PCR too
  • Another place where the article needs to provide more context is in some basic background on the story and characters - for example it is never clearly explained what a Mamado is (the lead says "lit. demon"). I think a lot of this is more writing from an in-universe perspective, when the article should b e written from a neutral out of universe perspective. See WP:IN-U
  • File:Kiyo Takamine Answer Talker.png has a good fair use rationale, but both File:Gashbell3.jpg and File:GashKiyomaro.jpg need a better one
  • An awful lot of the references cited seem to be primary (directly from the manga itself). While this is sometimes OK, the article could be improved if more sources from reliable third-party sources could be found and used.
  • I understand from reading this that Zatch is a magical creature and that Kiyo is somehow needed to allow Zatch to do his magic (book keeper), but exactly how this works is not clear to me.
  • Agree this could use a copyedit - sometimes it helps to not look at something for a few days, print it out and read it out loud slowly.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Jabba the Hutt is an FA on a character and may be a useful model article here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Commercial Revolution[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on this page off and on for a year or more, and would like some input from other editors on ways to improve, either in content or resources. Also would like some other contributions from people besides myself.

Thanks, Hires an editor (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Review (Mcorazao)[edit]

Interesting article with some good content. Some specific feedback:

Things I'd recommend changing

  • General
  • Scoping - The term "commercial revolution" is used in different ways by different sources. For example, some other period definitions:
This article either needs to cover all of these periods or else needs to be more clear about how it is using the term in contrast to these other uses (and in some fashion justify why it is appropriate to limit the article's coverage in this way).
  • Mistakes on the references:
  • One inline citation mentions author "Fisk" but there is no Fisk in the references.
  • Some of the citations don't use the "cite" templates (e.g. The Columbia Encyclopedia reference). It is preferable to always use these for consistency.
  • Some self-published sites and lower-quality references used:
  • The organization and flow is a little unclear. The article suddenly starts talking about what motivated the voyages of discovery without giving an idea of how the voyages relate to the topic (i.e. what does that specifically have to do with causing or being part of the Revolution?). Similarly the "Rise of the Money Economy" and other sections just launch into their discussions without any up front clarification of what this has to do with the topic. Granted if you are well versed in the topic it might be obvious how these tie in to the overall topic but you should assume the reader is pretty clueless and make sure as you start discussion of each facet it is clear what that has to do with the overall topic.
  • In general the major sections feel a little like independent articles. Mind you, making each section stand somewhat on its own is good. But, for example, having a sub-section of "Important people" in "Voyages of Discovery" seems a tad odd (as opposed to having an "Important people" section for the whole article at the end).
  • Some inline citations are fairly inspecific (e.g. the citation on the Turks cutting off overland routes to the East specifies Chapter 1 of "New York: the World's Capital City, Its Development and Contributions to Progress" rather than a page range). In general you want to zero editors in on specific text you are citing (sometimes it is even worth adding a quote in the reference so the editors).
  • Some of the references are incomplete as far as GA/FA criteria. Things like city of publication (the location field) and ISBN should be there for books. Even for web citations, the author, publisher, and date of publication should be specified if the info is available.
  • Intro
  • The intro could do with a bit of rework to explain in some fashion how the commercial revolution represented a change from the past. In other words, it is unclear what the revolution was. The intro simply talks about some general trends without really clarifying the fundamental breakthrough that caused historians to label it a revolution.
  • Origins of the term & Timeframe
  • These sections are really short. I would either add more to them or try to combine them in some fashion (or merge them into other sections.
  • "... with one source saying the beginning ..." - Rather an odd statement. If you are going to mention a particular source you should mention who that is. And you should only mention that one source if they could be considered notable for whatever reason. In this context that qualification seems to me unnecessary.
  • Rise of the Money Economy
  • "In the middle of the 13th century Venetian bankers began ..." - These two sentences are a direct quote from the source. Though they are in quotation marks the source is not mentioned (the ref citation is not enough). The source needs to be explicitly specified and the quote needs to be explicitly described as a quote.
  • Law
  • This section is very sparse and includes only some very specific facts. Either this should be expanded to be more complete or it should be removed (I think the former is the right thing).
  • Effects
  • This section focuses a lot on the indirect and incidental effects of the revolution (e.g. I don't think anyone would argue that a change to a commercial economy is an inherent cause of continental depopulation). I would say that the section should focus up front on the direct effects and de-emphasize the indirect effects.

Things to think about (other editors may disagree)

  • NPOV concern: This article is really talking about the Western European commercial revolution. Most of these basic concepts that launched in Europe during the Renaissance were not new and in fact had been explored by the Romans, the "Byzantines", the Muslim Caliphates, and others. In some sense the West was catching up after the Dark Ages. It is true that as the revolution developed in Europe they extended a lot of concepts beyond what had existed in other places. But still the fact that Europe did not invent the concepts should be in some fashion explained and, if the article is going to limit itself to the West, that should be stated up front.
  • In reading the article one thing that strikes me is that I feel a little confused as to whether I am reading a history of events or a discussion of economic theories and trends. I wonder if there would be merit in separating out the history of events that took place from the more general discussions about what was signficant about the era, the economic theories that emerged, etc. (i.e. a major section for the history and completely independent sections discussing economy theories, legal development, etc.). I'm not sure honestly. Just a thought.
  • The "Rise of the Money Economy" section is 4 levels deep. This makes it hard to follow. As a general rule I think if you are creating more than 3 levels it means the article needs to be reorganized.

Hope this helps.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Automated review[edit]

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


Geothermal power[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm getting too familiar with it to honestly recognize its flaws. I would like an outside opinion as to what areas are in greatest need of attention. This article is considered vital to Wikipedia 1.0 and of high importance to the Energy WikiProject.

Thanks, Yannick (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some comments:
It's informative and nothing massively wrong with it.
The article doesn't sufficiently explain why the geothermal heat pump is an important technology and how geothermal with heat pump differs from geothermal without heat pump. Geothermal heat pump systems are a popular addition to ecological new builds. Do they count as "direct application"? Should there be more on this, perhaps sourced to books and articles on "green" building?
Yes, they are a direct application. I can see how they deserve a bit more article space given their exponential growth rate, but I'm shy about discussing things just because they're popular. They only produce 1/6th of geothermal energy, assuming that parasitic loads have been properly accounted in the figures I reported. (I have my suspicions, but no verifiable source.) I'll see what I can do.--Yannick (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Follow heading capitalisation guidelines in MoS.
Done.--Yannick (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
In the drawing labelled "Enhanced geothermal system" the labels are too small for the drawing to be readable.
And by "too small," I'm guessing you mean "in german." It's a nice picture that we just need to relabel. I'm not good at picture editing though, so I'm hoping for someone with the right skills to come along...--Yannick (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The lede should be a concise summary of the article and not introduce points that are not followed up later.
Very good point; I'll have to fix that.--Yannick (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Update and expansion needed[edit]

The thing that stands out for me is that much of info, statistics about geothermal use in particular, are not up to date. Very little info from 2008 or 2009, much from 2004 and 2005. Johnfos (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that's a realistic expectation. I don't think anyone collects these statistics on an annual basis, and there are always going to be delays on the order of years before this kind of data is collected into central locations, analyzed and published. The Geo-Heat Centre appears to be trying to publish comprehensive statistics every 5 years, so we can hope for a major update around 2010. But doing any better than that would require original research, which is not Wikipedia's mission.--Yannick (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Things are moving very quickly with renewable energy. More recent info about geothermal is often available and should be used. Here is some info from a 2009 report:

"Geothermal power capacity reached over 10 GW in 2008. The United States remains the world development leader, with more than 120 projects under development in early 2009, representing at least 5 GW. Other countries with significant recent growth in geothermal include Australia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iceland, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, and Turkey. Geothermal development was under way in over 40 countries, with at least 3 GW in the pipeline beyond the United States". (p.12)

"Geothermal (ground source) heat pumps accounted for an estimated 30 GWth of installed capacity by the end of 2008, with other direct uses of geothermal heat (i.e., for space and greenhouse heating, agricultural drying, industrial, and other uses) reaching an estimated 15 GWth. At least 76 countries use direct geothermal energy in some form". (p.13)

See also Tables on pages 23 and 24. -- Johnfos (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See also endnote 10 of that document: "There are no annual published sources giving geothermal capacity worldwide; see the Renewables 2007 Global Status Report for previous geothermal sources, supplemented with unpublished submissions from report contributors." From endnote 6, it looks like they're citing the same academic paper as I am, Bertani's "World Geothermal Generation in 2007" plus a 2009 web page. You'll also notice that most of their numbers are qualified with the word "estimated" which suggests to me that they're just extrapolating based on recent growth rates. I'm not sure this source reliable enough for a technical article.--Yannick (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Who says this is a "technical article"? It is not just about "geothermal capacity". The article should cover all major aspects of geothermal power and its use.
I'm sensing a tremendous reluctance to update and expand this article. The report cited is by REN21 and Eric Martinot, both of which have done much work in the area and have a good reputation. A paper based on the report was published here. It is just one example of more up-to-date info. I expect there is much else available.
Please take some time to dig some of it out and you will end up with more recent sources and a much better article. Until this is done the article should have an update tag to alert readers and other editors. Johnfos (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Please don't make this personal. If you check the edit history and statistics on this article, you'll find I am normally enthusiastic about updating and expanding this article; it's just that I have specific objections in this case. I'm actively looking for constructive criticism, and I appreciate that you have taken the time to review the article and provide comments. I had seen that REN21 report before you pointed it out, and I recognized two of the lead researchers, John Lund and Ruggero Bertani, as known experts in geothermal power. (According to Eric Martinot's Wikipedia entry, he is best known for authoring these REN21 reports, not particularly for geothermal research.) However, I chose not to use the REN21 capacity figures because they appear to be extrapolated estimates. I think that it's better to give our readers the most accurate data available, even if it's a few years old, and let them make their own extrapolations if they wish. I have spent many evenings reading through journal articles to find the most reliable data out there, and I don't think I can do better until new data comes out. I will take a look at this new paper you just pointed out. You say this is not just about "geothermal capacity." I'm not sure what you mean by that. The information you quoted above is mostly about capacity figures, as is most of the REN21 report. Could you be more specific as to what else needs to be updated?--Yannick (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have put a lot of effort into this article, and it must be difficult to have someone come along with some other ideas. So thanks for asking for more info.

I don't see the information that I quoted as being "mostly about capacity figures". I think it is broader than that, dealing with geothermal development (often in different countries), which is a topic which needs to be expanded in this WP article.

Here is a specific statement made in the article, which is unsourced:

"As of 2004, five countries (El Salvador, Kenya, the Philippines, Iceland, and Costa Rica) generate more than 15% of their electricity from geothermal sources."

Wouldn't it be better to use some sourced, more up-to-date info, along the lines of what follows below, which is from a 2009 book by Lester Brown:

"Half the world's existing generating capacity is in the United States and the Philippines. Mexico, Indonesia, Italy and Japan account for most of the remainder. Altogether some 24 countries now convert geothermal energy into in electricity. Iceland, the Philippines, and El Salvador respectively get 27, 26 and 23 per cent of their electricity from geothermal power plants". (p.125)

There is much other useful info that Brown provides, from page 125 to 128, which could be used to update and expand the article. Johnfos (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Better sourcing needed[edit]

I just looked at the last paper you pointed out, and I am not satisfied with it. It is just a magazine article summarizing the REN21 report; I don't think it indicates any additional fact-checking.--Yannick (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the article or the REN21 report. Neither are refereed journal articles, but they don't need to be. If you are going to get picky about sourcing please take a good look at this WP article, as (unfortunately) there is much unsourced material. I suggest that all the unsourced material be sourced or removed. There is also some poorly sourced material such as [2]. Johnfos (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes there are whole paragraphs which are unsourced, so I have added inline cn tags to these. Johnfos (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Concluding comment from Johnfos[edit]

I have suggested that there is considerable material in this article which needs to be better sourced, updated, or expanded. Some specific sources and possible content which could be used have been suggested. I've also added some tags, which should provide guidance. Johnfos (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Responses from Yannick[edit]

Johnfos, I hope that writing a concluding comment doesn't mean that you are abandoning the conversation. If you're tired of this debate and want to leave it to me, that's OK, but I was hoping to better understand your concerns and work towards consensus. To that end, I'd like to respond to your latest points one at a time, breaking them out into separate threads in case discussion continues:

Johnfos made an oblique statement about the need for more coverage of geothermal development in different countries.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, and I hope I haven't corrupted your meaning in my paraphrase. Please accept my apologies if I am misrepresenting you. But it may help to discuss how the international scope of the article should be presented. When I first started working on the article, it had separate sections for each country. With 76 countries using geothermal power, it seemed to me that a general audience would not be interested in going through them all. They would just want the global summaries and highlights, and then maybe check out their own country plus one or two more. Therefore I've been trying to break out country-specific information to national articles accessible through the navbar at the bottom. Is that maybe what you're looking for? Do you disagree with this organization?--Yannick (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Johnfos says that some statements are unsourced, and holds as a particular example the following sentence: "As of 2004, five countries (El Salvador, Kenya, the Philippines, Iceland, and Costa Rica) generate more than 15% of their electricity from geothermal sources."
This sentence is actually strongly supported by Friedliefsson et al, which is already footnoted 9 times in the article. It's true that this particular sentence (and paragraph) did not have a footnote, but it normally isn't necessary to repeat citations so often. Still, it's true that the article has a number of footnote issues, and statistics should be footnoted. So thanks for making your comment specific, and I'll work on fixing this and other footnote problems.--Yannick (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Johnfos proposes alternate statistics from a more recently published book by Lester Brown: "Half the world's existing generating capacity is in the United States and the Philippines. Mexico, Indonesia, Italy and Japan account for most of the remainder. Altogether some 24 countries now convert geothermal energy into in electricity. Iceland, the Philippines, and El Salvador respectively get 27, 26 and 23 per cent of their electricity from geothermal power plants"
This quote does not contradict anything in the article, which is not really surprising if you notice that Brown is citing the same sources as I am: primarily Friedliefsson et al's IPCC paper and Bertani's "World Geothermal Generation in 2007." Those papers were reporting 2004 data, so Brown's book is no more up to date than the Wikipedia article; it just doesn't mention the age of the data. Brown's book does have additional information and great citations which may be helpful, and I thank Johnfos for pointing out this book to me. But I'd like to point out that the geothermal power article is already very laden with statistics, and it may be more appropriate to incorporate this information in subpages like geothermal electricity, geothermal heating, or the country specific pages.--Yannick (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Johnfos says there is nothing wrong with the REN21 report or the magazine article that summarizes it. They do not need to be refereed journal articles.
True, I was probably a little too dismissive at first. I actually think there's some good information in there about government policies, which I was thinking of incorporating; policy is REN21's expertise, after all. But what I'm saying is that we have more reliable sources available when it comes to capacity or production statistics, and even REN21 is citing those more reliable sources. Why not get as close as we can to the point of origin of the data? Just because the REN21 report or Brown's book were published more recently does not make the data any more recent. Everyone is using the same dataset from the Geo-Heat Centre. Again, I point out that REN21 wrote: "There are no annual published sources giving geothermal capacity worldwide."
Johnfos points out that there is poorly sourced material in the article, and holds the citation to a Calpine investor profile as an example.
Yup, I don't like that one either. Another editor felt that the Geyser scale and ownership was important to the article, and I tried to accommodate him. This is the best up-to-date source I've found for that to date. But questionable sources are sometimes the best we can do. Thanks for the comment.--Yannick (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Johnfos says: "Sometimes there are whole paragraphs which are unsourced, so I have added inline cn tags to these."
This I have a problem with. May I suggest that "challenges should not be made frivolously or casually, and should never be made to be disruptive or to make a point. Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate." (Wikipedia talk:When to cite) I agree that the citations need improvement, but please don't create unnecessary work.--Yannick (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

List of diplomatic missions in Hamburg[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take this thru the Wikipedia:Featured lists process, and want outside input.

Thanks, Sebastian scha. (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • One of my questions is: shall I break this into smaller lists, like active consulates and inactive consulates? Or lists by type? (Actually I prefer not to break it by type.) Listing by active and inactive could cause problems with former consulate-general, now only honorary consulates (e.g. UK; should the Consulate-general of Great Britain listed in former and the active ...). Or should this list sorted by sending country, no matter of type, closed or active? (and the closed added to the sortable columns.) Sebastian scha. (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
One thing that strikes me is the minimal explanation of why Hamburg has so many missions; why was Hamburg so important? As a dumb American I don't know anything about German topics like the Hanseatic League or free cities being commercial powers, and am wondering why all these nations would invest in the home of the hamburger. And what are they doing? assisting trade and friendship is pretty generic.
The long line of pictures marching down the side is a little awkward too.
As for the ordering - it doesn't seem to matter to me. By nationality is as good as any. --Gwern (contribs) 23:57 16 October 2009 (GMT)
Thanks for your comment. Why is a question, that will/can resolve in original research. One reason for the South American countries e.g. could have been, that Hamburg was one of the first European countries, which first acknowledged the independence of Uruguay (e.g.), but as I said ATM I have no qualifying reliable source for this claim, so I have not entered it now (I'm searching for more sources, atm). What are consulates doing? I hope this is explained in the linked article Consul (representative). This is not enough? I'll try to find some Hamburg specific examples. There are only 5 images of consulates, is it too much? You see your short comment has opened more questions for me, so thanks again. Cheers. Sebastian scha. (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I have expanded the intro a bit as suggested by Gwern. Sebastian scha. (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The intro looks much better. An impressive statistic might drive home Hamburg's commercial importance ('35% of German trade passed through Hamburg'). The # of pictures seems fine. --Gwern (contribs) 16:42 23 October 2009 (GMT)
You are right. Added a little bit, mentioned the port; and a nice colored big world map. Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sean Bennett[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because during the GA review no problems were raised and it was suggested I bring it to FA. I was lenient considering the article is only 4,000 characters, but per WP:WTHN, I figured I'll give it a shot. Thanks, Giants27(c|s) 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While I do not have a problem with the length per se, I do think the article could use some more detail to provide context to the reader before any FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement based on that and some MOS issues.

  • Watch WP:Overlinking - for example University of Evansville is linked three times in four paragraphs (once piped so it looks like something else).
    • I don't think I've ever linked something that many times before, done.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I was also wondering if the lead might read better split into 3 paragraphs (split the current second one into one each on college and professional sports appearances)
  • There are many places where the article could help the average reader by providing more context. Here are some examples
    • I would spell out NFL on its first appearance to make it cleaer that he was switching to professional sport (would have to pipe it as the article is "1999 NFL Draft"
    • I would also make it clear at the end that he played for two CFL and one indoor football league teams - I thought the BlueCats were a CFL team I had never heard of at first.
    • Is there any info on his family? Parents names? Siblings if any?
    • Could his collegiate stats be given (for each college)? This is for Northwestern At Northwestern, Bennett became the starting fullback. In his only year he had 32 rushes and 160 yards.[2] but even there it would help to mention how many games he actually played in.
    • Professional career starts with scouts coming - you could say where they came to (presumably Northwestern), could even kill two birds with one stone by identifying the two players named as his Northwestern teammates orsomething similar.
    • What were his stats for his rookie year in the NFL and with the Giants by season and overall (last is in the Infobox)?
    • I would make it clear that he was released by the Jets before the NFL season began.
    • As in the lead, so too with the 2004–2007 section - identify CFL and Indoor League teams. Also the whole playing for the BlueCats but somehow still on the Ottawa roster for the dispersal draft has to be explained better / more clearly.
    • After leaving the game of football in 2007, Bennett became a trainer at Tri-State Athletic Club.[17] where is this? Assume back in Evansville as he seems to be a homebody.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there area fair number of athlete FAs that would be useful models.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


Thomas of Bayeux[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been over a year since the last PR, and I think I'm finally ready to think about FAC for him, having finally acquired the last sources I was hunting for. Looking for comments on prose, grammar, jargon, and context that might be missing to a non-medievalist. Thanks to the folks commenting in the previous PR, they were helpful!

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments from JamesMLane: Per my comments in the last PR, I think the article is very good, but that the introduction should be reworked to have less detail, and a clearer explanation up front about why the reader might want to know more about this person. Also, the phrase "seizure of power" still seems a little jarring and leaves the reader unclear about what was going on. Perhaps, from the point of view of Thomas's bio, it would be simpler to omit the dispute about who would become king: "In 1100, after the sudden death of King William II and the accession to power by his younger brother Henry, ...." It appears from the article that Thomas played no role in the conflict between Henry and his brother, so it doesn't need to be alluded to here. JamesMLane t c 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • We'll have to disagree about the level of detail in the lead, it's the normal amount I put in most of my FACs and FAs. On the "siezure" it's actually factually correct, Henry basically sprinted to Westminster, took control of the treasury, had himself crowned king, granted a "charter of liberties" promising to not do what his brother had done, and groveled to Anselm to come home and approve of Henry's taking power. Rufus and Curthose had agreed previously that if one died without an child, the other would suceed to power in the other's realm, so historians are pretty much agreed that it's a "seizure" not a "accession". Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: These are a few remarks on the first couple of sections. I will give the article more attention next week when I am at home again, but here's something to be going on with:-

  • Early life
    • Suggest delete "later" from "who later was Bishop of Worcester." The dates make it clear that it was later.
    • Suggest delete the comma after "Lanfranc in Normandy"
    • The last sentence needs a better context. I suggest: "After the Battle of Hastings in 1066 William, the new king of England, named Thomas a royal clerk." (with appropriate links added)
  • Archbishop under William I
    • At the beginning it reads oddly that he was "probably consecrated on 25 December", and then in the next sentence that Lanfranc refused to consecrate him. It's a slight chronology problem - my suggestion is: "On 23 May Thomas was nominated to succeed Ealdred as archbishop of York. He declined..." etc., and then "Royal pressure induced Thomas to submit to Lanfranc, and Thomas was consecrated on 25 December."
    • When you say that "all decisions were ratified at the Accord of Windsor that year", we need to be reminded that the year is 1072
    • Can you explain what you mean by "the continental system" of archdeacons. Does this mean that prior to this time the office of archdeacon was peculiar to the European continent, or that there was a different "continental" system relating to archdeacons? Needs explaining.

I will be back with more. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to it. This week in "Real work" is kinda busy, so it'll be the weekend before I can fully attend to these (and those Adam raised below). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Brian again: Sorry for the delay in returning to the review. Here are a few more comments:-

  • Rebuilding the cathedral: I have done some further copyedits in this section. The last sentence is confusing unless you specify that elements of Thomas' structure are still visible in the crypt of the present York Minster.
  • Serving William II: More copyedits and:-
    • It may be worth inserting a clause into the first sentence clarifying that William Rufus inherited the English throne in accordance with William I's bequest. Simply saying "instead of his oldest brother" tends to suggest that the throne was seized (as indeed it was by Henry I, 13 years later.
    • "William was Thomas' sole suffragan bishop, but..." Why the "but"? Two separate facts, I suggest that the correct conjunction is a semicolon
    • Second paragraph, first line, one "again" too many
    • Confusing, and repetitive: "Thomas arrived in London too late to crown Henry I, as the ceremony was performed by Maurice, Bishop of London, in the absence of both archbishops. Anselm at this time was still in exile." Perhaps "Thomas arrived in London too late to crown Henry I; in his absence and with Anselm still in exile, the ceremony had been performed by Maurice, Bishop of London."
    • I think "possibility" would be a better word than "chance"
  • Death and legacy
    • Second paragraph; To avoid repetition of "learning", Thomas could be praised for his "scholarship".
    • The sentence about his composition of William I's epitaph is out of place here; it doesn't conern either Thomas's death or his legacy. I suggest the sentence is re-sited.

I hope these rather rushed comments are helpful.

Comments from Adam Bishop:

  • I made some copyedits; the only major thing I changed was the lead sentence, I thought it was more important that he was archbishop than that he was from Bayeux.
  • Are the questions of York's obedience to Canterbury, and Canterbury's primacy, actually the same problem? (I don’t quite remember, although I can see how they are slightly different.)
  • Was his mother named Muirel or Muriel?
  • His professional of obedience was made orally, "not in writing or to the archbishops of Canterbury." Why archbishops? Does this mean Lanfranc's successors too, as mentioned later?
  • If you want to be totally pedantic, the plural of "pallium" is "pallia". But I suppose it's "palliums" in English :)
    • Both "pallia" and "palliums" are correct in English. Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Who was the Danish king that Thomas might have crowned? (Or is just a Danish king in general?)
  • After Gregory VII becomes pope, the Canterbury-York dispute is linked for the first time, although it is mentioned several times earlier.
  • Are Hugh the Chanter and Hugh the Chantor the same person?

I'm not much help for non-medievalist context, but I didn't see anything else that immediately jump out as context-less. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Wonder World Tour[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I revamped it and want to know what I need to improve in order to make it a GA article, after she's done touring of course.

Thanks, Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think this is rather premature. The article is about a 15-week concert tour that started on 14 September and isn't even a quarter over, yet. Who knows what may happen in the remaining time, or how the tour will be viewed when it has ended? I also notice that this is your second PR nomination for 3 October when the rules do not permit more than one nomination per editor per day. I recommend that this one is withdrawn until a more appropriate time (if it were reviewed now it would have to reviewed again when the tour was finished), and let the PR reviewers concentrate on the song article.Brianboulton (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

  • Language is quite rough in places and needs a copyedit. Some examples (not an exhaustive list) follow:
    • Current first two sentences could be something like The Wonder World Tour was a concert tour by the American recording artist Miley Cyrus, scheduled for September 14 through December 28, 2009, in support of Cyrus's extended play, The Time of Our Lives. It was her second tour and her first that was international and did not include performances as Cyrus' character Hannah Montana. (avoid words like current, also settle on a tense and stick to it (both present and past were used in the first two sentences)
    • I would say the UK and Ireland, not Western Europe in the tour took place in Western Europe and the United States
    • This is just ungrammatical She wanted to portray a more a mature tour that was accessible to all audiences. not sure what it even means "to portray a more mature tour" either
    • Refer to her as Miley Cyrus the first time and as Cyrus from then on.
    • Unclear In an interview with MTV News, she explained that due to time constraints, there would be no guest appearances during the tour.[12] - who is making the guest appearances? Cyrus? Other artists performing in her tour? If this is the case, we learn later a duet was added mid-tour
  • Theme and styles section has two very long quotations from Cyrus. They add little to the article and probably violate WP:NFCC - pick out the best parts to use as direct quotes and paraphrase or omit the rest. What does it add to our understanding to read things like And everyone was like, 'Alright Miley is stepping it up.' And I was like, 'Yeah, it is my tour.' ?
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example United States does not need a link
  • Refs are generally nicely formatted, but current ref 26 is just a link and a title "^ Miley Cyrus takes Britney's path" and needs much more information given
  • Watch logical organization - the strep throat incidents are tacked on at the end under the headings Additional notes and should be incorporated into the actual article - this is what Brianboulton was talking about above.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


Paul Bako[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a lot of hard work on it. For a player that has a relatively minor amount of coverage (Bako is no Babe or Albert Pujols), I think it is well-written, comprehensive, and fully referenced. I would appreciate reviewers giving input; my eventual plan for this article is GA. I don't know where else I could expand it (I don't have any info beyond what I've included), but I'd like outside opinion. Thanks in advance. KV5 (TalkPhils) 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This reads well, is stable, neutral, well-illustrated, and sourced. I think it could be considered broad in coverage if you expanded the 2005–2009 section to include the 2009 World Series and expanded the "Personal" section to include more details about family, hobbies, pets, work for charities, or anything else you can find that would flesh out his non-baseball bio.

  • The link checker tool in the upper right of this review finds two dead links.
  • Done. I hate link rot... KV5 (TalkPhils) 00:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The images need alt text for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it.
  • I know how to do this; I just get lazy sometimes when I'm not doing FL work. Done now. KV5 (TalkPhils) 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead

  • Bako is an example of the term "journeyman" - He isn't an example of a term; he's an example of a journeyman. I think "Bako is an example of a baseball "journeyman" would be better.
  • Since the lead is to be a summary of the entire article, it would be good to at least mention the high school and college subsection and the minor league subsection and the personal section, especially after you expand it.

High school and college

  • "Bako led the Ragin' Cajuns to two consecutive conference championships... " - How exactly did he do this? Was he a catcher? Did he have a good batting average? Did he drive in a lot of runs? Was he a good mentor for younger players?
  • He was a catcher; always has been. I clarified this as best I could and added some more detail about the seasons. I couldn't find any statistical sources for the 1991/92 baseball teams, though I'm still looking. Almost every player on the Ragin' Cajuns' athletic network website has a page about them, but of course, just my luck: Bako doesn't. KV5 (TalkPhils) 00:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor leagues

  • "Brett Tomko, who played with Bako in 1996 and 1997, recalled a mound conversation with him in 2006" - This is a bit confusing because the mound conversation must have happened in 1996 or 1997 rather than in 2006. Also, which team were they both playing for? A better sentence might be: "Brett Tomko, who played with Bako in 1996 and 1997 as members of the XXXXXX, recalled one of their mound conversations."
  • "recalled a mound conversation with him" - Wikilink mound?
  • Wikipedia's generally conservative when it comes to bolding. (See WP:MOSBOLD for details). For this reason, I'd suggest using italics or even plain type for the speakers' names in the mound dialogue.

2005–2009

  • Blockquotes are used for quotations of at least four lines. The ones in this section are only two lines long on my screen. I'd suggest simply embedding them in the text inside ordinary quotation marks. MOS:QUOTE has details.
  • Since the Phillies are in the World Series, this section would seem to be incomplete. Has Bako played any games in the playoffs? Will you add more data in a couple of weeks?
  • Bako has not participated in the playoffs, which is why I haven't added any data. I was going to wait until the playoffs were complete and then add a statement regarding the outcome (whether he was a member of the World Series-winning team or just the pennant winner, etc.).

Personal

  • This section cries out for expansion. Is Bako married? Does he have children? Does his mother come to watch him play? Does he have interests outside of baseball? Is there a Bako fan club? Can you find any published interviews with Bako? (I Googled "Bako wife" and immediately learned from a Phillies bio of Bako here that he has a wife, Laurie, a daughter, Abbey, and a son, Will). Maybe the Philadelphia Inquirer has run stories about Bako.
  • I have scrutinized Google News and Google Books to see if I can find further information; I haven't been able to locate any. Backup catchers just don't seem to get any press... KV5 (TalkPhils) 23:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Waiting until the World Series is over to add a further statement of some kind sounds good. For the "Personal" section, you could at least use the family info from the Phillies site. I don't know if it's possible to find more from any reliable source; you just have to go with the best data you can find. Finetooth (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have done so. I do appreciate your comments; they were very helpful. If you find anything else, please let me know. Otherwise, I will likely close this peer review and move to a GA nomination within the next week or so. Thanks. KV5 (TalkPhils) 21:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Harshaw, Arizona[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this Arizona ghost town article for peer review because I can see that it's still not comparable to the Good Articles about ghost towns, but I'm not sure where to go from here. Ghost towns like this one are pretty obscure, and unlike the more highly-rated ghost town articles, there is little left of this town, and the history is lacking in some places (such as more detailed demographics, which simply don't seem to exist for this town). As such, comparisons to these other articles is not always helpful. At this point, I'm out of ideas and sources, having checked everything I could think of on Google News, Google Books, several ghost town (and related) books that I own, the local library, online mining resources, government sources, and everything else I could think of. I still stumble across little ways to improve it from time to time, but I can't think of anything else substantive to add.

What's missing from the article? Are there any other general topics it needs to cover, or other subjects the existing ones should discuss? How's the style? Is the article both informative and neutral? What does it need? I'm sure that other eyes will see things that I haven't. Thanks. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'm delighted to encounter another fan of ghost towns. This article is very good already. It's quite an enjoyable read, well-illustrated, broad in coverage, stable, neutral, and well-written. I think it's about ready for GA. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

  • Since the lead is to be a summary or abstract of the whole article, I'd suggest expanding it to include mention of the Indians, Spanish, the main mines and mining companies, plans for more mining and the National Heritage Area, the climate, and anything else of significance that you add in the future. I'm not suggesting a much longer lead, but you could expand the third paragraph and go to four paragraphs if you need that many.
    • Got it. I will defer this one until I see what else is added to the article. No sense expanding it, then having to expand it again to cover new information. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I see that you've added alt text, but alt text should describe things for readers who can't see the images. If you imagine a blind reader who is being read to by a machine, you'll see why "Harshaw in the 1880s" won't help that reader. Instead, the alt text might say something like "A town of about 30 one-story buildings stretches along the floor of a dry narrow valley. A few trees grow near the houses, but only low, widely separated desert shrubs grow on the hills above the valley." Or something like that. WP:ALT has details, and you can visit WP:FAC to see recent examples of alt text in articles.
    • Ah, I didn't realize that. Thanks! Those won't be quite as quick to write, but I'll take a stab at it. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done I took a stab at the alt text rewrites. This is my first stab at these, so please point out any problems. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 15:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Generally it's a good idea to avoid making text sandwiches like the one at the top of "Founding and early town history". The Manual of Style also advises against displacing heads or subheads with images. The fix is easy. Simply move the Harshaw image down a couple of paragraphs but not so far that it displaces the "Rebirth" subhead.
    • I've had trouble with this one. If I move the image down enough to clear the right side images, it displaces the next header. Also, depending on monitor resolution, even that may not clear the right side images. I think I'll wait to see how the expanded article looks before trying to move this image. Since it seems likely that I will add a Geology section, the right side geological map will likely be a good fit there, and that would change the desired position of other images. So again, I'll defer on this until other expansions are done. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done With the Geology section added, I moved the USGS map to that section, then moved the offending image to the place vacated by the map. With a few other tweaks, this seems to have fixed all of the text sandwiches. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • A possibility for expansion would be to include something about the geology of the area. Someone, possibly a USGS geologist, will have written about the ore-bearing rocks, and someone will have written about how plate tectonics played a role in creating Arizona. Perhaps something has been written about pre-historic flora and fauna that once lived in the Harshaw area.
    • There's actually about a ton of geological information from the USGS as well as various mining resources. I have those references, it will just take me some time to go through them, parse them, and add the information in. But this should be very doable. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done I added a geology section based on USGS sources and mining resources. I also moved the previous Mining header under the geology section as it seemed to make sense that way. Geology isn't an area where I have a depth of knowledge, so I've done my best to correctly represent the sources. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Another possibility for expansion would be to include something more about changes in the flora of the last 150 years in or near Harshaw. You mention that David Harshaw was a rancher who moved to the area because "the land was noted for its exceptional grazing". Was it not good for grazing later? If not, why not? This sentence suggests that things fell apart all around Harshaw: "At its peak in the 1880s and 1890s, Harshaw's location was considered scenic as it was surrounded by oak forests, lush pastures, and abundant water." I'm guessing that some combination of fire, overgrazing, logging, and pollution made the place less desirable, but I don't know for sure.
    • Actually, I just found a source that states that the land is still used for limited cattle grazing today. There are issues (such as with the water, as I will mention below), but I don't think flora and fauna have taken extreme hits in this area. I will read more on this in a few sources I found, and expand to make this clear. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done I expanded the Geography section to include environmental issues, including foliage, the continuation of cattle grazing, the abundance of water, and the more recent water pollution issues that tie back to the area's mining past. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 16:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Flora, fauna, towns, and mines require water. Did Harshaw Creek provide all the water that was needed? Did the mine owners have to pipe water in from elsewhere? Does Harshaw Creek still flow through Harshaw? Why is the water no longer abundant?
    • No mention of anyone needing to pipe in water for the mill. Harshaw Creek still flows in the area, but a source I found says that the water is polluted, in large part due to mining dumps and residues, which makes for an interesting expansion. I will research more on that, and see what I can add. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done I expanded the Geography section to include environmental issues, including foliage, the continuation of cattle grazing, the abundance of water, and the more recent water pollution issues that tie back to the area's mining past. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 16:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It might be helpful to add a "Names" section. When I was working on Rhyolite, Nevada, a peer reviewer suggested that idea to me, and it worked out pretty well. Names that might be fun to explain include Hermosa, Hardshell, Flux, Trench, Coronado, and Patagonia. Just a suggestion.
    • This is something I haven't come across in my research yet. I tried to find information on "Hermosa," but struck out. I will keep digging as this could lead to interesting topics. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need so many multiple citations for some of the claims. Six at the end of the second paragraph of the lead seems excessive, for example.
    • That's my fear of losing a source coming through, but it's largely a baseless fear. I'll try to thin down a few of the more redundantly sourced items, especially in the intro. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done I thinned down some of the 4+ ref areas, including the intro section mentioned above. There are still some groupings of 3-4 refs, though. For example, I use three refs for the statements about the town's newspaper. One is a good secondary source which establishes the name of the paper and the editor, one is a directory of publications which shows the circulation, and one is a listing showing the date of the first issue. I cut one ref from here that did the same thing as the first one I mentioned. Let me know if you think the multiple refs are still too much in places. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 16:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Captions consisting of only one sentence fragment don't take terminal periods.
  • Should troy ounces be linked? How about short ton?
    •  Done Yes, and until you said this, I had no idea that you could do so from within a convert template. Good tip! -- Transity(talkcontribs) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The date formatting in the Reference section should be consistent. Most dates seem to be in yyyy-mm-dd format, so flipping the others to that format would solve the problem.
    •  Done I changed them all to the October 17, 2009 format instead (just my preference, really). But anyway, done. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I'm slammed this weekend, so I doubt I'll get to go through any of it in detail until next week, but just from a read, I can see that it's valuable feedback. Some are quick fixes, while others are interesting avenues for research. I'm also really happy that, seemingly against the odds, the person who reviewed this article was not only familiar with ghost town articles on Wikipedia, but was someone who significantly improved one of the few FA ghost town articles, getting it to FA. I couldn't have asked for a better "outside" view. Thanks again, and I'll post a detailed response as soon as I get a chance. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 14:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Replied inline to each bullet above. Some are done, some are in progress (researching), and some are awaiting expansion. Thanks. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help. I don't usually respond point-by-point to changes made in response to peer reviews, so please don't think I'm ignoring your notes. It's fine to ping me on my talk page if you think I can be of further help. Finetooth (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I want to continue to track progress against these items here, even just for my own sake. If I run into something that I think could benefit from your input, I will ask you about it on your talk page. Thanks again for the ideas and suggestions. -- Transity(talkcontribs) 02:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
llywrch comments

Just a few, random points:

  • In the version I read this is a very comprehensive article. Far more than I would expect to read about a ghost town. (I've since made a small edit.)
  • The chief problem I had with this article is the last paragraph in the section "History > Continued activity". It is obvious that the point you wish to make there is that the Forest Service brought about the demise of Harshaw. It had been part of the Coronado N.F. for 10 years, & none of the inhabitants had legal title to their properties -- so they were ruled to be squatters & most removed. However, the way this paragraph currently reads it is quite confusing & feels like you have incompletely digested a much larger, more complex story. (And why did it take the Forest Service ten years to start dismantling Harshaw?)
  • If you want to make this into an FA, consider this: look at the context Harshaw belongs to. How did it fit into the history of silver mining in Arizona? Where did it excel, & where did it fail to measure up? Do all ghost towns go through a crash, then experience spikes of renewed activity over the following years -- & why does this happen? Yes, some of this is crossing the line against original research, but I would assume of the countless mining & ghost towns of Arizona, there are some for which a study like this has been done -- & against which Harshaw could be compared. I would be surprised if this kind of comparison violates original research.

Hope this helps. -- llywrch (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Shenandoah (band)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get it to good article class. Given that Shenandoah is such a common word, I'm having a hard time trying to get Google to understand what I want, but I think I've dug up enough sources. One problem I'm having is that I can't find very many reviews; the Allmusic reviews are either blank or just one-sentence reviews, and I could only find one review anywhere for In the Vicinity of the Heart. In addition, I can't find a single secondary source to verify that Ralph Ezell rejoined the band, or that Stan Munsey joined at all, or that Curtis Wright left, so I had to settle for an archive of their official website. I've also had a hard time finding sources that describe the band's sound and influence, and would appreciate any suggestions for sources.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this looks pretty good, here are some mostly nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • The first sentence of the lead seems a bit too complex for me (listing all the original members and what they did / played). WP:LEAD says in part The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1] I think the info on the founding members should be in the lead, but if you had to tell someone who knew nothing about the band in one sentence what they were about, would you list their founding lineup?
    •  Done I split it up some.
  • I would mention something about the band's musical style in the lead - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
    •  Done Also added.
  • This sentence seems too long / complex - could it split into two, perhaps after the semicolon with a year or two added to provide context? Seals, Thacker and McGuire re-established the band in 2000 with keyboardist Stan Munsey and vocalists Curtis Wright and Brent Lamb. Ezell later rejoined on bass, with Mike Folsom taking over after Ezell's 2007 death; following Lamb's and Wright's departures, Jimmy Yeary became the fourth lead vocalist. Whoops, already 2 sentences - could a year or two be added to the end of the second sentence?
    • I haven't been able to find the years in which most of the fresher members left. As I said, I can barely find anything that says Wright or Lamb or Yeary are/were even in the band. I think the archive of the website is the best I can do.
  • The first six subsections in History are each just one paragraph long. This makes the article flow a bit choppy IMO. Could any of thse be combined - perhaps in two or three album blocks? When I look at the FA Radiohead, for example, it combines two albums in several sections.
    •  Done Re-divided some sections and merged others.
  • Would it also make sense to add years to the History seubheaders? Perhaps the first two paragraphs in History could be a new section called "Formation and Shenandoah (1985 - 1987)", followed by a section called "The Road Not Taken, Extra Mile, and lawsuits (1988 - 1992)" and so on (and yes, I think those need to be en dashes, not hyphens in the year ranges)
    •  Done Added years.
  • This sentence seems odd Following the success of this album, the band began a tour that comprised more than 300 shows a year.[10] I can see giving the total number (more than 300 shows in one year) or the duration (an 18 month tour with more than 300 shows a year) but as is it seems incomplete
    •  Done Rephrased to indicate that they played 300 shows in 1989.
  • Another odd sentence - makes it sound like when they left, the Columbia label had no other acts (no bands): After Shenandoah left the label, producer Larry Strickland assembled three musicians to form a new band called Matthews, Wright & King, in an attempt to keep a band on the label.[17]
    • I clarified the setence to indicate that Columbia had other acts, but not other groups, on the label.
  • Where possible I would try to briefly identify many of the people mentioned (songwriters mostly) - even though they are wikilinked, a casual reader will not know who these people are in most cases and a brief identification helps. A nice example where this is already done is The album also produced the band's last Top Ten hit in "Vicinity"'s B-side, "Darned If I Don't (Danged If I Do),"[5] which Brooks & Dunn's Ronnie Dunn wrote with Dean Dillon.[27] (though I still don't know how Dean DIllon is without a click). Nowadays many musical acts write all or most of their material, so some readers may not be as familiar with the idea of bands chielfy recording songs written by others.
    • I've clarified some of the writers.
  • Is there anything else that can be said about this album? In 2006, the band released the album Journeys on the Cumberland Road label.[45] Once sentence? No reviews? No sales figures?
    • Indeed. It came and went in an eyeblink, no reviews, no sales figures, etc. Allmusic doesn't even list the songwriters or musicians. I did find a review for Shenandoah 2000 and cited it.
  • Since it is close to 2010, it will soon be 4 years since they released an album. Do they tour? Are they planning on releasing an album anytime? I think on things like this the band's own website owuld be Ok to use a source (We hope to have a new album out in X, come see us at the Y state fair, that sort of thing) OK< just looked at their official website andsee they are touring in 2009 - I think this would be worth including in a sentence.
    • I added some touring info.
  • I also wonder if recent tour dates are known, could a search on newspaper websites be made in the cities where they played to get a review or story about their tour / performance? This would avoid the common name problem.
    • I haven't found any reviews of their concerts. The pic I got of them last July was at a county fair out in the middle of nowhere, about 30 miles from either local paper.
  • Refs look OK to me (not a music expert) and the images look fine (nice lead pic and fiar use seems justified for the other image)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    • I've addressed most of your concerns. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 17:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-10[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I look for ways in which to improve the article. Any comments are welcome.

Thanks, LouriePieterse 16:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, but it needs a lot of work to meet Wikipedia's standards. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the aircraft carrier seems to only be in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the Record section is not in there. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article needs an image or two - www.aviastar.org/air/russia/sik_s-10.php has some and since the plane was only in use to 1916 I would think there are old wnough to be free to use now.
  • Measurements need to be given in both metric and English units in all cases - the {{convert}} template is useful here
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - F-4 Phantom II is a FA and may be a useful model
  • Not much more to add now as this is so short

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


The Chinese Restaurant[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has potential for FA. It has just passed its GA review, and I would like to hear some feedback.

Thanks, --Music26/11 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  • At FAC, you'll need ALT text for the image.
    • Done.
  • I think the comma in the second sentence can be removed.
    • You're going to have to be a little more specific; what comma?
  • In "Plot" link egg roll. Also, per that article's name, all instances of "egg-roll" should become "egg roll", without the hyphen.
    • Done.
  • Is the link to Genghis required?
    • Nah, I figured the name of the restaurant wasn't that important, also I found another ref that did not back up the name but it did back up the inspiration, so I removed it.
  • Is there a typo in the Richards quote: "I knew that was a very important episode"? Seems to be missing an "it".
    • He's referring to the episode with "that".
  • "…starting with the season two premiere "The Ex-Girlfriend"…" is redundant and can be taken out. You say all season two episodes, so of course it would start with the premiere.
    • Done.
  • "previous and later" can be made "other".
    • Done.
  • It's unclear what "shortest audience record ever" means. Least amount of time, least people attending the filming, etc.
    • Clearified.
  • "Jigsaw puzzle" should be lowercase.
    • Done.
  • "Married... With Children", per the article's name, should have a lowercase "with".
    • Done.
  • I think a comma belongs after "Married... With Children". Not sure, though.
    • Done.
  • The article uses both "guest-starred" and "guest starred"; be consistent.
    • Changed all to guest-starred.
  • Really picky here, but per WP:DASH, "-A" should be −A, displaying "−A".
    • Really picky indeed. Changed.
  • Is that a typo under "External links"? it says "The Baby Shower" but links to the correct page.
    • Copied template off another page, changed to correct episode page.
As far as I can tell, this is very close to featured status. I would support this. Mm40 (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I might take you up on that, thanks for the review.--Music26/11 12:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I've nominated the article at WP:FAC three times and was never approved.
It's a WP:GAN and has been through many copyedits.
I was wondering if some of you can pick up on anything so it can meet the criteria for FAC.

Thanks, ATC . Talk 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Although I have seen many commercials for the NAked Brothers show and this film, I have never actually watched either, so now I know much more what it is all about. I found this article to be interesting and while this certainly meets the GA criteria, it needs some work to meet WP:WIAFA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The first thing I noticed is that the infobox image File:Naked BroDVD.jpg needs the correct source listed - it is currently just a wikilink to Amazon, when it should be the actual EL to the Amazon page where the image can be found - here
  • I also would put most of the information in the alt text into the caption - the average reader not familiar with the band will not recognize the characters and this is the only image in this article to dientify them - who is the girl in white, who is the guy with glasses, which brother has the red bandana?
  • Similarly the alt text does not really meet WP:ALT - it should describe what is seen, so "boy in a white T shirt with crossed drumsticks" and not identify "Alex WOlf holding up drumsticks" (ID is the caption's job)
  • The hardest criterion for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard This needs a fair amount of work to get there. There are places where the prose could be tightened and/or polished or even rewritten. Some examples follow (not an exhaustive list):
    • Just in the lead sentence the word "two" is redundant (it is clear there are two brothers from their names) and could be removed here and in other places about a rock band fronted by Nat and Alex Wolff, two brothers who have become superstars.
    • I really do not understand what this sentence means When the dailies premiered, the channel received favorable ratings for children, aged 6 to 11.[4] The word Dailies refers to "the raw, unedited footage shot during the making of a motion picture" which is not what they would show on TV. Favorable ratings makes sense, but the for children... part needs to be clarified / explained better.
    • More tightening possible here Two brothers, Nat and Alex, aged nine and six respectively, are members of a band called The Silver Boulders. The band is led by Nat who is the lead singer-songwriter and keyboardist for the band, with Alex as the drummer. could just be something like The Silver Boulders band features the Wolff brothers: nine year old Nat is the lead singer-songwriter and keyboardist, and six year old Alex is the drummer.
    • Barbara eda-Young, James Badge-Dale, Gretchen Egolf, and Cooper Pillot are actors who starred in Draper's playwright Getting Into Heaven.[17] It could be Draper's play Getting Into Heaven, or it could be playwright Draper's Getting Into Heaven, but it makes no sense as written.
  • I think it might help to add a bit about the parents' careers to provide context to the reader in the background (a few sentences)
  • When I looked at several FAs on movies, few had a a cast section. One way to avoid it is to introduce the actors' names in parntheses after the role they play in the Plot section. If the Plot section is kept (your choice), it needs to be pared down. For example it now says "starred" for every role - this is not true. I would also avoid repeating information - we are told three times each in the article that the brothers are nine and six (plot, cast, filming) - once is enough.
  • There are a lot of long quotes and not a lot of paraphrasing in some parts - the Awards and reception section is especially heavy on quotes. See WP:NFCC on the overuse of quotes.
  • Make sure references are reliable sources - for example current ref 14 is just a catalog entry from a library: The Naked Brothers Band (DVD Video Recording)". Camden County Library. http://iii.camden.lib.nj.us:90/search~S9?/tThe+Naked+Brothers+Band%3A+The+Movie/tnaked+brothers+band+the+movie/1%2C1%2C1%2CB/frameset&FF=tnaked+brothers+band+the+movie&1%2C1%2C/indexsort=-. Retrieved August 22, 2009. and does not seem like it would meet WP:RS

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


Gregory House[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would want to see it get to an FA.

Thanks, Pedro J. the rookie 19:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting introduction to a character I've never seen on TV, though friends have said they like the show. The images need alt text, and I have a few other suggestions for improvement.

  • A requirement for FA is that images have alt text for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it. You can look at recent alt text by visiting WP:FAC, and an alt text viewer is one of the tools in the toolbox on this page.

Character history

  • House attended Johns Hopkins University and studied medicine at the Johns Hopkins Medical School, and was up for a scholarship at the Mayo Clinic. However, during his medical education, he was caught cheating by a co-student named Philip Weber, who ultimately got him expelled. House then attended the University of Michigan for the remainder of his study and met Lisa Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein), his future boss, with whom he shared a one night stand. - I think this might be slightly more clear in present tense. This passage might read, "Before becoming a doctor, House attends Johns Hopkins University and studies medicine at the Johns Hopkins Medical School, and is up for a scholarship at the Mayo Clinic. However, during his medical education, he is caught cheating by a co-student named Philip Weber, who ultimately gets him expelled. House then attends the University of Michigan for the remainder of his study and meets Lisa Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein), his future boss, with whom he shares a one night stand."

*Wikilink One-night stand? Add hyphen between "one" and "night". *"However, after he was put into a chemically induced coma to sleep through the worst of the pain, Stacy, House's medical proxy... " - She should be referred to as Warner rather than Stacy on this and all subsequent uses. *"At the start of season six, House gets off taking pain meds and finds other ways to deal with his pain." - "Gets off taking pain meds" is slang. How about "becomes addicted to his pain medications"? Or do you mean by "gets off" that he stops taking them? If that's the meaning, perhaps this would work: "At the start of season six, House stops taking pain medications and finds other ways to deal with his pain."

Personality

*"Leonard has said that Dr. Wilson is one of the few who voluntarily maintains a relationship with House, because his character is free to criticize him." - Shouldn't this be "because he is free" instead of "because his character is free"? *"Although House's crankiness is commonly misattributed to the chronic pain in his leg, both Stacy and Cuddy... " - Warner and Cuddy.

Conception *T-shirt takes a big "T".

General

  • The disambiguation tool in the upper-right of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
  • The link checker finds a dead link.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


Puyehue-Cordón Caulle[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hellow, I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to GA status, but there is few other contributors editing this article so its difficult to get feedback. I have worked a lot on it now and would like your opinion to futher improve it.

Thanks, Dentren | Talk 00:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on an article, nicely illustrated, about an interesting set of volcanoes. However, much of the article lacks sources and doesn't yet satisfy WP:V. Here are a few other suggestions for improvement.

Lead

  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections, and the lead should include no important information that is not developed in the main text.
  • I dont know if this is suggestion to the current lead or it a remainder of how a good lead should be. I think the information there is relatively fine.Dentren | Talk 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Most abbreviations need to be spelled out on first use. I'd suggest spelling out directions such as N or SE as words on every use. Something like "ka" should appear as 1,000 years (ka) on first use; then ka by itself will make sense to all readers on subsequent uses. Ditto for MgO and 9.5 Mw. Most readers are not scientists.

Geography

  • "Cordón Caulle occupies the center and Cordillera Nevada lies at the NW end of the alignment and owes its name due to often being seen with snow from the relatively dense populated Chilean Central Valley." - Tighten slightly to "Cordón Caulle occupies the center. Cordillera Nevada, at the northwest end of the alignment, owes its name to its often snowy appearance from the relatively densely populated Chilean Central Valley."
  • thank you for the improvement.
  • "The three volcanoes are coalesced with Puyehue being the southern and easternmost one." - Suggestion: "Puyehue is the most southern and eastern of the three coalesced volcanoes."
  • Improvement done.
  • "The lower parts of the mountains are covered by an alpine association of Valdivian temperate rainforest, with species such as Chusquea coleou and Nothofagus dombeyi being common." - "With" plus "being" constructions are usually less direct than alternatives. Suggestion: "The lower parts of the mountains are covered by an alpine association of Valdivian temperate rainforest, where species such as Chusquea coleou and Nothofagus dombeyi are common."
  • Included suggestions.
  • What is an "alpine association"?
    Changed alpine association with alpine plant association"
  • "The tree line lies around 1500 meters." - Wikipedia articles generally give measurements in metric and imperial units. A North American audience may be left out if only metric is used. I like to use the {{convert}} template for the conversions since it handles spelling and abbreviating automatically as well as the math; e.g. 1,500 metres (4,900 ft). Ditto for areas and temperatures throughout the article.
  • Put convert template on all places where units of measurment are used (except time!).
  • The first paragraph of this section lacks sources. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph as well as any statistics or claims that are not common knowledge and might be doubted. Ditto for all of the other unsourced paragraphs in the article.
  • Put one new sourced sentence into flora. It will be difficult to source everthing in the article with quality (that the source says exactly what is said in the article) and sources of quality (no-self publications, newpapers, cientific articles, official websites of nationapark or government office)

Geologic history

  • "although to older parts of Cordillera Nevada and Mencheca are older than that" - "the" rather than "to"?
  • I'll stop commenting line-by-line on prose and style issues from this point on except to say that a bit more copyediting would be a good idea.

Images

  • The map of the volcanic zones is helpful, but the source information on the license page should include a source for the base map as well as a source for the additional information added to the base map. Ditto for the ASTER map.
  • will deal with the item soon.
  • License added.

General

  • The dabfinder tool in the upper-right-hand corner of this review page finds three links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
  • Fixed all except hiatus because in the disambiguation page there is desciption of what a hiatus is in geology put not a link to page about that.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


Smile (Lily Allen song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I had worked on it for a month and made major improvements. It's not exactly finished, I still need to find a few reliable sources for some statements. After it is done, I intend to nominate it for FA, but I want to know what else I can do for this article in order to have chances of passing.

Thanks, 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the music video screenshot fits WP:NFCC#8. I would need some guidance over what scene to put. Music video is here. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Dbratland (talk · contribs)[edit]

Overall an enlightening article. I am pretty ignorant about music in general, and about Lily Allen, but I was able to follow along because there is enough context and an appropriate level of explanation in the article.
  • I see many instances of duplicate Wikilinks. Most second occurrences should be removed as per Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links (not counting tables and infoboxes). There are exceptions, depending on how you feel about having too many links in the lead, re-linking a second time far down the page, and what in your opinion is a common enough word to not need a wikilink. I didn't edit these myself, I just noted my opinions below.
  • Lead: Might want to consider adding more wikilinks for some jargon words: studio album, sampling, demo songs, ska, posse. I would unlink MySpace, MTV and music video because they are mainstream enough that everyone will know what you mean. Might want to also wikilink pop princess which redirects to Pop icon. While you're at it, I'd edit Pop icon to include "princess", since there is a difference between calling someone a princess versus an idol.
  • Might want to mention critics by name here "Contemporary critics complimented the song, claiming it made the singer a "theoretical pop princess", although some did not consider it one of the album's best songs." Rob Sheffield is notable enough to have his own page so it would help clarify why his judgement is being cited in the lead if you named him there.
  • Background: Regal Records already linked in the lead. Same with MySpace, LDN, Unlink Demo here, link it in the lead. Can you give specific names here: "Her label [who?] wasn't pleased with the sound of the demos, so they assigned the singer to top producers[who?] and songwriters[who?]"? My reaction is that if they are "top" people they must be recognizable names.
  • Music structure and lyrics: Wikilink Sample in the lead, not here. RE: "...when Allen broke up with her then boyfriend, Lester Lloyd, resulting in a drug overdose and hospitalization for depression." Who had a drug overdose and depression? Allen or Lloyd?
  • Critical reception: Wikilink Rob Sheffield if not added to lead. Is it possible to clarify what a theoretical pop princess is? Does he mean she's supposedly a pop princess but not really? Unlink LDN, second NME.
  • Music video: unlink Music video, Sophie Muller, coffee shop, MTV.
  • Live performances and promotion. Unlink concert tour, LDN. Lily Allen concert tour (2009) is already linked in the lead but I'd keep this one because it's so far down the page. "On 3 February 2007, the singer played this single and "LDN" on Saturday Night Live, for she was invited as the musical guest" is wordy.
Good work!--Dbratland (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Anna Bågenholm[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on taking it to WP:FAC (if it's good enough) and I'd like to get some second opinions and comments before then. Thanks, Theleftorium 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A most interesting story, quite new to me. A couple of general points:

  • Ref 18 is a dead link
  • For FAC purposes, all images will require alt-text. If you aren't sure what adding this involves, go to WP:Alt for information and instructions.

Prose review (I have made numerous minor fixes; these are the ones I haven't done.)

  • Lead
    • "got stuck" is inelegant. I suggest "became trapped"
    • Values over ten are normally written numerically, per the Wikipedia Maual of Style. Thus "80", not "eighty", "40" not "forty".
    • "before", not "until" she was rescued.
    • Suggested sentence reorganisation: "Bågenholm was able to find an air pocket under the ice, but after 40 minutes in the water became clinically dead."
    • Although not wrong, the mdash is a bit intrusive, and could be replaced by a simple comma.
    • "Bågenholm woke up paralyzed from the neck down on 30 May 1999, and recovered in an intensive care unit for two months..." No need to repeat the year, and "woke up" can be simply "woke". The end of the sentence is awkward. A more streamlined phrasing for the whole sentence might be: "Bågenholm woke on 30 May, paralyzed from the neck down; she subsequently spent two months recovering in an intensive care unit."
    • "she still suffers" and "is currently working" are time-specific statements which should be dated, e.g. "Although she has made an almost full recovery from the incident, late in 2009 she was still suffering..." etc. And: "at the end of 2009 Bågenholm was working..." etc
  • Background and incident
    • "29" not "twenty-nine"
    • "Bågenholm is an expert skier and usually skied after work." Awkward mixture of tenses, and again, time-specific. Suggest: "An expert skier,[5] Bågenholm usually skied after work" - perhaps "usually" should be "often"?
  • Rescue attempts
    • "When Bågenholm struggled in the cold water, she found ..." Needs small revision, e.g. "As Bågenholm first struggled in the cold water, she found..." etc
    • "Ketil Singstad led..." not "lead"
  • Rescue and recovery
    • "...proceeded the resuscitation attempt." Word missing? (proceeded with the resuscitation attempt")
    • Idiomatic English is "operating theatre", not "operating room". However, I'm slightly worried about the large number of doctors (more then a hundred) that apparently got into the theatre in the time indicated. How could such a huge number of medical staff be involved in a single case at the same time, however unusual?
      • N I think I've fixed this. Please take another look at the article and let me know what you think. Theleftorium 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • ...."she had to recover in an intensive care unit for two more months. After twenty-eight days, she was flown to Sweden in an ambulance helicopter for the remainder of her recovery..." Can you clarify - was she flown to Sweden in the middle of her two months of extensive care?
      • N I think I've fixed this. Please take another look at the article and let me know what you think. Theleftorium 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Write "Dr" rather than "Doctor"
    • "According to the journal Proto Magazine by Massachusetts General Hospital, ,..." What does "by" mean here?
  • Aftermath
    • First sentence: needs full stop, not semicolon, after "brain damage"
    • "...and got to meet..." Awkward, informal. Just "and met"
    • "As of October 2009, Bågenholm has made an almost full recovery, although minor nerve damage in her hands and feet remains.[8] She is now working as a radiologist at the hospital where her life was saved." Same problem of time-specificity as in the lead. Encyclopedias, unlike magazine articles, are long-term accounts which can't be tied down to the here and now. Suggested rephrasing: "As of October 2009 Bågenholm was working as a radiologist at the hospital where her life was saved, having made an almost full recovery although minor nerve damage in her hands and feet remains."
    • The sentence following, about her personal relationship, is not relevant and should be removed.
    • Where is Tywyn?
    • I don't think you "appear" in The Lancet. I suggest "...and her case has been discussed in the leading British medical journal The Lancet."
    • Last sentence of the article seems a bit trivial, after such a great story.

I'd say that with the necessary polishing, this article has every chance of making it as a featured article. I am not watching my peer reviews at the moment, but if you want me to look at it again, please contact me via my talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Theleftorium 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The fixes are fine, looks good to me. I'd support this (what happened to the sick child, by the way?) Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, the sources don't mention that. Thanks again for the review. I'll nominate it for FA soon. :) Theleftorium 14:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Olympic medalists in equestrian[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to Featured List status. I've never worked seriously on a list before, and never taken one through FLC, so comments geared towards that process in particular would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This list looks well-done to me, a reader who knows next to nothing about these events. I have just a few minor suggestions having to do with issues related to prose or style.

Lead

  • "Competitors in the modern pentathalon event also have to complete an equestrian show jumping course... " - I'd be inclined to add a hyphen to "show jumping"; i.e, "show-jumping course".
  • "while the youngest was 16 year old Luiza Almeida of Brazil" - Hyphens here too: "16-year-old Luiza Almeida".

Heads and subheads

  • Lowercase "p" in "program" in the "Current Program" section head?
  • Lowercase "i" in the subhead "Dressage, Individual"?
  • Lowercase "t" in the subhead "Dressage, Team"?
  • Lowercase "i" in the subhead "Eventing, Individual"?
  • Lowercase "t" in the subhead "Eventing, Team"?
  • Lowercase "i" in the subhead "Show jumping, Individual"?
  • Lowercase "t" in the subhead "Show jumping, Team"?
  • Lowercase "e" in the section head "Discontinued Events"?
  • Ditto for the other heads and subheads below these that use capital letters on any word except the first word?

References

  • "pp. 24-25" in citation 2 needs an en dash rather than a hyphen in the page range. Ditto for pp. 14-15 in citation 5.
  • The date formatting (August 7, 2008) in citation 8 is out of sync with the date formatting elsewhere in the references.
  • Citation 10 has a typo: "The IOC medal database showns two more team members... ". This should be "shows". Also, I'd recommend a semicolon rather than a comma before "however".

General

  • MOS:BOLD strongly advises against double bolding. Several heads or subheads in the article are double-bolded because parts are wikilinked; the linking doubles the bolding of the automatically bolded head or subhead. Since the linked parts are already linked in the lead, I don't think it's necessary to link them again. Unlinking would solve the double-bolding problem. "Dressage, individual" is an example of what I'm alluding to.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth, thank you very much for your comments. I think I have taken care of all of the issues listed above. If you have any further comments or suggestions, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this is an extremely complete article as a biography. The structure, content and feel of the article can definitely make it a Featured Article here on Wikipedia. Hence I want my fellow editors to comment on what can be improved in the article before we proceed towards FAC.

Thanks, --Legolas (talk2me) 12:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Brief review by Charles Edward

  • Overall a very good article and worthy of its current rating. It is a bit shy of FA quality though. Here are a few pointers:
  • References needed
    • "Madonna performed cartwheels and handstands in the hallways between classes, dangled by her knees from the monkey bars during recess, and thought nothing of tugging her skirt up over her desk during class so that all the boys could see her briefs."
    • "However, she remained defiant and unapologetic upon publication of the photos for which she was paid as little as $25 a session."
    • "She later won her first Grammy Award in 1992 in the Best Long Form Music Video category for the lasrdisc relase of the tour."
    • ""Justify My Love" became a Madonna's ninth US number-one single"
    • "The deal was a joint venture with Time Warner as part of $60 million worth of recordings and businesses."
    • "After Lourdes' birth Madonna became involved in Eastern mysticism and Kabbalah."
    • "Records and a new $120 million, ten year contract with Live Nation in October."
    • "At the time there was even speculation about her relationships with other women, including Naomi Campbell and Sandra Bernhard."
    • ""[Madonna] has knocked the importance of talent out of the arena. She's made a lot of money and become the biggest star in the world by hiring the right people.""
  • MOS issues
    • Ref #75 should follow the punctuation, not precede it
    • Ref #227 is not following puncutation
    • Double periods at Ref # 229
    • No ISBN for "Tetzlaff, David (1993). Metatextual Girl. Westview Press."
    • Several of your sources in the references section include page numbers. This is redundant with what is in your footnotes. You should remove the page numbers from the reference sections and ensure all the page numbers are in the footnotes only.
  • "Clark, Carol (2002). Madonnastyle. Omnibus Press. ISBN 0-7119-8874-9." is not used in the footnotes, should be moved to further reading or a footnote added.
  • Images
    • File:Madonna&JohnBenitez.jpg has no fair use rationale for using it on this article. (I don't think there is one)
    • File:Remedios Varo (388484001).jpg. I don't see any evidence that this image is truely licensed by its creater - only by the author who posted it to Flickr. This is worth looking into.
    • Images where the subject is facing left should be placed on the right side of the text. (lead excluded)
    • Image size is forced on some images, this is not recommended by the MOS as it overrides user settings.
  • Questions
    • "She is also "the world's highest earning female singer on earth" - according to who?
  • Suggestions
    • I think the article hierchy might work better if you "Musical style and influences" Under a heading of "Music. Then use "Style and influence", "Videos and live performance", and "Discography" as sub headings.
    • You have references in the lead of the article, but you reference the same sentences later in the article. I would remove the references from the lead since it is redundant.
  • The length of the article is verging on being too long as well. It might be worth considering splitting off the Musical sections into a sub article if you are going to add much more to the article.

The article is a good read, and needs very little additional copy editing in my opinion. Referencing is solid, although I personally prefer to see more of the details of her life referenced back to biographical works rather than news articles. Biographical works tend to give a fuller picture than just occasional news snapshots. I don't think this referencing will cause you a problem though at FAC, provided you are able address the above referencing concerns. I have not reviewed each of the links to check the validity of the facts they are supporting, but someone at FAC will, so make sure they accurate. If you haven't already done so, I would recommend fully reading at least one biographical book on Madonna before you take the article to FAC just to ensure you are not leaving out anything noteworthy.

Hope this helps a bit. Sorry I didn't have time to conduct a very throughout a review, but these are the things that jumped out at me. Good job so far and keep up the good work! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Rebbie Jackson[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a short but comprehensive article that I feel could become a FA in the future. I feel that a peer review is needed first, to fix any problems that it may have.

Thanks, Pyrrhus16 18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and verifiable. I don't know enough about Rebbie Jackson to say whether it's comprehensive or not. I have quite a few specific suggestions, mostly about prose and style.

Lead

  • "The album featured songs written by Smokey Robinson, Prince and her younger brother Michael, the latter's contribution (the title track "Centipede") becoming Jackson's most successful single release." - Perhaps a bit stronger would be "The album featured songs written by Smokey Robinson, Prince and her younger brother Michael, whose contribution (the title track "Centipede") became Jackson's most successful single release."
  • "Following a ten-year hiatus from the music industry... " - 10-year for consistency?

1950–1967: Early life

  • "Father Joseph was a steel mill employee... " - Maybe just plain Joseph would be better since Father Joseph reads as "Catholic priest" at first glance.
  • Spell out R&B on first use and wikilink, thus: "Rhythm and blues (R&B)"?
  • "His wife Katherine is a... " - Katherine should be set off by commas unless Joseph has more than one wife.
  • "Under the faith, the family were not allowed to celebrate Christmas... " - "Family" is singular but "were" is plural. Either "family members were" or "family was" would be OK.

1968–1973: Marriage

  • "Katherine gave her daughter encouragement to proceed with the union... " - Tighten to "Katherine encouraged her daughter to proceed with the union... "?

1974–1983: Early career

  • Perhaps something is needed early in this section to explain what caused her to change her mind about a singing career.
  • "The initial run of the 30-minute programme... " - I think the U.S.-centric "program" would be more appropriate. Ditto for "programmes" a couple of sentences later.
  • "The shows were the first time that an... " - Maybe "marked" rather than "were" since a show is not a time.
  • "Prior to the series, Jackson had thought of singing as only a minor hobby she would partake in the privacy of her home." - Suggestion: "Prior to the series, Jackson had thought of her singing as merely a private hobby."
  • "The Jacksons influenced the female to become a professional recording artist; she had received support from the show's producer, who informed her that becoming a singer would be a good move for the talented woman." - Tighten to "The Jacksons motivated her to become a professional recording artist, and the show's producer encouraged her to sing."
  • "Jackson would serve as a backing vocalist for several musicians around this time, as well as a cabaret singer." - "served" rather than "would serve"? Wikilink backing vocalist? Wikilink cabaret?

1984–1985: Centipede

  • "reaching number 13 on Billboard's Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart and number 63 on their Top 200" - "its" rather than "their" since Billboard is singular?
  • "and was subsequently certified gold" - Wikilink certified gold?

1986–1997: Reaction and R U Tuff Enuff

  • "Duets were featured on the album, including one with Cheap Trick lead singer Robin Zander and another with Isaac Hayes." - Flip to active voice, thus: "The album featured duets, including... "?
  • "not released as a single, despite receiving substantial airplay" - Wikilink airplay?

1998–2008: Yours Faithfully

  • "believing that she had already been there and done that" - Slang.
  • "which features a rap by son Austin" - Wikilink rap?
  • "Aside from Austin, two of her other children featured on the album; Stacee and Yashi contributed backing vocals" - Tighten to "In addition, two of her other children, Stacee and Yashi, contributed backing vocals for the album"?
  • "A duet with Men of Vizion's Spanky Williams on The Spinners' "I Don't Want to Lose You" was also featured on the album." - Flip to active voice, thus: "The album also featured a duet... "?

2009–present: Death of Michael Jackson

  • I'd suggest dropping "present" from the head because it's not specific. "2009: Death of Michael Jackson" would be OK.
  • "and featured as finales group renditions of the Jackson anthems" - I'm not sure something can have more than one finale. Maybe "and the finale featured group renditions of the Jackson anthems" would be better.

References

  • "Terra Alta, WV" - I think it would be better to spell out West Virginia for readers outside North America.
  • Can the place of publication be added for the other two books in the "Bibliography" subsection?

Images

  • The lead image isn't bad, but 15kb is awfully small for a self-made photo. To head off doubts, you might search for other images. Perhaps an album cover and a fair-use rationale?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! All is either done or in the process of being done. Thanks again. Pyrrhus16 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

2007 Pan American Games medal table[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to re-nominate for FLC. This list need more detailed comments, to be improved.

Thanks, Cannibaloki 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The table looks good to me, but the prose and organization need more work to reach FA level. Here are suggestions for improvement.

  • I think the lead image would look better at 300px. Lead images are generally set to something larger than "thumb".

Lead

  • Since the lead should be a summary of the whole article, you need to include at least a mention of the doping scandal and the changes in standings. Also, I think you need to make clear in the lead that the medal count is the final count, not the pre-scandal count.

Changes in medal standings

  • Rather than repeating "medal", which appears in the article title, I'd suggest "Changes in standings" for the first main section head.
  • WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists says in part, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." For this reason, I'd suggest removing the bullets in the "Changes in medal standings" section and using straight prose. To keep from creating tiny orphan paragraphs, I'd combine the lead sentence with the Brazilian swimmer material, and I'd combine the final three bulleted items to make a second paragraph.
  • "After the games ended, doping scandals resulted in the stripping of medals from four athletes, thus affecting the medal standings." - This could be a better sentence if not passive. If PASO stripped the medals, the sentence could read, "After the games ended, the Pan American Sports Organization (PASO), responding to doping scandals, stripped medals from four athletes and changed the medal standings." If you adopt this form of the sentence, PASO does not have to be spelled out or linked on subsequent references.
  • "and was stripped of his four medals. She had won gold medals... " - "her" rather than "his"? Ditto in "Gusmão also lost his gold medal to Semeco... "? Gusmão was a woman, not a man, right?
I Googled her name and came up with enough to believe the answer is woman. She's referred to as a nadadora in a Spanish-language news article here. And here are photos. I think you can safely change the male pronouns to "her". Finetooth (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it would be good to add a third paragraph to this section to make clear exactly how the scandal changed the scores. That is, you could say what the score for Brazil was in each gold, silver, or bronze category before the scandal and what it was after the scandal. Ditto for any other country involved in the scandal.

Medal table

  • "The ranking in this table is based on information provided by the PASO and is consistent with International Olympic Committee (IOC) convention in its published medal tables." - I'm not sure what this sentence means. What convention? Do you mean the table format? Or do you mean that the IOC agreed with the PASO rankings? Perhaps, since an explanation of table conventions follows in the subsequent sentences, you could just truncate this first sentence to say, "The ranking in this table is based on information provided by the PASO and is consistent with International Olympic Committee (IOC) conventions."

References

  • Shouldn't the English translation in citation 5 say "PASO strips medals from four athletes" rather than "PASO stripped of medals from four athletes"?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Good enough now? Felipe Menegaz 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Better. I read through it again and made quite a few minor proofing changes that I'm sure would have stalled things at FLC. I found so many little things that I'm assuming I missed some. One more sweep by a fresh pair of eyes would be a good idea. Also, if you can find a successful Featured List sports editor to take a look, that might be helpful too. Finetooth (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Featured list criteria
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing. ?
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. ✓
  3. Comprehensiveness.
    • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. ✓
    • (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. ✓
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. ✓
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. ?
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process. ✓

The list currently meet the prose and style requirements? Felipe Menegaz 00:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Geraldk comments and suggestions for improvement as requested. This has come a long way, and is getting close to being at FL level. Some comments and nitpicky suggestions include:

 Done--Felipe Menegaz 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Reviewers are sure to comment that the images only include Brazilian athletes. Are there no other images available?
No. Felipe Menegaz 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I would suggest consolidating some of the citations such that each source only has one cite, for example by source 11 and 12 into one. It's OK for citations to reference multiple pages.
 Done--Felipe Menegaz 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Featured lists no longer use the '_______ is a list of' style - take a look at 1998 Winter Olympics medal table to see a better way of starting off a medal count list. Also, there's no need to mention that they are sorted by gold medals in the lead, as this is now the accepted standard on wikipedia, and you explain it at the top of the medal table.
Based on 2008 Summer Olympics medal table. Felipe Menegaz 15:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand that, but the style is deprecated, which is why the 1998 Winter Olympcis list, which was promoted more recently, has a different beginning to its lead. The 2008 medal table needs updating. Geraldk (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done--Felipe Menegaz 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Second sentence: 5,633 is a specific number, therefore 'approximately' is not applicable. Try 'In total,' or 'A total of' instead.
 Done--Felipe Menegaz 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Third sentence: it's unclear from your wording the difference between sports and disciplines. Maybe split this into two more descriptive sentences?
  • Fourth sentence: this sentence begs the question of why not all medals were awarded. Did they simply produce too many? Better to either explain it or not include it.
 Done--Felipe Menegaz 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fifth sentence: the wording of this makes for awkward punctuation. Maybe split into two sentences or reword?
 Done--Felipe Menegaz 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Eighth sentence (starts Netherlands Antilles...): not sure what you mean by, 'improved their position in the overall leader board', please explain. Also, countries like the Netherlands Antilles, the Bahamas, and the Cayman Islands are plural and should therefore have the word 'the' in front of them.
 Done--Felipe Menegaz 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In the changes in medal standings section, I would reverse the order to have the text first and the table second. That table, by the way, is something I haven't seen before in other medals tables and is an excellent idea.
Based on 2008 Summer Olympics medal table. Felipe Menegaz 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, I understand, but in general it is better to give some context to the table before throwing it at the readers. Geraldk (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done--Felipe Menegaz 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's all for now. Good work - keep it up! Geraldk (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment A few quick comments, this image needs to be fixed, because on my screen there is no colour where Bolivia is located, and it looks like there is a body of water where it should be. Also, would it be possible to add some images of non-Brazilian athletes? I only bring it up because with the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, there was a huge uproar because one image had two Americans in it. So some felt it was biased and it caused an edit war, until the image was replaced with one that had only one American in it. Also, you should add sume symbols to the table legend, rather than just using colour coding. ie. Add a * as well as the colour to indicate a first medal. -- Scorpion0422 02:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done--Felipe Menegaz 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It should be pretty much ready, but you optionally might want to wait a day or two to see if anyone wants to weigh in on the PR. Geraldk (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't wait... Felipe Menegaz 19:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, then go ahead and close the PR and nominate it. Geraldk (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it at WP:FLC and would like to receive creative feedback on what needs to be done to get it there. The article/list is modeled after the featured List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures). PS: I know that the lead needs expansion and I am currently rewriting and expanding it. bamse (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The main list is a most impressive piece of work, and I congratulate you on it. There are, however, several issues related to the article and its overall presentation. First, this is a "list", and as such is subject to different rules from tose that relate to a prose article. In particular, the text does not have to be comprehensive, and should contain only sufficient information to make the purpose of the list clear. You say you think the lead needs expanding; I would say it is plenty long enough as it is, and could possibly do with some pruning, in fact. Whether you decide to do that or not, there are numerous prose fixes required, which I have listed below. I have also done some punctuation and minor prose fixes myself.

  • Lead
    • The first sentence would read better if reworded and reorganised as, for example: "Religious paintings from the mainland first arrived in Japan in the mid-6th century, at the time of the introduction of Buddhism from Baekje."
    • "religious paintings like mandalas" sound weak. Suggest "religious paintings in the form of mandalas"
    • "An early example includes..." → "An early example is..."
    • "art form" is two words
    • Some date indications for the Muromachi period would be helpful
    • Similarly, for the Momoyama period
    • Citation required for first sentence of fourth paragraph
    • "dominant", not "dominating"
    • "most enduring" would be better than "longest lived"
    • What "previous trends" continued into the Edo period?
    • Last sentence of fourth paragraph needs a citation
      Japanese culture, H. Paul Varley, p. 223, [3]. ("The leading Japanese bunjin artists of the 18th century were..."). I'll add the ref later, when the copyediting is completed.
  • Fifth paragraph: I suggest this is separated from the lead and made into a section of its own entitled "Definition and criteria"
    • "These paintings..." Be more precise, as in "The paintings in this list..."
    • "The items are selected..." I think "have been" would be be more appropriate
    • "This list presents 157 entries of paintings,..." I would prefer to see "This list consists of 157 paintings,..."
      This would not be correct. There are 157 lines in the table (="entries"), however some of these entries consist of more than one painting (albeit related paintings under a common name). That's why there are more than 157 paintings in the list. bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The number of paintings is higher than what?
      See reply to previous item, "higher than 157" which is the number of entries (lines in the table).bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Statistics: second table. Would it be possible to align the numbers properly?
    I'll try. bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The notes under the Usage heading all relate to the main Treasures table, and should appear as notes under that table's heading, not in a separate section
    Not sure, after all the whole article is about the main treasures table, so everything relates to it. bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Treasures table
    • What is the rationale for the table's order? It would seem to me that chronological sequence would be the most logical default setting - is there a stronger reason for the present order?
      The order is the order used in the online-database. It traverses Japan roughly from North to South-West (as for the present location of the paintings). Ordering by date can be achieved with one click, so unless a it is a big deal I would not want to reorder items by date at this point. bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I notice that up to about 20 of the images are missing. Rather than leaving the cells blank it would be better to have a short note: "Image not available"
      I still hope to find images for these entries. Help welcome.bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I see that one of the images is a 50 yen postage stamp. This sits rather oddly with the others. A note of explanation, perhaps?
      Of course the postage stamp is not the treasure but the underlying artwork. Indeed it looks a bit out of place, but I did not find any better source, so I asked the experts from the photography workshop for help. bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      User:penubag was so nice to extract the painting from the stamp. bamse (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you are able to use these points to improve the list. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the thorough peer review. The lead section is just now being copyedited by User:Truthkeeper88. I'll reply to your comments that are not language related above. bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The lead section has been copyedited by User:Truthkeeper88 and all issues have been addressed. bamse (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo DSi[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to avoid nuisances at FAC.

Parallel review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Nintendo DSi

Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 02:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive to me, an outsider. It's stable, and reasonably well-written in most places, though I have some concerns, noted below, about prose and style issues. The images need alt text. The text is jargon-heavy in places, and this could be troubling for non-gamers who are trying to understand the subject. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

Images

  • Alt text for images is now a requirement for FA. It describes image content to readers who can't see the images and have to rely on machine read-outs of the text. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it, and you can see recent alt text in articles at WP:FAC.
  • The source link on the license page for Image:Dsi closed traced.svg is circular; that is, it says in effect, "the source of the image is the image". Fact-checkers need to be able to check the source in a context that will allow them to verify that the image is free, as claimed.

Lead

  • MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead says nothing about "Reception".
  • Wikilink iteration in the first sentence of the lead?

Development

  • "unveiled the console on October 2, 2008 during a Nintendo Conference in Tokyo" - Full dates like this one need a comma after the year; i.e., "October 2, 2008, during... ".
  • "its predecessors which was shared among multiple members of a household" - Subject-verb agreement: "were" rather than "was"

Demographic and sales

  • "After the success of its predecessor, the DSi is intended to help expand its market from "one DS per household" to "one DS per person".[17] Satoru Iwata, president and CEO of Nintendo, mentioned game consoles are shared by multiple members within a household. In order to narrow the gap between DS's owned per household and actual DS users per household, the company will attempt to make the DS a more personalized experience to appeal to each family member of a household." - I had a strange sensation of deja vu when I read this because it's repeated word-for-word in the lead and also because the idea of one console per person is also repeated in the "History" section. I'd suggest revising a bit for more variety and less repetition.

Hardware

  • "The console has two larger TFT-LCD screens at 3.25 inches, instead of the former 3 inches... " - In the "History" section, you use metric for the primary unit and convert to imperial for the secondary unit. Here you give the dimensions only in imperial. I think it's OK to stick with metric as the primary in this article, but you need to be consistent and to add conversions. I like to use the {{convert}} template for these because it spells and abbreviates correctly as well as doing the math.
  • "and it may be replaced by the user at the end of its useful life of approximately five hundred charge cycles" - "500" instead of "five hundred" for consistency?

Technical specifications and Features

  • "such as the main CPU and the RAM" - Spell out and abbreviate these terms on first use as you did with Game Boy Advance (GBA)?
  • Explain or link "Codec IC"?
  • Spell out and abbreviate MHz, MB, SD, SDHC, AAC, Wi-Fi, WEP, WPA for readers unfamiliar with the abbreviations?

Software library

  • "Both will utilize the DSi's camera." - "Use" is preferred to "utilize".
  • "The applications are either free, or cost 200, 500, or 800+ (marked with a "Premium" tag) points." - How much do the points cost?
  • "A DSiWare trial campaign offers 1,000 Points to each DSi that accesses its shop application." - "Accesses its shop application" is a bit mysterious and probably qualifies as jargon. Could this be rendered in plain English?

Reception

  • "The Nintendo DSi received mixed to positive reviews soon after its launch, with many websites and reviewers differing as to whether it is worth upgrading from the DS Lite." - "With" makes a weak conjunction. Suggestion: "The Nintendo DSi received mixed to positive reviews soon after its launch. Websites and reviewers disagreed about whether the upgrade from the DS Lite was worthwhile."
  • "significant new features, and is primarily a vehicle for DRM" - Another mystery abbreviation. Please spell out as well as abbreviate on first use.
  • "General opinion showed disappointment with the absence of the GBA slot, although it was considered a reasonable tradeoff for downloadable content and accessibility to an SD card that will differ based on user preference." - Dangling modifier? It's not entirely clear from this whether you mean that users will choose different SD cards or that they will differ about the absence of the GBA slot.
  • "Since this DS iteration has a similar overall design to and is similarly portable as its predecessor as well as add new features... " - Something's missing from this part of the sentence.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a lot were actually helpful. I expected such a detailed look (prose and style issues) at FAC, not the other way around. Thanks. « ₣M₣ » 16:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Senedd[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to try for the second (and hopefully last time) to get it through to Featured Article status. It has already had one Peer Review.

Thanks, Seth Whales (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are the possibilities I see for improvement:

  • The introduction should give some sense of its size. I was immediately curious, but couldn't get a good sense of it from the picture. It took me a while before I found the square footage buried under the heading of "second phase of construction."
  • The construction story is lengthy and dominates the article. I suppose that may be normal for a new building, but I would prefer to see some of this split out to a subarticle and summarized here. The first six sections could all be subsections under a single level 2 heading called "Construction," or sections of the subarticle.
  • The construction story should start by establishing the need for the building. On first reading, I completely missed the fact that the Welsh assembly is a new government and thought they were just moving to a new building.
  • If the building was so advanced and won so many awards, I would think that some engineering journal articles would have been written about it. I did not see any in the citations. Did you search for these?
  • Do you think Template:Infobox Modern building would be useful?
  • I believe the section "Building details" should be called "Architecture"?
  • The first sentence of the "National Assembly complex" confused me at first, because I didn't understand why the complex was relevant. I think it would be clearer to say "The Senedd is part of the National Assembly complex, along with..." to clearly establish the link.
  • The "National Assembly complex" could give more context of the site within the city. Is this downtown? A historic district? Is it accessible by public transit or highways? Close to hotels and restaurants? Rundown or vibrant?
  • I like to see article sections in order of importance, so I think that "Building Details"/"Architecture" should come first. The overbudgets and fatality will be forgotten with time, but the architecture will be used and remembered.
  • What was the media's and the public's reaction? A new seat of government usually gets people's attention, especially when it goes overbudget. So far the story is told as if lawyers and bureaucrats were the only ones who showed any interest in the building.
  • What's a "Cwrt"? Is that a Welsh word?

--Yannick (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Premiership of John Brownlee[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article's making its meandering way to WP:FAC, and I'd appreciate some help along the way. I know the prose isn't there yet, and I think I can fix that on my own given time, but I'd certainly appreciate comments from outside eyes on that front. Besides that, I'm especially interested in comments about how well context is established (i.e. is the article understandable to somebody with no knowledge of Alberta and maybe a passing acquaintance with Canadian government?), whether I keep an appropriate tone throughout (I probably don't), and whether the organization is intuitive. But really, all suggestions for improvement are welcome.

(A note on sourcing: I plan on diversifying the sourcing somewhat before FAC, but the Foster book is so indisputably the authoritative source on this subject that it's inevitably going to be leaned on heavily; most other "secondary" sources on the subject reference Foster's book extensively, so citing more from those would really only give the illusion of source diversity.) Steve Smith (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall[edit]

  • Remarks on first reading follow.
  • I've made a few minor tweaks, Steve, mainly around establishing a little more context.
  • I've never been to Alberta, I know nothing about it, and I know nothing about Canadian government. (My only visit to the American continent was a brief trip to Ontario to attend my brother's wedding.) If I were researching Brownlee, I would frown a little about the lede; it seems to present information chronologically, rather than in order of importance. I would think the first paragraph should encapsulate the whole subject in as few words as possible, i.e. mentioning the economic difficulties over which he presided and the controversy surrounding his resignation. (I do understand that you get to that very shortly; all I'm questioning is the order in which the information is presented.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Remarks on second reading follow.
  • I'm finding I have little to add. I want to commend you on dealing with political matters in a NPOV way; I can't tell from the article on which side (if any!) you fall.  :)
  • You're already well-aware of the referencing issue, so I won't belabour the point.
  • At some point on its journey to FA status, the article might benefit from a political map showing which areas of Alberta supported Brownlee and which opposed him.
  • It wasn't immediately clear to me that the UFA was a political party. Maybe this is because I need more coffee, but that could also benefit from some explanation, as well as identifying Brownlee's opposition parties more clearly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for your review. As you've gathered, I've made some modifications following from some of your comments. I'll see what I can do on the map front, though I may be at the mercy of somebody who, unlike me, isn't totally inept at these things. As for the UFA being a political party, the trouble is that it kind of wasn't. In the 1920s, the rules for what constituted a political party were somewhat less ironclad than today; I'm pretty sure anybody could have whatever they wanted stuck next to their name on the ballot. The UFA was actually primarily a lobbying organization and one that provided services to its members; I'm leery of stating outright that it was a political party, and I'm concerned that any kind of depth on the question of what the UFA was would be out of place in this article. But I'll put some more thought into it; thanks again for your review and kind words. Steve Smith (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Montana: The Movie (soundtrack)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to nominate it for GA in a couple of weeks, but I want to make sure the article is perfect and meets all the requirements. Anything is accepted: copy-editing, sources, etc. Please help with anything you can to make the album better.

Thanks, Ipodnano05 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments: The article looks very for good for the criteria, but I suggest one thing. I don't know what you call this bracket symbol: { but there are two references with that redundently cluttering it up. Otherwise then that, good luck for WP:GAN! ATC . Talk 02:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Liquidluck (talk) Lead

  • is a soundtrack for -> "the" soundtrack for
  • Perhaps make the difference between Cyrus and Montana more clear. For example, take out the parenthesis and say in the next sentence, "Songs performed by Cyrus were credited to both herself and to her movie character, "Hannah Montana".
  • mainly [...] Gerrard,the latter who ->primarily [...], Gerrard. Gerrard also produced Cyrus' hit "The Best of Both Worlds", a remix of which is featured as the album's closing track.
  • various nation -> various nations
  • Since it is an American album, shouldn't another country be listed as the highest international peak? You could say, "In the United States, the album spent a week at number one on the Billboard 200, thereby becoming Cyrus' fourth album to top the chart." The album also became Cyrus' first Top Country Albums number one in the U.S. Its highest international peak was (Blank). The soundtrack was certified platinum by the (blank) on (blank date).
  • copy-edited: The lead single from the album, "The Climb", became Cyrus' best charting single at the time. Cyrus' "Hoedown Throwdown" is the album's follow-up single and reached the top ten on the Irish Singles Chart. The album was promoted through exclusive releases to Radio Disney and live performances at numerous venues, notably Cyrus' first worldwide tour, the Wonder World Tour.

Writing and development

  • "The songs were written for the composers and eventually offered to Peter Chelsom, the film's director." This sentence is confusing, and it isn't sourced. Who are the composers? Why didn't the composers want them? If the songs weren't written by the composers, who were they written by?
  • The citation for Cyrus only wrote Don't Walk Away is only a track listing- it doesn't say who wrote the songs. You can delete the "Of her songs" clause, since Cyrus did not write any of the other songs on the album.
  • I think the fact that the Hoedown Throwdown was an ongoing collaboration between Jamal Simms, Chelsom, Cyrus, and the writers is a better fact to use. Replace?
  • Climb section: You only need one citation, at the end of "offered it to Cyrus". Also, who is Jon Mabe? It isn't mentioned.
  • Unless you know that Cyrus re-recorded Best of Both Worlds, just say "a remixed version of the BoBW... . I could be wrong, but I think remixes are usually done digitally rather than by re-recording.
  • Find a source that says the songs performed by BRC and Rushton were promotion; otherwise, just say they were featured on their own albums. If these songs were included in the movie, they definitely weren't used as promotion- they just happened to be selected.
  • Find a source that Crazier was intended for Fearless; the current source is just a track listing.

Music structure and lyrics

  • Copy-edited: Musically, the album is country heavy, but merges contemporary (contemporary what?), country pop, country rock,[2] and teen pop styles.[1]
  • Delete the on an interview with Just Jared sentence- it's unnecessary.
  • "making a beat from from" -> delete a from.
  • Change "throughout the week" to "in it's fifth week"

Nicely done on the rest, especially promotion. Overall, delink everything that has already been linked before, even if it was linked in the lead. The one exception would be song titles, esp. in the singles section. Image captions should be interesting facts related to the section, sort of tiny "did you knows?" per WP:CAP. Hope that helps! Liquidluck (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for all the help!! Did all that was requested. Please check and see if it's all right. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The ketogenic diet is a high-fat diet for treating epilepsy. It is currently a Good Article and I'd like to push it on towards FAC. I would like the article to be accessible to and interesting for the "general reader", who may not know much about epilepsy or human metabolism. So opinions from non-medical-experts are most welcome. I'm pretty confident in the quality of the sources and verifiability of the text. How's the balance of the article? Are some sections too long or short? Were some bits hard to follow or boring? Where is the prose not engaging or, worse, gramatically poor?

BTW: I typically review medical articles (currently got 2009 flu pandemic on my TODO list to look at) but if editors here want me to review their article in exchange, let me know and I'll be happy to have a look.

Thanks, Colin°Talk 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Seattle Sounders FC[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've exhausted all the resources I had been intending to use when adding content to the article. I believe it represents complete coverage of the topic and depending on the outcome of the peer review I intend to nominate it for WP:FA review in the near future.

Thanks, SkotyWATalk|Contribs 03:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

SENSOR-Pesticides[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it for a while, and I'm trying to be accountable and make it the best-quality article possible. I expanded and modified the page at the request of my supervisor, who is the head of the program. I've already posted a COI notice on the talk page. However, I firmly believe that the article is neutral and informative. Ultimately, our goal is to have the article reach GA or A-class status, so it's in our best interest to have it be balanced, informative, and good quality - I am NOT interested in creating a promotional piece!

I don't think it will need much copy-editing, but feel free to make any necessary grammatical changes. What I mostly need is commentary on content - whether there is too much or too little detail, whether more explanations or more sections are needed, if anything needs to be expanded or explained, etc. Obviously I encourage anyone with any knowledge or experience in medicine or surveillance to contribute. I also need input from anyone who is well-versed in Wikipedia guidelines or standards (as I am fairly new here).

All I request is that you detail any major changes you make so that I can have a chance to address them.

Thanks, Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Infamous (video game)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm looking to take this to a Featured article, and looking to get feedback on prose and the like. (Content is less an issue for this). I know I can segment the development section a bit more but any other suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks, MASEM (t) 06:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have not heard of this game before and do not write video / computer game articles. The content seems fine, but I agree the prose could use somework, and there are a few other MOS issues. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Prose needs some polish before FAC. Here are some examples from the first few sections:
    • Lead Is the second was needed (tighten prose): It was developed by Sucker Punch Productions and was published by Sony Computer Entertainment.
    • Fairly complicated sentence - could it be split into two to be clearer? Though the game's story follows Cole using his new abilities to restore some semblance of order to Empire City, the player is given several opportunities to use these powers for good or evil purposes in the game's Karma system, ultimately affecting character growth, the reaction of the City's populace towards Cole, and finer elements of the story.
    • word choice - inspired by sounds better than inspired from The desolate urban atmosphere was inspired from [by?] comics such as DMZ and No Man's Land, ...
    • "well receieved" is a bit more standard in The game was received well by the gaming press.
    • ... Radical Entertainment's Prototype, a video game released the following month with many similar elements of Infamous... would read better as something like ...Radical Entertainment's Prototype, a video game released the following month which had many elements similar to Infamous...
    • The Gameplay and Plot sections seem much better written
    • Development: missing phrase Infamous was developed by Sucker Punch Productions, with a team of 60 people working [on it] about three years.[7]
  • I know that plot sections do not need references, but should the Gameplay section have refs?
  • There are a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs (like the last one in Promotion and other products) and the Sequel section is only one sentence. Could these be combined with others or expanded to improve flow?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I made some copyedits to the first two sections to try and make the prose a bit smoother - please revert if I introduced errors or made things worse. Sorry I do not have time for more, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments The plot, gameplay and development sections seem long, the development section in particular. Though they are sourced, consider that the reader may become bored. Trimming is definitely needed in the development section. --Teancum (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


Jesus College, Oxford[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because getting this to FA would complete the set of bronze stars in the Featured Topic about the college, and I'd like some ideas as to what's still needed. It's a recent GA, following earlier delisting, and draws upon subsidiary FA/FL articles for some of its content. I'm particularly looking for thoughts as to what else the article should include, or whether it includes matters that it shouldn't (e.g. too much detail when there's a subsidiary article to look at).

Thanks, BencherliteTalk 16:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Drive by comments by Charles Edward

The article is a good read, and well referenced. It could stand for a light copy edit in places, but is certainly worthly of its current quality rating. A few things that jump out at me:

  • Getting a second set of eyes to perform a copy edit should clear up the last few prose issues. It is pretty close to being FA worthy though in its current state.
  • What is the significance of the grace section? Is a school prayer something common or noteworty and the school, or schools in the region?
  • I am similiarly curious about the silverware section. Is a silverware collection common in the region's schools? Or is this a special collection? If so, where it did come from, who started it, and where is it displayed?
  • I don't see any section discussing graduation rate, average student scores, and how the univierstity compares academically to other similiar or oxferd universities.

Overall this is a very good article. I don't see much to hold it back from passing a featured article review. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments. (By happy coincidence, one of the professors at the college is Thomas Charles-Edwards, with one notable alumnus being Thomas Charles Edwards, but I assume you're not related to either!)
I'll certainly get another pair of eyes to read it over before going to FAC.
I've always been unhappy about the "grace" section. I think it was probably included originally because the article on Oriel College, Oxford (which is an FA) has the college grace included. I'll have a look at shifting the text to another project.
Most of the Oxford colleges have decent silver collections, used on special occasions but not normally on display. This section could do with some more details, you're quite right. I ought to include that all of the plate owned by the college at the time of the English Civil War was given to Charles I to help with his fundraising in the fighting, and never replaced by his heirs!
I think your idea about an academic results section, or similar, is a good one - it would also be a good place to give a brief explanation of the relationship between an Oxford college and Oxford University itself. BencherliteTalk 14:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Could've Been You[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to see if it is written well and has all the possible criteria for a GA nomination.

Thanks, Kekkomereq4 (talk) 16:00, 422 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Liquidluck (talk)[edit]

Thanks for working on articles about older subjects, which I've always found are much harder. I would recommend visiting your local library to see if more information on this song is available in a book. I'm sure several Cher biographies have come out in the last 17 years. Onwards:

Lead

  • Billboard magazine says here that "Could've Been You" is a cover of a single released by Bob Halligan off his album Window in the Wall: "The only single released from the album was "Could've Been You" (later cut by Cher), which, Halligan dryly notes, "lasted three weeks at radio. It came out to the sound of one hand clapping.'" (He's referring to his own version there, not Cher's). This info should definitely and obviously be added to the article. The first sentence would change from "by American singer-actress Cher" to "popularized by American...".
  • Insert the names of the songwriters into the lead.
  • In early 1992 for only ->In early 1992 exclusively for the European market.
  • Remove "respectable" and "despite" from the sentence, per WP:PEACOCK. Simply say, "...mixed reviews from critics and peaked at number thirty-one on the UK Singles Chart. Love Hurts had already spent six weeks at number one at the time of the single's release." Also, say number one on what chart.
  • "This was due to the promotion that the single received, such as a Top Of The Pops appearance and various performance during the Love Hurts Tour in selected venue." to "Cher promoted the song through an appearance at a Top of The Pops concert and her Love Hurts Tour".

Song information

  • Per WP:SONGS, headers with the word song in them are discouraged, because it is assumed you're talking about the song. Change "Song info" to "Background".
  • Add info about the original Halligan version to this section.
  • "Asher who had previously worked with Cher on her..."
  • Change "latest" to the year, I.E., "her 1991 UK number one hit single, "The Shoop Shoop..."
  • You say the single was released twice; you should either state the time of the second release or make it clear that it was a release in a different format. If it is the latter, remove first and second, put a period before "while", delete while, and say "it was later released as a ______, with "Love and Understanding as its B-side."
  • wikilink B-side
  • You use " for inches; change those to the word "inch" and wikilink to Gramophone_record#Common_formats.
  • used for both covers

Music video

  • Change "music video" to "promotion"
  • The entire second half of the section is not sourced. It should be easy to find a book source for this.

Overall, read the article outloud to yourself to catch grammar errors- there are a good bit of them, but you should be able to get them all. Thanks again for working on the article, and good luck with GA!


Family Guy[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would want to see this artical move to fa but i lost ideas on how to improve it Thanks, Pedro J. the rookie 01:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I don't have the time to do a full review and suck at them anyway so I'll give a few points.

  • It looks good, much improved. After the PR I recommend you get a couple of people from the league of copy-editors to check the grammar etc.
  • "In 2009, a spin-off series The Cleveland Show, created by Seth MacFarlane, Mike Henry, and Rich Appel premiered on Fox. The series is currently in its eighth season, which premiered on September 27, 2009." Change "The series" to "Family Guy" to avoid confusion that The Cleveland Show is in its eighth season. Done
  • "In 2009, it was nominated for an Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series. This was a significant accomplishment considering that the last animated program to be nominated was The Flintstones in 1961 and that The Simpsons has never been nominated in this category." This is kinda self-serving but I do think it could be briefly mentioned that The Simpsons was submitted for the Comedy Emmy in 1993 and '94 but the Academy dinosaurs were hesistant to nominate a cartoon and subsequantly the staff gave up. If included, there are sources for this on season 4 page.
  • Hallmarks section seems short, cut it be merged it a larger section? I don't know.
  • Some of the references need to be fixed. Ref 67 needs Family Guy to be unlinked for example. There needs to be some co-ordination in linking: Tv Guide is linked, Manchester Evening News isn't.
  • Ref 73 and 74 are not formatted properly.
  • Reference title should not be in capital letters, even if they actual title is. Done

Overall it seems a fairly balanced article. Gran2 14:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Some comments from  Chzz  ► 

  • Sort out the references; the formatting and information is inconsistent - e.g. date formats, some are "November 23, 2008" some are "2009-10-03". And ref. 83 in particular, "^ "TV: Breaking Down the List". 'Entertainment Weekly' (#999/1000): 56. June 27 & July 4, 2008." - why is EW in bold? Ref.1 has some odd bold going on too, and lacks date/author etc. Refs 73, 74 have no details at all. References are vital for progressing towards FA - they all need attention, to use a consistent style and to add as much detail as possible.
  • frequent "cutaway gags" - why the quotes? Done
  • Re. video references, what actual broadcast are you referencing here? You may be giving the yahoo link as a 'convenience link', but what, exactly, is this reliable source? ie who broadcast it, when, etc...
  • It needs lots of copyedit. For example, Family Guy has also been challenged with negative criticism, including three notable lawsuits and low reviews... - 'notable' according to whom, and what is a 'low review'? An unfavourable review? I won't pick holes through all of it, but I suggest getting as much copyediting done as possible - it certainly needs attention before approaching FA. I always recommend having a go through User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. The Family Guy writing crew plot episode ideas together and decide which characters to use. - I had to read that about 4 times before I could work out what it meant; it could be "The (Family Guy writing) (crew plot)" ...etc.

*Infobox, picture format says about 2010 - is this really appropriate, as obviously it hasn't happened yet

  • "Hallmarks" is an odd name for that section; perhaps "Recurring themes", or something more descriptive
  • It is more of an sofistacated name for the same thing--Pedro J. the rookie 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • External links to imdb, yahoo, etc - do these really add any information that could not be included (per WP:EL)?
  • yes, they do --Pedro J. the rookie 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • he replied "Make it a little less [...] annoying...and speed it up, or every episode will last four hours". - is there any reason why the first cedilla is in parentheses?

*Mort Goldman, his wife Muriel Goldman and their geeky and annoying son Neil - all 3 of those characters are redirects onwards to the same place, viz. List of characters in Family Guy#The Goldmans. If they are unlikely to get their own articles in the immediate future, then this really is a case of excess links to the same place within a section. Done *Skyline images, alt tags, a) don't make sense - reduces in width as the stories are higher, and the right is comes to a point and b) the second one is not An animated version - it's not a moving image. Done

  • Also, the above probably don't need a forced image size; thumbnail size (selected by the reader) should be fine. That's true of almost all images.

*"Characters" the latter part of this is unreferenced. (Also, just a mention, there is an odd ")" there; ...Quagmire".[63]) Loretta Brown... should prob. be ...Quagmire)."[63] Loretta Brown..."  Done

  • (I know I said that I wouldn't pick on grammar, but...) In a majority of the episodes of Family Guy, the plot will be interrupted by a cutaway segment. -> In the majority of episodes, the plot is interrupted... Done

Please note, the above is not a comprehensive review; there's lots that I didn't check out and comment on. I am not saying that "If you fix all these things, it'll be fine as an FA" - they're suggestions, and designed to be examples of the areas that can be improved. I suggest getting lots of copyedit, and working hard on the references, and then getting further feedback via another peer review or something, before going for FA. Hope this helps; I know it's critical, but then...that's what to expect when you ask for a review - don't take anything personally, and I wish you the very best in developing the article. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I agree with the comments made above and think this needs a fair amount of work before it is ready for FAC.

  • The hardest criteria for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. I am not going to point out every place where this needs to be xopy edited, but find someone to give this a thorough cleanup. See WP:WIAFA
  • There are also numerous WP:MOS issues - the creator's full name should be spelled out once in the lead and perhaps once in the artcle body (both first occurrence) then just referred to as MacFarlane.
  • done--Pedro J. the rookie 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Provide context for the reader - if someone had never seen the show how would they work out who was who in the lead in The series centers on the Griffins, a dysfunctional family consisting of Peter, Lois, Meg, Chris, Stewie, and their pet dog Brian. (only the dog is identified by role) Try to think of a few words to describe each character so perhaps "overweight, dimwitted father Peter" (taken from his article)
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing, again Seth MacFarlane is linked multiple times in the article and only needs to be linked once in the lead, once in the body (first time each place) and in the infobox.
  • Avoid words like now or currently, as they can become outdated quickly. So Family Guy is currently in its eighth season, which premiered on September 27, 2009. could be something like The eighth season of Family Guy premiered on September 27, 2009.
  • done--Pedro J. the rookie 21:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Some WP:WEIGHT issues in the lead - this is an article on Family Guy, so we need to know the creators of The Cleveland Show in the lead?
  • done--Pedro J. the rookie 21:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Also the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. But Rich Appel seems to only be in the lead.
  • This sentence did not make sense to me - is it from a version before the eighth season began? Family Guy returned to production in 2004, making four more seasons (for a total of seven) and a straight-to-DVD special, Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story.
  • Try to avoid needless repetition - the series threatened cancellation in season two, actual cancellation in season three and renewal are told in both the history and the Production issues sections. Could these be combined?
  • Reading this it seemed clear to me that the authors really like the show and do not like the Simpsons as much - while there is nothing wrong with those opinions, they mean that the article needs to be polished for WP:NPOV concerns.
  • I would also look at WP:IN-U, though that seems not to be a major problem here.
  • Agree that refs need to be cleaned up - for FAC every single detail of every aspect of the article has to be as good as possible

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Hurricane Rick (2009)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've thoroughly searched the topic and believe it is as comprehensive as it can get with the available information. There is one source that will not be available for several months, the Tropical Cyclone Report from the National Hurricane Center; however, I would like to iron out any issues beforehand so there is less to fix prior to a GAN to incorporate this article in the Category 5 Pacific hurricanes featured topic.

Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems broad in coverage, well-illustrated, neutral, stable, and verifiable. However, the prose will probably not pass GA in its present state, and I see a few Manual of Style issues. Here are quite a few specific suggestions for improvement.

Lead

  • "combination of an eyewall replacement cycle" - Wikilink eyewall replacement cycle?
  • "By October 19, the storm was downgraded to a Category 3 hurricane and the following day, rapid weakening led to the once Category 5 hurricane to be downgraded to a tropical storm." - Tighten to "By October 19, the storm was downgraded to a Category 3 hurricane and the following day to a tropical storm"?
  • "the NHC initially forecated Rick" - Spelling.
  • "However, following the rapid weakening, the hurricane watches were replaced by tropical storm warnings." - Suggestion: "Tropical storm warnings replaced the hurricane watches after the storm had weakened."

Images

  • Images need alt text for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it.

References

  • Citation 52 has a dead link.

Meterological history

  • "Around 2:00 pm PDT (2100 UTC), the NHC declared that the low had developed into a tropical depression, the twentieth of the 2009 Pacific hurricane season." - "Twentieth" should be 20th for consistency.
  • "Upon being declared, the depression featured well-developed outflow, extending out all directions." - Tighten to "The storm featured well-developed outflow in all directions"?
  • "Environmental conditions in the path of the system were exceptionally favorable for rapid development, consisting of low wind shear, high moisture content and above average sea surface temperatures." - Dangling modifier. Suggestion: "Environmental conditions consisting of low wind shear, high moisture content and above average sea surface temperatures in the path of the system were exceptionally favorable for rapid development".
  • "Deep convection had begun wrapping around the center of the system, an early indication of an eye forming." - Dangling modifier. Suggestion: Deep convection, an early indication of an eye forming, had begun wrapping around the center of the system".
  • "A possible outer eyewall, a second eye larger than the first that notes the beginning of an eyewall replacement cycle, was noted at this time." - Perhaps "that often forms at" rather than "notes"?
  • "At 3:10 pm PDT (2210 UTC), the NHC issued their second special advisory for Rick... " - "its" rather than "their"?
  • "It should be noted, however, that the pressure was not directly measured as Reconnaissance missions by Hurricane Hunter aircraft... " - Lowercase "reconnaissance" and tighten to "The pressure was not directly measured as reconnaissance missions by Hurricane Hunter aircraft.. "?
  • "were not done due to distance from land" - "were not done because the storm was far from land"?
  • "Rick maintained its peak intensity for roughly two hours, estimated by the NHC to have taken place between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm PDT (0200 and 0400 UTC) on October 17, before it began to weaken in response to an eyewall replacement cycle and increasing wind shear." - Dangling modifier. Suggestion: "Rick maintained its peak intensity for roughly two hours. NHC estimated that the peak occurred between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm PDT (0200 and 0400 UTC) on October 17, before the storm began to weaken in response to an eyewall replacement cycle and increasing wind shear."
  • "Wind shear and dry air quickly entered the core of the system, with the eye disappearing from satellite imagery later that morning." - Suggestion: "Wind shear and dry air quickly entered the core of the system, and the eye disappeared from satellite imagery later that morning."
  • "During the evening of October 19, the center of Rick became devoid of convective activity, resulting in the NHC downgrading it to a tropical storm." - Tighten to "During the evening of October 19, Rick's center lost convective activity, and the NHC downgraded the disturbance to a tropical storm."
  • "Upon Rick becoming a Category 4 hurricane, officials in Mexico raised the alert level in Guerrero, Jalisco and Michoacan to severe... " - Suggestion: "When Rick became a Category 4 hurricane, officials in Mexico raised the alert level in Guerrero, Jalisco and Michoacan to severe... "
  • "the alert was upgraded to a yellow alert for the municipalities" - Tighten to "the alert was upgraded to yellow for the municipalities"?
  • "The Sapphire Princess rescheduled its travel plans, remaining near San Francisco, California for several... " - Comma after California.
  • "fresh water flooding from the anticipated 3 to 6 in (76 to 150 mm) of rain... " - Hyphenate fresh-water flooding. Spell out primary unit, inches.
  • "Although several hundred miles from land, wind gusts up to 40 mph (65 km/h) were felt along coastal areas in Michoacan." - The wind gust weren't several hundred miles from land. Suggestion: "Although the storm was several hundred miles from land... ".
  • "Reports near the city also indicated that there was structural damage and significant traffic issues from rain-induced mudslides." - Strengthen to "Reports from near the city also indicated that rain-induced mudslides had caused structural damage and significant traffic problems"?

United States

  • "Although no longer a tropical cyclone, remnant moisture from Rick greatly... " Dangling modifier. Remnant moisture was not a tropical cyclone. Suggestion: "Although Rick was no longer a tropical cyclone, its remnant moisture... ".
  • "Great plains" should be "Great Plains".
  • "peaking at 9.34 in (237 mm) within a concentrated area" - Spell out "inches".
  • "The magnitude of the rainfall was a bit of a surprise." - Direct quotations need a citation immediately after the end of the quote.

Records and intensity forecasts

  • "The storm also became the thirteenth cyclone of this intensity east of the International Date Line since records in the Eastern Pacific began in 1949." - "13th" for consistency?
  • "Upon being declared a tropical depression on October 15, computer forecasting models already anticipated the likelihood of rapid intensification due to the unusually favorable environmental conditions ahead of the system." - Dangling modifier. The models weren't declared a tropical depression. Suggestion: "When Rick was declared a tropical depression on October 15, computer forecasting models had already anticipated the likelihood of rapid intensification due to the unusually favorable environmental conditions ahead of the system."
  • "The official forecast from the NHC by their second advisory stated... " - "in its second advisory was"?
  • "however, they mentioned that due to the favorable environment... " - "It" rather than "they". Or, if that sounds strange, "officials mentioned".
  • "the NHC increased their forecast peak intensity... " - "its" rather than "they"
  • "The first mention of Rick possibly becoming a Category 5 hurricane was in the seventh discussion released by the NHC on October 17." - Strengthen to "The seventh NHC discussion, released on October 17, was the first to mention that Rick might become a Category 5 hurricane"?
  • "In their advisory, it was noted that the storm had a 10% chance of reaching this intensity within 36 hours." - The advisory noted that the storm... "?
  • "Upon attaining winds of 180 mph (285 km/h), the NHC forecast Rick to peak with winds of 185 mph (295 km/h), tying the record intensity of Hurricane Linda in 1997." - Dangling modifier. The NHC didn't attain winds of any speed. Suggestion: "After Rick attained winds of 180 miles per hour (285 km/h), the NHC forecast the storm to peak... ". Spell out "miles per hour".

I hope these suggesions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Nicholas Mayall[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like it to be either a Good Article or a Featured Article, whichever is thought to be more appropriate.

Thanks, WilliamKF (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Review by Ruslik.
  1. The article has good sources and is comprehensive, but needs a copy-edit.
    Submitted request for copy-edit. WilliamKF (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. For instance, I do not understand what glass disk in Pasadena that was planned to test the 200-inch (5.1 m) Palomar mirror means.
    The cite states: In Pasadena he had seen the 120-inch glass disk originally intended for testing the 200-inch Palomar mirror, then nearly finished in the Caltech optical shop. So I believe it means that the glass was used to test the shape of the mirror. WilliamKF (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    Found this: You make the mirror out of a plate glass disk or Pyrex glass disk. WilliamKF (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    Fixed myself. Ruslik_Zero 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  3. The last section (Retirement) should be expanded to include information about his death and the place of burial (and also about his wife's death).
    Added info on spreading his ashes and death from diabetes. WilliamKF (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  4. I think that at some places there are to many inline citations—5 at the end of Kitt Peak National Observatory section.
    Another reviewer indicated I needed more citations to become a Good Article. I'm inclined to leave them, I reduced a few though. WilliamKF (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  5. After copy-edit the article can easily become featured.
Ruslik_Zero 09:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Maryland Toleration Act[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm interested in developing this article further, and perhaps nominating it for FA at some point. Any and all suggestions are welcome, especially advice on references, MoS stuff I may have missed, and any potential areas for expansion.

Thanks, Geraldk (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Comments:

  • The references seem appropriate, though you need accessdate and publisher parameters for the Act ({{cite book}} doesn't strike me as the best template to use under the circumstances - maybe {{cite web}}?).
  • There are some potential dangling modifiers. An example: "...was a law passed on September 21, 1649, by the assembly of the Maryland colony that mandated religious toleration for trinitarian Christians." In this case I'd suggest splitting into a couple of sentences: "...was a law mandating religious toleration for trinitarian Christians. It was passed..."
  • The prose seems to have a mild case of thesaurusitis as well as a little bit of bloat. I'd be happy to undertake a copyedit if you'd like, though my copyedits tends to be fairly substantive, so I like to ask permission before I do them.

More later. Steve Smith (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's pretty typical of my first stab at writing an article. I'd love a thorough copyedit if you're willing to do it. Will work on the citation and dangling modifiers. Thanks for the review! Geraldk (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You asked for it - please do take note of that edit's summary. More points:

  • "the first law requiring religious toleration" - In the thirteen colonies? The world? Maryland?
clarified. Geraldk (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason that "toleration" is used instead of "tolerance" (in the article, I mean, not in the description of the act). They're synonymous, but "toleration" strikes me as a little obscure, maybe even archaic.
good point, fixed now. Geraldk (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "...the chronicler of their first settlement was a Catholic priest." This leaves me scratching my head. Is the chronicler of the first settlement just a guy who wrote the history of it? If so, what's his relevance in this paragraph?
I just mentioned him to emphasize the Catholicism of the early settlers. Have reworded the sentence so it's hopefully a little less blunt. Geraldk (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "He also asked the Catholics to practice their faith within reason..." Were "within reason" Calvert's words? If so, they should be quoted; if not, a clearer wording might be chosen.
They weren't, they were mine, I've changed it to, 'as privately as possible', which is closer to what Brugger says. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I find myself curious about how protestants seized control of Maryland. Would a brief explanation of that - possibly less than a sentence - be out of this article's scope?
I've reworked this entire section to go into more detail. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "The punishments included in the law for non-Christians were not idle threats." This statement is followed by an example of somebody being charged with an offense and then not being punished, which seems to weaken it.
clarified. Geraldk (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Given the persecution suffered by Catholics in England at the time, the act was a profound step towards religious tolerance." I'm concerned that this might be POV if not attributed.
changed to quote Brugger. Geraldk (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "despite its lack of a full guarantee of religious freedom or broad-based tolerance, the law it is significant as a first step in the establishment of religious freedom in the United States." This too.
changed to quote Finkelman. Geraldk (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty good, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a bronze star in its future. As far as broadness goes, I don't see any glaring deficiencies. It would be nice to learn more about its application, as the only case we're given is one in which charges are dismissed. I'm also curious as to why the Act wasn't re-instated by Calvert in the 1700s, in view of the persecution of Catholics. But overall, this is an interesting, informative, and clear article. Steve Smith (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Skye[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a stable GA for a while and I am intending an FA attempt but am a little rusty.

Thanks, Ben MacDui 16:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This has improved a lot since I reviewed it for GA, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

  • The lead is OK as is, but seems a bit sparse to me - this may just be personal style, but could it be expanded a bit?
  • Avoid use of words like today / now/ current as they can become outdated, so in the lead, could the actual year of the data be given instead of "today" in The events of the 19th century had a devastating impact on the human population, which today numbers around 9,200.
  • Wikipedia:MOS#Percentages suggests spelling out per cent instead of using the symbol (except in tables)
  • Should the inside or outside quotation marks be consistent in such as the "winged isle" or "the notched isle"[8]?
  • This just seems awkward, but I am not able to suggest a good way to rewrite it In the Norse sagas Skye is called Skíð, for example in the Hákonar saga Hákonarsonar saga[14] and a skaldic poem in the Heimskringla from c. 1230 which contains a line that translates as "the hunger battle-birds were filled in Skye with blood of foemen killed".[15]
  • Also wonder if the metric equivalent can somehow be added / noted in ...and W. H. Murray that "Skye is sixty miles [(100 km)] long, but what might be its breadth is beyond the ingenuity of man to state".[1] I tried adding it in square brackets, but that looks odd. In a separate footnote perhaps?
  • In Prehistory, should Neolithic be linked?
  • Same section, could a clearer indication of the location of Sand be given, perhaps something like ...occupation is probably linked to that of the rock shelter [on the mainland] at Sand, Applecross on the coast of Wester Ross.
  • Is there anything else that could be added on Norse rule? Skye is mentioned in Etymology for example
  • WP:HEAD says not to use characters like & in headers, so change Clans & Scottish rule to Clans and Scottish rule
  • I think there needs to be more context provided for the reader in some places - for example, in the Clans section a brief explanation of the clans and how they actually ruled in Skye would help, or the Clearances section never really explains what was going on in the clearances (though it is wikilinked) or what crofters were
  • Or in Overview of population trends (could this just be Population trends?) say explicilty that people moved off the land (small farms / crofters) and into villages
  • History section seems very sparse in terms of 20th century events
  • WP:MOS#Images says that pictures of faces should look into the text if at all possible, so could the picture of Charles Kennedy MP be right justified instead?
  • It also says not to sandwich text between images, but the Skye Bridge photo and the Cuillin ridge from Portree harbour photo form a sandwich on my monitor
  • The Transport section has two paragraphs in a row that start with the Skye Bridge linking the island to the mainland - watch WP:OVERLINKing (it is linked once in each paragraph) and could these be combined somehow? Perhaps start with the ferries, then go on to the bridge?
  • The Culture section (but not The Culture of another Scot) starts with three one-sentence paragraphs - could these be combined or expanded to improve flow in the article?
  • Give years or centuries for the two long quotes in the Wildlife section
  • The {{Panorama}} template might be a nicer way to display File:Loch Fada Storr Skye restitch 2007-08-22.jpg
  • I read this with some distractions (so it might just be that) but it seemed to need a better flow from section to section in places - more of a collection of interesting facts and less a coherent whole than it probably shopuld be for FAC.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Colin

A good article. I haven't studied the sources but here's some comments I made as I read:

  • Not sure the comment on the Gaelic name is important enough for the lead paragraph.
  • "The events of the 19th century" -- Immediately wondering "what events". Could you say here "famine and the clearances"?
  • "today" probably should be "as of 20XX". Or rephrase to be "In the XX years since the census of 1991..."
  • "now linked" drop the now. If you want to indicate how recent, then say "since XXXX,"
  • I would question "abundant wildlife". Is there more wildlife on those barren hills than any other rural part of Scotland?
  • Is the lead an adequate summary of the article, or just an introduction with a few select facts?
  • "Etymology" wouldn't be my first choice of section. It is an erudite subject to lead with. Possibly too much weight given to this aspect compared to others.
  • The article isn't consistent wrt Clan Leod, Clan MacLeod, Clan Donald, Clan MacDonald.
  • Some passive voice coupled with indirect facts: "In April 2007 it was reported in the media that the island's official name..." and "On 21 December 2004 it was announced that the Scottish Executive had purchased the bridge".

Colin°Talk 20:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. Ben MacDui 18:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Grammatical number[edit]

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

I am concerned about the reliability of the sources cited for verification.

Thanks, Eldin raigmore (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of references by Charles Edward

Since you have only requested a review of the referencing, that is all I will review. You are correct to question it, because it is almost non-existant as far as WP:Citation is concerned. As a rule of thumb, each new fact, statistic, and paragraph should end with an inline citation. So in short, this article is almsot entirely without those citations, and the ones being used are not very good. Also see WP:RS.

  • Ref #1 in my opinion this is a valid reference. It is third party and has a reliable publisher.
  • Ref #2 is not acceptable, the publisher is not a reliable source. If the document can be found elsewhere it could be used
  • Ref#3 and #4 are acceptable, two good book sources. This is the best kind of source for an article like this.
  • Ref#5 is a wiki!! a totally unacceptabel source that should be removed. Not reliable at all.
  • Ref#6 is ok.
  • Ref#7 is marginally ok. There is bound to be better though
  • Ref#8 is ok
  • Ref#9 is ok
  • In bibliography there are many books which are listed, but have no citation within the article. If they have been used to source the article, inline citations need to be added. Otherwise they need removed from the bibliography section and could be put in a further reading section instead.

Advice on how to improve the referencing

  • I would get one of the books listed in the bibliography and read it. Then go through the article and add citations to page number (and correct innaccurate information) to bring the referencing quality up.
  • Right now you should have aroung fifty inline citations for an article of this length. The Quadral section is currently the only section that has proper inline citation usage
  • The references are also not entirely formatted correctly. I recommend using a "cite" template since that takes care of the syntax for you.

I hope this awnsers your questions and give you a direction to help improve the article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Eldin raigmore (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mary Pickford filmography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Mary Pickford is one of the great pioneers of cinema. She warrants an outstanding filmography page. I'd like to make this a featured list. Can anyone offer any suggestions on how to improve it?

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to be so long a wait for this PR. This looks pretty good to me and I am glad to see something this nicely done on one of the giants of the screen. Here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • Oh, I don't think they're nitpicky.
  • WP:LEAD says the lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs - can the last fifth paragraph be combined with the current fourth one?
    • The lead is now condensed to three paragraghs.
  • I also think the lead could benefit from some added context, for example could the years be added so the reader knew from the lead when she was at a particular film company? So for example Initially with the Biograph film company, she moved to the Independent Motion Picture Company (IMP) in 1911, then briefly to the Majestic Film Company late that same year, followed by a return to Biograph in 1912.[4] or something similar. See WP:PCR
    • Changed per your suggestions.
  • I also wondered if the headers should all have years as is already done for some - the TOC seems like it would be more useful to me with them in than as is without for most.
    • Also changed per your suggestions.
  • I would also make it clear in the lead that though she was Canadian, her work was in Hollywood (presumably) / America.
    • I changed this to read: Pickford was born in Toronto and began acting on stage in 1900. She began her film career in the United States in 1909.[3]
  • Is it "United Artist" as in In 1919 Pickford teamed with D.W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, and Douglas Fairbanks to create United Artist, an organization designed .. or "United Artists" as in She sold her stock in United Artists in 1956.[2]?
    • It's "United Artists". My mistake, now fixed.
  • When was she awarded her star on the Walk of Fame?
    • I've been unable to find an exact date. The Hollywood Walk of Fame went into construction in 1960 and over 1000 names were added during that initial construction period, which I believe lasted about 16 months. There was no official ceremonies for these first stars. Pickford was probably among them. In the Charlie Chaplin filmography, which has now acheived featured list status, I mentioned that he received a star on the Walk of Fame but give no year.
  • Would it make sense to give an approximate running time for typical one-reelers and split-reelers?
    • In the brief intros to each of the sub-sections in the "Shorts" sections, I have one-reelers linked to the Wikientry on reels. I think that should work.
  • Suggest a change to All of Pickford's 1910 Biograph releases are one-reelers and directed by D.W. Griffith, except where noted. I looked for notes on things that were not one reelers
    • I added a notes column to all of the short films.
  • Awkward In December 1910 Carl Laemmle signed Pickford to his Independent Motion Picture Company (IMP) where she received an increased salary from what Biograph paid her and also star billing.[16]
    • I shorted this to simply: In December 1910 Carl Laemmle signed Pickford to his Independent Motion Picture Company (IMP). I think the salary business short be in the main bio of Pickford, but unneccessary for the filmography.
  • I have no idea what State rights are in film ditribution - is there a link or note that can be added? The earliest features she made for Zukor were released in the United States through regional organizations on a State rights basis.[19]
    • An explaination to State rights is now given.
  • Pickford starred in only four sound films before retiring from acting but list gives FIVE films as actress??
    • One of these was not completed and is now noted as such.
  • Can a better Header than "Addendum" be found? "Cameos and errors" perhaps? Or a Cameos section and an errors section?
    • Retitled: "Cameos and erroneous credits"
  • Some web refs have retrieved dates, others do not
    • Corrected.
  • On closer examination, while the book refs seem fine for the level of detail provided, the web refs do not. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
    • Corrected.

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 ><>°° 00:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Care to take another look? Jimknut (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Cavalera Conspiracy[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to nominate this article for featured article candidacy, but I think in its current state, this article does not meet adequately the requirements listed in the featured article criteria page.

Thanks, Cannibaloki 17:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This generally looks good to me. With the exception of the lead, it's well-written, nicely illustrated, and interesting. However, it might not be comprehensive, and I'm not sure that things like Blabbermouth.net qualify as reliable sources. I made a couple of minor proofing changes, and here are some observations that might be helpful.

Sources from Blabbermouth.net were removed.--Cannibaloki 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I wanted to know why some of the band members, including Igor, wanted Gloria to leave the band. Igor must have known that Max wouldn't like this idea. What was the reason for this drastic move?
  • I couldn't help noticing some exact repetition of sentences in the lead and the main text. Here's one: " ...after a sold-out show at London's Brixton Academy, Igor, guitarist Andreas Kisser, and bassist Paulo Jr. told Max they wanted to replace numerous members of the band's staff, including his wife Gloria." Here's another that's almost an exact copy: "Igor appeared on the Sepultura's next four studio records before leaving in January 2006 to work on his DJ project, Mixhell, and spend more time with his family." Here's another: "Inflikted, named after the band's original moniker, was released through Roadrunner Records on 25 March 2008." I'd suggest re-writing the lead so that it summarizes without exactly repeating.

Background

  • "before leaving in January 2006 to work on his DJ project" - Would it be helpful to spell out and/or link DJ? DJ also appears in the lead.

Inflikted

  • "Max also said that he talked to Rizzo about going back to the roots of the mid-1980s thrash metal... " Thrash metal should be wikilinked here rather than lower down in the article.
  • "Inflikted, named after the band's original moniker" - Wikilink moniker or use "nickname"? The word "moniker" also appears in the lead.
    • Done.
  • "The Infliktour supporting the debut album began on 30 May 2008, where Cavalera Conspiracy played their first official concert at... ". - Use "when" instead of "where"? Use "its" instead of "their"? In other words, "The Infliktour supporting the debut album began on 30 May 2008, when Cavalera Conspiracy played its first official concert at... ".
  • "During their tour, Cavalera Conspiracy... " - its tour?

General

  • Would it be possible to add information about album sales or any other statistics related to the band's popularity?
    • Added Billboard 200 chart and US sales.--Cannibaloki 05:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Has anyone published a critical review of the band's music? Do music critics have anything to say about Calavera Conspiracy?
    • See the section "Inflikted".--Cannibaloki 05:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What are the lyrics like? What themes run through them?
  • Has the band won any awards?
    • I think not.--Cannibaloki 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful.

Finetooth (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Blackburn[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a year ago this article failed GA and now a year later I would like to see what has been improved on this article and to see if it could go for GA again soon. As a member of WP: Lancashire and Cumbria this article is a top priorty article under our scope, and it would be great to see it go to GA.

Thanks, 93gregsonl2 (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is certainly broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and well-illustrated. It lacks sourcing in a few places, and it has a few problems with prose (mostly minor) and layout. It seems close to GA to me, but if I were the GA reviewer I'd insist on a few more fixes. I did not do a sentence-by-sentence critique: even so, I have quite a few suggestions for further improvement.

  • The link checker tool in the upper right corner of this review page finds two dead links in urls and is having trouble connecting to several of the others, mainly the cotton town links.
  • The images lack alt text, meant to explain the image content to readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
  • The dabfinder tool finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
  • "MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead doesn't mention many of the lower sections such as landmarks, sports, community facilities, and education.
  • "Whilst" and "amongst" are a bit archaic. The preferred words are "while" and "among".
  • The Manual of Style advises against wikilinks in direct quotations. WP:MOSQUOTE says, "Unless there is an overriding reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." The George C. Miller quote has links in it as does the quote from John Bartholomew's Gazetteer.
  • "Blackburn. parl. and mun. bor., par. and township, NE. Lancashire, 9 miles (14 km) [14 km]" - The conversions in this quote look odd. I'm guessing that the bracketed conversion is what you want since it's probably not in the original and that the conversion in parentheses is a mistake. A similar pattern recurs in the next sentence.
  • "This decline occurred more rapidly in areas closer to the centre of Blackburn, with handloom weavers continuing to make up a sizeable portion of the workforce in outlying rural areas." - I'd be wary of sentences that use "with" as a conjunction. They often sound better when re-cast slightly. Suggestion: "This decline occurred more rapidly in areas closer to the centre of Blackburn, while handloom weavers continued to make up a sizeable portion of the workforce in outlying rural areas.
  • Date ranges and pages ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens; e.g., 1850–1870. When preceded by "between", it's better to say to say "between 1850 and 1870".
  • In the "Coat of Arms" section, I have no idea what this means: "The arms displays Argent a Fesse wavy Sable between three Bees volant proper on a Chief Vert a Bugle stringed Argent between two Fusils Or. On the crest, a Wreath of the Colours a Shuttle Or thereon a Dove wings elevated Argent and holding in the beak the Thread of the Shuttle reflexed over the back and an Olive Branch proper." Could this be rendered in plain English?
  • I notice that the "Coat of Arms" section lacks a source. It certainly needs one. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph in an article as well as every direct quotation, every set of statistics, and every claim that is unusual, challenged, or apt to be challenged. Other large blocks of text lacking sources can be found in "Geography", "Geology and terrain", and "Transport".
  • "became a focus for far-right politics. BNP town councillors were briefly elected" -- BNP should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first reference.
  • The layout becomes cluttered in the Landmarks section. Generally, the Manual of Style recommends placing an image entirely within the section it illustrates. Images normally should not displace subheads or overlap sections. One solution is to use fewer images; another is to combine two or more short subsections. Since these subsections are so short, that's what I'd try first.
  • The Manual of Style generally frowns on extremely short paragraphs as well as extremely short sections and subsections. Two solutions come to mind: expand or merge the orphans.
  • The formatting in the citations should be consistent. For example, the dates should either be all yyyy-mm-dd or d-m-y but not a mixture.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


East Riding of Yorkshire[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has been expanded and restructured ready to be sent for GAN. The editors would like feedback from a "fresh pair of eyes" on any further improvements that are needed, please.

Thanks, Harkey (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is generally well-written and certainly broad in coverage, nicely illustrated, and stable. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • Since the lead is to be a summary of the whole article, it should probably include at least a mention of renewable energy, sports, education, and other topics to which whole sections are devoted in the main text.

Arrangement of sections

  • Would it be logical to move "Administrative history" down and to combine it with "Governance"?
  • Would it make sense to move most of the geology information in the "History" section to the "Geology" subsection of the "Geography" section?

Abbreviations

Metric conversions

  • In the financial year 2004/05 210,112 tonnes of municipal waste was collected by East Riding and 154,723 tonnes by Hull." Generally, Wikipedia articles express quantities like these as both imperial and metric units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for the conversions; e.g., 210,112 tonnes (206,794 long tons). The tonnes and long tons are similar but not identical.

Sourcing

  • Some of the paragraphs in the article are unsourced even though they contain information that is not common knowledge. The entire "Media" section is an example. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph as well as every direct quote, set of statistics, or claim that might reasonably be questioned. The entire "Climate" section is another example.

Images

  • The images need alt text for readers who can't see them. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it.

External links

  • The link to "Photographs of modern and historic features... " is dead.

References

  • Rather than listing an url as a publisher, the publisher should be listed by name. Citation 64, for example, should list Yorkshire Water as the publisher. It's also customary to include the date of publication, if known. In this case, it's 2008, according to the copyright notice at the bottom of the web page. Citations to internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and accessdate, if all of these can be found. To take another example, the Driffield Online pages all have the same author, Stephen Harrison, and the same publication date, 2000. That information should be included in the citations.
  • What makes Driffield Online a reliable source? What makes Wilgilsland (citation 21) a reliable source? Personal web pages and other self-published sources usually do not qualify as reliable. WP:RS has details.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Leeds[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get some idea of where the article has excessive detail or what is missing. I fear the article is too bloated and a separate City of Leeds article should be created, so I would like some input on that or some indication of how the article should cover both things.

Thanks, MRSC (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment on the lead which is in serious need of revision. The lead is supposed to summarise all of the article and to only contain information which is in the rest of the article. Currently it concentrates, over selectively, on areas such as population, some of which is probably not relevant with a split article. The lead should also not have many references as these should appear in the article where the information is extracted from in the first place. Keith D (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)YesY
Comments by David Fuchs
  • Looks like the automatic tools could be of some use here.YesY See above
  • In terms of overall structure; we really shouldn't be suppressing the table of contents. If it's overwhelming, it's something we should address via editing, not syntax tweaks. For instance, considering there's a History of Leeds article, the History section could be trimmed and the subheads largely removed.
  • Also, when you've got Main articles, really all you need to do in the parent article is summarize it. Consider it essentially a nested lead. So since there's a Transport in Leeds article, I would simply collapse all those subheads and cover all the major points in say two paragraphs, maybe three at most.
  • The "Music and theatre" section is entirely unreferenced, which is part of the reason why I think it seems to skew to mentioning laundry lists of artists. That's not really helpful.YesY
  • Generally I would think that "Governance" sections should come after things like demographics and geography (the "natural" city aspects, as it were).YesY
  • Second MRSC's comments about the lead.
  • Suggestion: Axe the "Notable people" section entirely. It's nowhere near as important as any other section in the article. YesY
  • The citation scheme is hard to figure out--what seperates notes from refs? Not all the citations in bibliography are used in the article, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Simpson[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to see it to a fa. Thanks, Pedro J. the rookie 17:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks to me like it is nearly ready for FAC, here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • Third paragraph of Voice section repeats the bit about Yeardley Smith not being recognized in public twice - I would combine these (and the second version with the whole quote and not just the word wonderful is better)
  •  Done
  • There are a few places where a bit more context could be added to help the reader's understanding. For example I would give a very brief summary of the plot of "Moaning Lisa", perhaps something like Many episodes focusing on Lisa have an emotional nature, the first one being "Moaning Lisa" [in which her beloved saxophone teacher dies].
  •  Done
  • I would put the Buddhist conversion in the Development section (as it is a change in character).
  •  Done
  • I would be consistent about referring to episodes - in most cases the episode name, year and number of the season is given, but not always (Lisa's Wedding). For example I would identify the episodes where she became a Buddhist and threw paint on Krusty in the text in Lisa became a practicing Buddhist following her decision to follow the Noble Eightfold Path.[55] There have been several instances where Lisa has used extreme measures to get her point across, such as throwing paint on Krusty the Clown for wearing a fur coat.[56]
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example the episode Lisa the Vegeterian is linked three times in three sections, and vegetarianism is linked twice in two consecutive sections
  •  Done

*The refs seem fine in all cases but this: Lisa has appeared in commercials for Burger King,[72] Butterfinger,[73] C.C. Lemon and Ramada Inn. (last two points need a ref (or two)).

  •  Done
  • The prose is generally quite good, but it owuld help to print it out and read it out loud after a few days of no contact with the article (to catch some rough spots or tighten the prose).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


List of Costa Rican monkey species[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to use it as the lead article of a possible good topic, as a list of limited subject matter.

Thank you, Rlendog (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to review this fully right now, but one thing you might want to incorporate in this article is a slightly broader discussion of biogeography: as I read the article, Aotus and Saguinus reach the northern limit of their distribution in Panama, Saimiri in CR, and Alouatta, Ateles, and Cebus further north in Central America. It might be interesting to discuss that pattern a little; I think there have been some publications on Central American monkey biogeography which would have some information on this. Ucucha 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I stuggled with how much to include about the ranges of each species outside Costa Rica. I added back the information on the full range of each species. I also incorporated a little about the biogeography, but specifically in reference to the Central American Squirrel Monkey, and in particular its restricted range. I was a little concerned about going too far down this path though, since it is somewhat tangential to the article subject and some of the feedback I have received at WP:FLCs has been critical of going into too much detail in the prose section of a list article. For that reason too, I did not address the biogrepgraphy as it relates to Saguinus or Aotus, since those species do not likely occur in Costa Rica at all. However, I think it is a good idea to add some of this information to List of Central American monkey species when I get around to expanding that article. Rlendog (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Review comments will follow Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I apologise for the time it has taken to post this review, but we are very short of peer reviewers at the moment.

My chief thought after reading the article was to wonder why it is being presented as a list, since there are only four items in it. This is very few; if for example there had only been four US presidents I doubt you would make a list of them. Why not make it a regular article based on a comparison of the four species? I think you need to consider the most appropriate format for this page.

I have been through the prose, and have the following comments:-

  • First paragraph
    • Overlong sentence with confusing punctuation: "Two of the species, the Central American Squirrel Monkey and the White-headed Capuchin, belong to the family Cebidae, the family containing the squirrel monkeys and capuchins and the other two belong to the family Atelidae, the family containing the howler monkeys, spider monkeys, woolly monkeys and muriquis." The sentence needs dividing and repunctuating along the lines of: "Two of the species, the Central American Squirrel Monkey and the White-headed Capuchin, belong to the family Cebidae, which contains the squirrel monkeys and capuchins. The other two species belong to the family Atelidae, which contains the howler monkeys, spider monkeys, woolly monkeys and muriquis."
    • Next sentence is rather clumsily phrased. Also, national parks and "the wild" are not the same thing. I suggest the sentence is rewritten along these lines: "Each of the four species can be seen in national parks within Costa Rica, where viewing them in natural surroundings is a popular tourist attraction."
  • Second paragraph
    • I can't figure from this the reason given why the range for the Central American Squirrel Monkey is restricted.
    • You say the conservation status of this monkey was upgraded from endangered to vulnerable? Is this "upgrading"? Also, it should have been mentioned earlier that the species was endangered, and when it became so.
  • Third paragraph
    • This sentence appears twice in the paragraph: "The IUCN has rated it as "least concern" from a conservation perspective." Try to vary the expression the second time round.
    • I assume that "least concern" is an expression of security for the species, and this should be mentioned.
  • Fourth paragraph
    • "The western edge Geoffroy's Tamarin's known range is..." Is there an "of" required after "edge"?

Good luck with the article, however you decide to take it forward. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Thank you for peer reviewing the article and for your comments. I think I addressed all the wording issues, and expanded on the Central American Squirrel Monkey range issue to (hopefully) make that clearer. As for why I named this as a list article, it was largely to be consistent with other similar and related (albeit longer) articles, such as List of Panamanian monkey species, List of Central American monkey species, List of lemur species (Malagasy is unnecessary there since all lemurs are endemic to Madagascar) and List of mammals of Costa Rica, and other such lists that will hopefully follow. Unlike the other similar lists, this article's lead is able to touch on each of the species in the list specifically, due to the small number of species. I could name the article Costa Rican monkey species, but I already set that up as a redirect to this article, and I think the structure would be the same regardless: a general overview of the monkey species in the country followed by the list. Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments:
  • What about linking the countries mentioned as [[List of XXXan monkeys|XXX]] or [[List of mammals of XXX|XXX]]? Links to the countries themselves are not extremely helpful, as the articles about the countries don't give much information about the monkeys there, which is what someone clicking the link should expect to get. I recently introduced this in one of my articles, Lundomys, and would like to offer it as a suggestion here too.
  • To me, the sentence about the change of conservation status of S. oerstedii reads like the IUCN singlehandedly improved the species' situation, when it should only mean that they changed the rating. Would just changing "improved" to "changed" work?
  • Referring to a scientific name as a "Latin name" is commonly done, but I feel it is inaccurate, as no scientific binomial name would ever have been used in Latin as the normal name of a species. Some scientific names do derive from Latin words (Cebus, for example), others are actually Latinized Greek in origin (Ateles), and still others are derived from other languages (Saimiri). Simply using "scientific name" avoids these problems.
  • Would it be good to include the distribution in the table of species?
Ucucha 18:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I took care of the 1st three. I am not sure that including the distribution in the list itself would do much. In List of Central American monkey species I listed all the countries that each species occurs in within the list, but those were almost all Central American countries (or else close neighbors) so it was related to the subject of the article. But in this list, the various countries a given species occurs in outside Costa Rica are not germane to the subject. And even within Costa Rica, only one of the species has a geographically restricted range, which I think is dealt with better in the text. Rlendog (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Good, thanks for that. As for the distribution, this remains your call as the main author, and I see your arguments for excluding the distribution, but the table already includes a piece of information (the conservation status) that refers to the whole range of each species, not just to the segment in Costa Rica. The full distribution, which could be listed concisely as "Mexico to Ecuador" or similar, provides a nice piece of background information that can easily be included in list form. Ucucha 03:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense. I added that. The links in the table are to the actual countries, which I think makes sense in that context. Rlendog (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Great. This article would certainly make a nice lead for your Good Topic. I do find it somewhat odd to have a list with only four items and an introduction that is several times longer than the actual list, but you already addressed this above. Ucucha 17:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

R. K. Narayan[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for Featured Article status, and would like feedback on improvements that can and should be made to meet the necessary criteria. The article was recently assessed as a GA (the talk page has the GA review).

Thanks, -SpacemanSpiff 04:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't feel righteous enough to judge an article for FA standards, but I do think that this is a pretty fine article, and pretty complete (as far as I can tell). Being an English kind of person I'd like to see a bit more criticism, from a greater variety of sources. This guy was a writer, so I would hope for the incorporation of articles listed in the MLA index (a list of which I've emailed to the editor) and studies from reputable presses--the best press found in the current references is the U of Chicago P.(and that is a 1982 title) with the Michigan State UP second. Peter Lang doesn't hold much water in the profession, nor does Atlantic. But then again, I don't know if FA reviewers have the same standards as the professionals, so to speak (I'm not saying this to claim I'm one, mind you). Still, Narayan generates lots of hits in the MLA, and that accounts for something: incorporation of some of those articles would give a better appreciation of where he stands in the literary and cultural canon. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've been asked to update my earlier comments (talk). The article has improved; I'm not sure if enough for FAC. More dates needed around his marriage, birth of daughter etc. When were his early books published in India, or did the Western publishers reach India then? Nothing on initial Indian reception - he is presented as initially a writer fropm India publishing only in the West - is this right? Prose needs touching up I think, though I can't be sure with Indian English. The point is I think often made that though his first novels are set in the British Raj (ie are contemporary), no British people are seen in Malgudi at all. Hope this helps. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert on the FA process so feel free to ignore my comments if they don't fit in with the FA requirements. The article reads generally well and I'm impressed by the difference between the current version and the 5th July version. Comments: First, the lead. I'm not sure you can say credited with bringing Indian literature in English to the rest of the world and greatest English language novelists in the lead. The references (opinion pieces in Outlook) are just not strong enough for that. To be honest, many other statements are also too weakly supported to be in the lead (Lahiri comparing him to Maupassant, for example, gets transformed into 'has been compared', which is easily interpreted as 'is generally compared' when that is not the case). Also, the first sentence doesn't read right. If he is known for that series of books, then the lead should say "known for a series of books about ...". Otherwise, just say that he was an Indian writer who wrote in English. Second, the Turning Point section needs rewriting. I'd reduce the length by at least a third and suggest sticking to the chronological sequence more rigorously (for example, the last two paras are chronologically jumbled). Actually, the prose in all four sections of Biography could do with a lot of tightening. The Literary section is weak (too large a chunk relies on Greene and Lahiri for the analysis of his work) and needs bolstering (as does the Legacy section) with some sense of how Narayan fits into, and influenced, English language fiction in India. It would be nice to get a sense for where the author fits into the literary scheme of things and the present article does not do that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing PR: Thanks for the feedback folks, it looks like there are some concerns that will take me a while to fix, mostly related to Drmies and Johnbod's comments, as finding those sources is proving to be more difficult than I imagined. The comments on the prose etc, I'll fix that soon, but the major part of referencing is likely to take a little more time. So a peer review in a couple of months when these issues are addressed is probably the way to go. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


30 Rock (season 4)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to deal with issues at Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Seasons of 30 Rock/archive1. I've already FLC'ed (and it's nearly done) 30 Rock (season 3), and with Season 4 now underway I want to get this article up to snuff so it can be more easily maintained.

Thanks, Staxringold talkcontribs 15:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
  • Has there not been any form of release about how many episodes this season is going to have?
  • Not as far as I could find. This is the closest thing to such a release, but doesn't talk episode count. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I must say I'm a little suprised, because even if the season total hasn't been announced there is usually an initial season pick-up (~8 eps). However I've had a look, and I too couldn't find any info on this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Summaries 3 & 4 use "TGS" is that meant to be ''TGS'' (giving TGS)
  • Episode 1 is copyvio of IGN
  • Episode 2 is copyvio of NYT
  • Episode 3 is copyvio of IGN
  • Episode 4 is copyvio of Yahoo!TV
  • These need to be your own words, all these copyvios are probably based on the releases from NBC, and as such will have an element of teasers in them. We don't care about spoilers, so for example "faces a more personal issue" should never exist, just say that the issue was.
  • Fixing now, those summaries were inherited I'll try to hold off future copy vios like this (season 3 had the same problem). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Alt text needs sorting

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Much better, and I thoroughly advocate not putting summaries in until after the episode has aired and it can be written in someones own words. Additionally, for the topic, can you make sure List of 30 Rock episodes addresses these copyvio issues past episodes, and blank summaries for future episodes. Good work, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Alexander the Great in the Qur'an[edit]

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

  • The article may be too long (may not be summary style) ... I would like some advice on this issue in the context of the article.
  • It is difficult to convey the philological issues covered in the article without quoting the (obscure and rare) texts in question .... but the article may contain too many quotes. Suggestions on how to improve this situation are welcome.
  • I would like to know whether people think the article is neutral and objective and if anything can be done to improve it in this regard.
  • The article was originally part of the parent article Dhul-Qarnayn, which (after some years of edit wars) was splintered into Alexander in the Qur'an and Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an. I'm interested in people's opinion about the current situation and how it might be improved.
  • I would like to know what people think about the use of pictures in the article.
  • There are quite a few citations but the citation formatting may not be correct. Any corrections are appreciated.
  • Dates ... Many dates are mentioned in the article (e.g. "550 AD"), but the formating is inconsistent and I suspect that the formatting is all wrong by Wikipedia standards. Help on this is appreciated.

Thanks, Semaphoris (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

llywrch writes
  • A fascinating topic. Has your research touched on the fact that there exists an Ethiopian version of the Alexander romance, wherein Alexander is considered a saint? I think this is relevant, & including this variant of the story is relevant. (Ethiopian Christianity was heavily influenced by Syrian & pre-Islam Arab practices.) If you need help finding sources about the Ethiopian story, drop me a line & I will provide a few.
  • More to the point. While it probably isn't too long, & appears to me to be objective, the problem I have with this article is that it feels disorganized. I was left confused because I have no idea how all of the material you present -- the story of Gog & Magog, especially -- relates to this issue. It would help if you explained to some degree just who Dhul-Qarnayn is/was, & the similarities (& differences) of this personage to Alexander in fact & fiction. (Even the article on Dhul-Qarnayn isn't very clear about his story -- or can everything that is known about him be set out in a few sentences?)
  • The numerous quotations don't bother me, but then I am an advocate of providing excerpts of primary -- & relevant secondary -- sources when they are relevant & well-written.
  • The image of the T-O map & its text is irrelevant to the article. However, the images of the two coins are very useful because they help explain one theory why Dhul-Qarnayn could be a legendary personage based on Alexander.
  • As for your dating system in this article, the solution is simple: pick one system -- either AD/BC or CE/BCE -- & use it consistently through the article. I think using either could be defended, although CE/BCE might be a little more palatable to some.

Hope these comments help. -- llywrch (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Bill and Peter's Bogus Journey[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i am tryin to get it to an FA i think it has the potential.

Thanks, Pedro J. the rookie 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Doing...--Cannibaloki 18:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Review by Cannibaloki (talk · contribs)
  • "After being attacked by an octopus at the aquarium, Peter decides to become physically fit." Why Peter was attacked? Why he was in an aquarium?--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "After [Again the word "after"?] spending a mere fifteen minutes at the gym, Peter believes he is now fit, so when former U.S. President Bill Clinton's car breaks down outside their house, he attempts to lift it without a jack, which results in him getting a sudden severe hernia and being hospitalized." What happened after Peter left the gym? How he met Bill Clinton?--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "...after that, she leaves Brian alone to deal with Peter for the duration of the story." "...for the duration of the story." What is that sentence?--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Why "multiple versions of this episode" is in quotes?--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "When Peter says 'that guy is really horny' when Bill Clinton breaks down outside his house..." should be When Bill Clinton breaks down outside his house and Peter says "that guy is really horny"... or The scene that shows when Bill Clinton leaves his home and Peter says, "that guy is really horny"...--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • done--Pedro J. the rookie 23:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • File:BillPeterFG.jpg does not meet the non-free content criteria. What is the use of this image, just decorate the infobox? According to WP:NFCI, copyrighted images may be used in film and television screen shots, for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Facebook[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is so close to being a featured article. So if you can please review it, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks, Robert9673 (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in the lead it says that Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook while he was a student at Harvard University, it would be good to have a date in there. Also please address the Platforms' section message. The article has a lot of references, but I did notice some "citation needed" messages. Good amount of content. Tsange talk 15:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I see several problems that would need to be addressed before the article would have any chance at FA.

  • If you use the tools at the top of this review page, you will see that the article includes several links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
  • The link checker tool finds a nonexistent url in one of the citations and a dead url in another.
  • The alt text checker shows that none of the images has alt text. Please see WP:ALT for details about how to write alt text for readers who can't see the images.
  • The article has a cleanup tag at the top of the Platform section that will need to be addressed in some way.
  • Some of the sections are extremely short and should either be expanded or merged.
  • "The case is believed to be the first successful invasion of privacy and defamation verdict against someone over an entry on a social networking site.[198][199][200][201][202][203]" - Does this claim and some of the others in the article really need more than one or two supporting citations?
  • Quite a few of the citations are incomplete. A good rule of thumb for Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if they are available.
  • I hope these comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting pitchers[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hopful I can get this to FL status. BUC (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Solid list. My #1 thing is that the Baseball-Reference refs and a good ways back on the Retrosheet refs list attendance figures for these games, why not include that info? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Because it has nothing to do with the starting pitcher. BUC (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Zambrano's ref as the most recent Opening Day starter should really just be a Baseball-Reference page like the rest, the Yahoo ref adds nothing useful. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. I originally included the Yahoo ref because B-R hadn't been updated for Opening Day 2009 yet. Rlendog (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Per List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers, perhaps a little more detail on the starts in the WS winning years? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not sure there is much to add. The Cubs only won 2 WS (admittedly like the Phillies) but both years had the same Opening Day starter and were earlier than pitcher decisions are readily available. I suppose I could discuss the WS loss years, but there were more of those than the Phillies had, including several before decisions are available, which I think would make such a discussion clumsy. Rlendog (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I think it's at least notable enough to mention Overall was the opener in both WS years. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • 3rd from last sentence. :) Rlendog (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Also per the Phillies list I would think about including the records for some of the more prolific opening day starters, at least Corcoran. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I added Jenkins' record, as the record holder. Going deeper seems to be another situation where the Cubs are more awkward than the Phillies. Six Cubs share the #2 spot, and three of those are before I have access to all the decisions. And I personally think the Phillies wording for Alexander is already awkward, since I am not sure the information on the decisions is truly not available (there may be on some microfische of 19th century newspapers in some library) although they certainly aren't readily available. Rlendog (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your comments. I'll take a look at these, but I wanted to explore the first comment a bit more. Some of the FL Opening Day starter lists contain the attendance figures, others don't. I've always excluded them because I am not sure what they add to a list that primarily focuses on the starting pitcher, especially for away games. For example, why is attendence more useful than other pieces of information that could be added, such as the starting catcher? Also, the lists already seem to have enough columns that more could look cluttered. But since this issue has come up on these lists I am curious to hear more about why attendance figures should be included. Rlendog (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A random interesting aside, one of the first projects Bill James ever undertook was trying to study if Nolan Ryan drew bigger crowds than the average pitcher. Anyways, I just think it'd be interesting information since it's available. If you don't want to include it it's certainly not a requirement. Starting catcher actually isn't a horrible idea, but that almost strays into an entirely new List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting catchers list. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Just because it could be added in doesn't mean it should. I think unnecessary details need to be avoided at all costs. BUC (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, please check in at the Comeback Player FLC, your comments are the only open ones left! Staxringold talkcontribs 21:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Those comments were actually User:BUC's, not mine, but we are working together to try to get this article to FL. The reason I hadn't nominated it earlier was that, due to the reliance on older Retrosheet boxscores, there is no single source I can point to in the lead for some of the general comments (i.e., overall record) without having about 80 inline citations for each statement. List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers did make FL despite similar considerations, so I suppose it isn't an absolite obstacle, but if you have any comments in that regard I would approeciate them. Rlendog (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally Rlendog I'd highly recommend you at least give it a go and just see what happens. I can't do it myself since I'm not a major contributor. But I would be happy to help if you were to nominate it. BUC (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry Rlendog, your indented response had no name, didn't know it was you. In the lead you are allowed to summarize data in the table without referencing. See that Comeback Player award page I discussed, for example, I mention many players who went to the All-Star Game but don't cite each win, that's within the table itself. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Must have left off a tilde. Sorry about that. Rlendog (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed that now. Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Another note Should the Retrosheet refs be to "Retrosheet Inc."? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to the ref publisher? Maybe. I am not sure what the rules are. But the top of the page you linked to just says "Retrosheet", as does the address listed in their "About Us" page [4] and the bottom of each of their pages. So at a minimum, just calling them "Retrosheet" doesn't seem incorrect. Rlendog (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…The beginning paragraph is relevant to the article. All information stated includes footnotes, books (references), along with external links. And on top of that, there are categories, articles that are linked to this page related to it, and over 10 pictures.

Thanks, Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


Ruhrfisch comments: I do not really understand your stated reasons for listing the article here. I assume that you want this to become a WP:FL and see that it has already had an unsuccessful FLC. With another possible WP:FLC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would look at the coimments made in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of living Band of Brothers veterans/archive1 and take them very seriously. The living veteraqns part is a self-deleting list, and the recent deaths part seems arbitrary (what is the criteria for inclusion) and almost certainly incomplete. I think the suggestion made in the previous FLC to just make a list of ALL the members of Easy Company is the only way to go here.
  • As it is, the article on E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) lists many (if not all) of the members and so this could be seen as an unneeded content fork.
  • I would look carefully at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, this has several places that it needs to improve to come close to meeting those criteria too.
    • From WP:WIAFL: Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. How does the current lead do this?
    • I also worry about 3a (comprehensiveness) and 3b (not a content fork) here
  • This definitely needs a ref: Easy was (and is still) recognized as the best known company of the entire United States Army during World War II.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • What makes this http://www.military-art.com/mall/profiles.php?SigID=1278 a WP:RS?
  • Need to explain / spell out abbreviations like the one in the title (506 PIR)
  • Headers do not meet WP:HEAD
  • External links do not all seem to meet WP:EL

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


List of HOT and ETL lanes in the United States[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a very thorough list, and is very detailed.

Thanks, --Tim Sabin (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I assume that you might want to eventually try for featured list, so here are some suggestions for improvement based on the WP:MOS and WP:WIAFL.

  • Lists are not supposed to start with "This is a list of ..." anymore.
  • The current lead is two one-sentence paragraphs, which does not meet WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example High occupancy/toll and express toll lanes is linked twice in 2 setneces in the lead.
  • Also watch dab (disambiguation) links - hybrid is one. There is a tool for finding dab links in the toolbox on this page.
  • Avoid the use of words like currently - use "As of 2009" instead or something more date specific. Now /current/etc. can get out of date quickly.
  • WP:HEAD says that section headers should not repeat the name of the article if possible. What if the one header were "High occuoancy/toll lanes" and the subsections were Current and Planned or Current and Future?
  • I would not have a header "Current ETL lanes" with the only information under it that there are none. Here could it just be "Express toll lanes" ?
  • Have you thought of making this into tables and then making those sortable?
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruhrfisch. I am thinking of making a run for FL, and these comments certainly will help. --Tim Sabin (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
You are very welcome - I am not sure, but some people might object to the specific toll / pricing information per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Another useful thing is to find an FL or two that are as related as possible and use it/them for a model article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Mattias Öhlund[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Recently became a Good Article, and I'm looking to send this through to become a FA. However, it needs a good copyediting and general cleanup, something I'd like to get done prior to the FA nomination.

Thanks, Kaiser matias (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks very good to me. I did some minor copyediting; please revert if you disagree with any of my changes. Here are a few additional suggestions or comments.

  • Citation 33 has a dead link.
Fixed that

Vancouver Canucks

  • "Worth US$10 million over five years, including a signing bonus of $7.5 million... ". Combinations like $10 million should be glued together with nbsp codes to prevent the components from being separated by line-break on computer monitors. WP:NBSP has details.
Added the code. Let me know if there is anywhere else I should add it.
  • "Öhlund thus played his first NHL game in Japan, playing in the first game of the season on October 3, 1997." - Maybe, to avoid repeating "play", this would be better: "Öhlund thus played his first NHL game in Japan on October 3, 1997.
Done
  • "His 30 points, the fifth best total amongst first year players and highest by rookie defenceman... " - "among" rather than "amongst"
Done
  • "After detecting bone chips in his knee in early March 2008, Öhlund underwent knee surgery on March 13 and missed the remainder of the season." - Dangling modifier. Suggestion: "After doctors detected bone chips in Öhlund's knee in early March 2008, he underwent... ".
Changed
  • "Öhlund was designated the captain's traditional duty of taking ceremonial faceoffs" - Wikilink face-off? Add the hyphen?
I thought about adding the hyphen, however the source listed uses the term "faceoff" and there is really no consensus among ice hockey writtings. As such, I'd rather stay with what the source used.

Personal life

  • "They resided in West Vancouver during the hockey season, but will be living in the Tampa Bay region, and return to Öhlund's hometown of Piteå, Sweden, in the summer." - Would it be useful to repeat the years of residence in West Vancouver and to say that they will be living in the Tampa Bay region during the 2009 season and returning to Sweden in the summer off-season of 2010? Also, have they always gone back to Sweden in the off-season? Can you add any more personal details about such things as non-hockey interests, involvement in charity work, pets, or retirement plans?
Theres not much I could find to add to the personal life section, though I will do some more looking. I realised that the section would become an issue if I were to bring it up to FA, so I'll see what can be done.

Images

  • The images are a bit fuzzy, probably because of a combination of low light levels and rapid motion of the subject. Perhaps you can find at least one stronger free image on the Commons or Flickr, or perhaps a fair-use one from the Canucks, the Lightning, or elsewhere might be available.
These are currently the best available of Ohlund. Most NHL teams are reluctant to release images of players, especially of active players. However, over the course of the next few months I'm hoping that someone will create a higher resolution image.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for going over the article. If there is anything else needing work on, let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

St. Xavier's College, Mumbai[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have managed to rewrite this article. suggestions will be appreciated.

Thanks, Xavier449 (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

llywrch comments

Always nice to see work on topics, like this one, outside of the usual areas. Most of the problems I see in this article are with subtle points of English use, e.g. I'd venture it is better to say St Francis Xavier is "the 16th century Spanish Jesuit saint", & not "a 16th century Spanish Jesuit saint" -- "the" because we are using the listed qualities to define a specific person. I fixed a few of these points, but there are many which remain. (Are there Wikipedian copy editors who can help with a project like this?) -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments
  • "St. Xavier's College has been rated among the top ten colleges in India year by year." This is a dated fact. The fact may be irrelevant after few years. State when was the ranking done by whom.
  • The whole Invocation is WP:UNDUE IMO.
  • WP:PEACOCK terms (glorification): These are claims of the college, may or may not be true. Explicitly state that they are claims of the college (WP:POV of the college) or view of say the NAAC.
    • "The College strives to form men and women, especially Christians and the marginalised, to build a more just and humane world. The intellectual endeavour it strives for, focuses on critical and creative thinking, with the aim of social transformation. This endeavor is inspired by the values of the Gospel - from the New Testament of the Christian scriptures - while it appreciates and promotes all the other religions, especially the rich religious heritage of India. The College seeks to give an all-round formation for the marginalised, inculcating both human and spiritual values."
    • "The College also takes measures to upgrade the skills of non-teaching staff by conducting workshops and training programmes during vacations, and conducting sessions on personality enhancement and financial management."
  • What proves the accuracy of File:Layoutcampus.gif, state the reference for the image.
  • "The St. Xavier's Villa in Khandala is a property of the college nestled in the hills of the Western Ghat mountain ranges, about two hours from Mumbai. It provides facilities for retreats, seminars, and educational conferences." is positioned out of place in Campus para. Re-organize the information in terms of a clearer distinction between the main campus and other facilities like cricket pitch, Khandala villa which are not in the main campus.
  • "On 18 July 2009, United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited the college on her Mumbai trip as part of the college's 140th anniversary. She conducted an interactive session with its students regarding academics and education." is out of place in "Alumni and popular culture"
  • Instead of Random subpage something similar to {{Indian image rotation}} can be used. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
There are people willing to do copyedits listed at WP:PR/V Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tourism in Puducherry[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… this page, Tourism in Puducherry list most of the tourist destinatins in puducherry.These destinatins are not like normal tourist spots but includes heritage buildings, museums which are hundreds of years old and part of the history of french colonies in India. it also includes gardens and majour places of worship in puducherry. I have done extensive study of these topics before starting the page. A review will be highly appriciated.

Thanks, Varun_swm

Brianboulton comments: You obviously have a great commitment to this topic and have put a lot of work into the article. However, it has not yet developed into a form where a peer review would be appropriate. Please note that the peer review process is intended for "high quality articles that have already undergone extensive work", and are free of major cleanup banners. This article has a banner relating to its non-encyclopedic style. It is also woefully short of citations, most of its sections being completely uncited, and the overall standard of prose is poor.

The way forward, I think, is for you to study some of the Wikipedia style guidelines, and learn what is involved in creating a quality article. On the WP:Peer review page, near the top, you will see some links relating to general editing advice ("How to write a great article" etc.) I suggest you study these. You might also consider whether a better format would be to present your article as a list.

I see that you self-awarded the article a C-class, and then upgraded it to a B! This is not acceptable. I have reclassified it as Start-class. Brianboulton (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments as part of WP India assessment
  • File:The official logo of Pondicherry Tourism .jpg needs fair use rationale. see WP:FAIRUSE
  • Huge problem of WP:PEACOCK terms: "captivating", "It is a blend of spiritual aura, French colonial heritage, Tamil culture,Beautiful beaches and the cosmopolitan flair of many nationalities in a small but varied town"
  • Sources like "Asiarooms.com", indiaparenting.com, Pondyonline.com etc. are not reliable. Lot of work needed in terms of references --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have followed the WikiProject Museum instructions and would like to nominate it for Good Article consideration. Please review all of the changes if possible. Any suggestions and advice will be welcome.

Thanks, Mst48 (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is outside of my usual area of editing and reviewing, which is historical political biography, but there doesn't seem to be any of that up for peer review at the moment, and I visited this a few years ago and found it at once moving and haunting (as I daresay anybody who has visited has). Since you've expressed a desire to bring this to Good Article status, I'll conduct my review with the Good Article Criteria.

By far the biggest thing preventing this article from being a Good Article in its present state is the referencing. There are several unreferenced paragraphs but, more importantly, the majority of the references that do exist are to the museum's website, which is a primary source affiliated with the article subject. Wikipedia's policy is to use mostly third party secondary sources. The good news is that there are what appear to be quite a few excellent such references listed under "Further reading"; I'd suggest working on referencing the article's current content to those as much as you can, and then adding new content based on those as well. As long as you're changing the referencing, you might consider using reference templates like {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc.; it's not required for GA, but it's an easy way to make sure that your references are properly formatted.

There are some neutrality issues as well. Portions of the article are written as if from a tourist brochure, and there are some non-neutral statements as well. Some examples:

  • "...has welcomed almost 400 university fellows from 26 countries since 1994." (Something like "has been visited by..." would be better, especially if rearranged to be worded in the active voice.)
  • "Under Ms. Bloomfield’s leadership...", "She has also played leading roles..." ("Leadership" is a very positive word. Something like "management" would be more useful.)
  • "Since its inception, the USHMM has been under constant threat of violence from extremist groups." (Do we know that there has been a constant threat? Might it be more accurate to say that it has been targeted by anti-semitic individuals on more than one occasion?)
  • "The outside of the building dissappears into the neoclassical, Georgian, and modern architecture of Washington, D.C."
  • "the CoC recently has established itself as a leading non-partisan commenter..."
  • "The prestigious Arthur and Rochelle Belfer Conference for Teachers..."

The prose still needs quite a bit of work. I've made some copyedits and stylistic fixes. There are a few outstanding items that require attention, however:

  • the lead does not really summarize the article so much as it provides basic data about the museum. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should give a brief summary of the material covered in the article.
  • the article says that the collections include "more than 200,000 registered survivors"; I imagine those survivors would object to being kept in the museum's collections.
  • the Committee on Conscience is first mentioned in the History section, but isn't explained until quite a bit later.
  • when using wikilinks, please make sure that you are linking to the intended target. For example, compare where Ground Zero leads to where Ground Zero leads, and consider which one belongs in the article. I've fixed some of this, but there's room for much better linking in this article.
  • the last sentence of the third paragraph in History is long and convoluted; consider rewriting it.
  • this sentence doesn't really make sense: "Upon entering, each architectural feature because a new element of architectural allusion to the Holocaust."

Otherwise, the article is well on its way to being a Good Article. Its organization is excellent, though it might be worth considering merging "Exhibitions" and "Collections", since there seems to be a fair bit of overlap between the two. The pictures are excellent, and all appear to be properly licensed, though all of the ones outside the infobox lack alt text, and the alt text of the one in the infobox could use a lot of improvement.

A few miscellaneous things:

  • the "See also" section is likely too long, as is the "Further reading". The first should include only links directly relevant to the subject of the article but which are not linked elsewhere in the article, while the second should include material that deals with the subject at a depth or from an angle that a Wikipedia article couldn't or shouldn't (as noted above, ideally much of the material in "Further reading" could make its way into the "References" section).

I'd recommend putting in the work needed to improve the above issues, and then putting it up for another peer review. Good luck! Steve Smith (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Heraclius[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has had an extensive rework and I want input before attemping to move it to GA status.

Thanks, Esemono (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Review by Charles Edward

  •  Done - There are a couple places where notes and references precede the punctuation point, they should be after it. WP:Citations
  •  Done - The article lead is a bit underdeveloped. Given the length of the article you should probably break the lead into two paragraphs and add a bit more information too it and fully summarize his entire life. WP:LEAD
  •  Done - If you have references in the body of the article for the facts mentioned in the lead, it is not necessary to put references into the lead. (If items in the lead are not in the body, then they should also be put into the body). WP:LEAD
  • Article could use a modest copy edit. Some sentences are somewhat unwieldy and lacking in commas. Example: At his request Pope John IV (640-642) sent Christian teachers and missionaries to the Dalmatia, newly Croatian Provinces settled by Porga, and his clan who practiced Slavic paganism. Would be better as At his request, Christian teachers and missionaries by Pope John IV to the Dalmatia, new Croatian Provinces settled by Porga and his pagan Slavic clan.
  • As a pointer, I don't see that you have used Byzantium: Three volumes (or the abridged A Short History of Byzantium) by John Julius Norwich. Probably the best book on Byzantium written in the three decades. There is a full chapter dedicated to Heraclius with a some information not currently incorporated into this article, and would help in beefing up the inline citations. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Not by choice, just don't have it on hand -- Esemono (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There are lots of places that could use a citation. As a rule of thumb, each new fact, event, statistic, and paragraph should end in with a citation. See WP:Citation for more.
  •  Done - There is some room to tighten up the text in places. Anything that says the same thing in less words is better. For example:

Heraclius was born into an Armenian family from Cappadocia, although beyond that, there is little specific information known about his ancestry. He was the son and namesake of Heraclius (generally referred to retrospectively as Heraclius the Elder), who had been a key general of Emperor Maurice's in the 590 war with Bahram Chobin, usurper of the Sassanid Empire. His mother was named Epiphania.

Becomes

Heraclius was born the son of Heraclius the Elder and Epiphania, an Armenian family in Cappadocia. Beyond that, there is little specific information known about his ancestry. His father was a key general during Emperor Maurice's war with Bahram Chobin, usurper of the Sassanid Empire, during 590.

  •  Done - There are some terms which could be linked in the article, like Emporor Phocas.
  •  Done - You introduce Khosrau II in the text, but use Chosroes as his name thereafter in the text. This is a bit confusing. You should stick to just one name or fully explain the reasoning for the difference.
  •  Done - "...damaging the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and capturing the Holy Cross and Egypt in the process." The persians captured Egypt in the process of invading Judea? I think "...and afterwards capturing Egypt" would be more accurate.
  •  Done - I would recommend adjusting your article sections to be more heirarchal. For example, Make an "Early life" section, and place "Origins" and "Revolt.." as sub headings. Place additional sub headings under the first sections of the "War with Arabs" and "Legacy" Section. This will place your ToC more visually appealing, and improve article navigation by better defining sections.
  •  Done - The family section would be better broken up. I recommend moving his wife and children back into the article and add them chronologically about where they were married\born. The rest of the info, including his will and the family tree, would best be made a sub heading of the legacy section.
  •  Done - You have a gap between 1 and 2 in your annotations.
  •  Done - Some of your book sources, like Baynes and Kazhda, are not used in your footnotes. Those should be moved into a seperate further reading section. If you did intend to use them, you should add citations to show where they are being used.
  •  Done - Some of your references are listed as Last Name, First Name. While other are First Last. These should be made uniform.
  •  Done - You should add a portal template to Portal:Byzantine Empire in the see also section.
  •  Done - You are forcing an image size on several images, this is not recommended by the MOS. See WP:Images. It is better to not force an image size because it overrides users individual settings. (It is ok to force sizes on images with text that needs to be read)
  •  Done - You do not have any alt text for you images. See WP:Alt for more information.
  •  Done - A point worth including: It was during Heraclius' reign that the total defeat of the Persians occured. It was essentially the end of the war that had lasted nearly eight hundred years between the romans and the Persians. He ended it in favor of Rome.
  •  Done - Another point, there is no mention of the internal problems in the empire concerning religion. He was able to have an altered godhead formula adopted and assented to by four of the Patiarchs. It reconciled the monophysites, but just before his death lead to schism with the Papacy in Rome.

The article is definatly of a B quality. A little work, like that mentioned above would get it to GA quality. You will need more extensive work, primarily in referencing and copyediting to get to FA. So far though a very good and interesting article. Thanks for you time and research in working it. Keep up the good work!—Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

llywrch comments

One point I'd add to Charles Edwards' extensive review is that you omit any mention of one of the best known historians of this period -- Edward Gibbon. Not because I think that he wrote the definitive word on Heraclius, but because he casts such a large shadow over the subject of Roman history -- & provided what is still a readable account. (I remember one scholar stating that his account of the Byzantine Empire in the 9th thru 11th centuries is still one of the best in print.) It is far more important to quote him for opinion & interpretation than, say, Henry Hart Milman, because he is so well known & because so many Byzantists write in response to what he has written. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the suggestion I've added some citations from the book -- Esemono (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, while I think it is close enough to FA standards, I think it would benefit from "fresh" readers, not yet familiar to it, giving it a read.

Thanks, ___A. di M. 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are my comments:

  1. Some of the images are lacking ALT text.
  2. In the lead, it seems to go into too much detail in paragraph 3.
  3. The lead does not cover sections such as faster than light and practical effects of finite speed.
  4. Lead suggests that gravity is speed of light, but not known as fact, but later it is presented as fact: Disturbances of this curvature, including gravitational waves, propagate at the speed of light. Unless this is not exactly the same, the two need to be harmonized.
  5. Can you link anti-parallel velocities to give it a definition for those not knowing that term?
  6. It says Classically, when an electromagnetic wave meets..., does this mean that this is just an approximation and not what is really happening? Please clarify.
  7. Might want to mention that parsecs are generally used in the literature and light-years in popular media.
  8. In Terrell rotation the but they will be actually seen as is confusing as the word but seems out of place.
  9. The following two sentences seem contradictory: Euclid and Ptolemy advanced the emission theory of vision, where light is emitted from the eye, thus enabling sight. Using that theory, Heron of Alexandria advanced the argument that the speed of light must be infinite, since distant objects such as stars appear immediately upon opening the eyes.

Overall looks very good. WilliamKF (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's my take on points 3, 5, and 8. Is this better?
Yes, looks good. WilliamKF (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
As for point 6, "what is really happening" depends on one's interpretation of quantum mechanics; anyway, I don't think you get "wrong" answers with classical electrodynamics as far as the phenomenon of diffraction is concerned. Maybe just removing the word "classically" would be an option.
As for point 9, it means that if the light were emitted by the eye and it traveled at a finite speed, when you open your eyes you'd have to wait for the light to reach the stars before being able to see them. So, assuming that the light is emitted by the eye, the fact that you can see stars immediately means that it must travel at infinite speed. How did you misunderstand it? ___A. di M. 10:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Upon rereading, it is clear now. Not sure why I didn't get it before. Perhaps I misread infinite as finite? WilliamKF (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we have something short and easy to understand in the lead, or near the beginning of the article, about i) definition of speed of light (and explanation that this is in a vacuum), ii) about 'real' speed of light (linked to refraction maybe) in different mediums, iii) very short mention of trouble with measuring SOL using units that are defined using SOL. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

RJHall commants: Overall it looks to be in good shape. I just had a few minor observations:

  • The first paragraph of the lead should mention the importance of c to physics, in addition to astronomy and space travel.
  • Some lay readers may have a little difficulty with the statement: "equivalent to of the order of 10−50 g." It may be cleaner to just say "equivalent to roughly 10−50 g".
  • The "Galaxies moving faster than light" section should clarify that it is possible for two locations to recede from each other at a velocity greater than the speed of light because of the expansion of space, and explain why this is not a violation. (I've been asked this question before in person, so it seems pertinent.) You might also mention cosmic inflation as an extreme example.
  • "One of the group's discoveries, announced by Cassini in 1675, was that the periods of the moons appeared to be shorter when the Earth was approaching Jupiter than when it was receding from it." Is this statement accurate? It suggests time dilation, rather than a timing difference due to the speed of light. My understanding was that Cassini produced the ephemeris of Jovian moons, and discovered periodic delays in their occultations compared to his calculations.
As I understand it this is just the (nonrelatvistic) Doppler effect for very low frequencies (the periods of the moons) caused by the motion of the reciever, the Earth. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC))
I think it should be modified to make clear the role of the finite speed of light's travel time, rather than a frequency shift. The latter only depends on the relative velocity of the two planets; not their separation.—RJH (talk)
But the effect only depends on the relative velocity. The difference in observed period is simply the time it takes light to travel between the position of the earth when it observes the first transition and the position when it observes the second transition. (In the frame that Jupiter is stationary.) The effect thus measures the SoL in terms of the relative speed between earth and Jupiter. The fact that it takes a while for the light from jupiter to reach Earth does not enter the effect.
Does this solve your proble, or am I misunderstanding it?(TimothyRias (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC))
Yeah, that's it, more or less. IIUC: If the Jovian system is 54 light-minutes away, we see it as it was 54 minutes ago, and if it's 66 light-minutes away, we see it as it was 66 minutes ago. (I'm making the numbers up, but that's the point.) So the eclipses in the latter case appear to be 12 minutes "too early" than what would be predicted from observing the former ones. ___A. di M. 16:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Not really, because I don't think the article explains the phenomenon with sufficient clarity. I think it should focus on the time difference between when the occultation was predicted to occur (by Cassini's ephemeris) and when it did occur, rather than the more obtuse observation about the apparent changes in the periods. (Again, I'm trying to think from the perspective of a reader who is new to the subject.) Sorry to be difficult.—RJH (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


L'incoronazione di Poppea[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This opera article had been expanded recently, from Start-class to a potential FAC. On the way it has benefitted from helpful comments and contributions from members of the Opera Project, for which I am most grateful. The article needs a full review of its content, sourcing, images etc. At present it lacks a sound file, but I am hoping we will be able to add at least a Non-free sample of the music under fair use. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

I'm starting a peer review now - I hope to have it completed in the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • two surviving scores from the 1650s (a second was discovered in 1930) - This is slightly confusing, as it suggests that the first was always known. Is this detail really necessary in the lead? If so, the fact that both copies were discovered later should be made clearer.
    The parenthetical detail should have been deleted when I streamlined the lead. This has now been done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In a departure from traditional literary morality it is the adulterous liaison of Poppea and Nerone which triumphs - I'm not sure that "triumphs" is the right word here.
    How about: "which is celebrated"?
    I like that better. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    Done.
  • Written when the genre of opera was still in its relative infancy - Do we need "relative"?
    I think so. Opera was 40 to 50 years old when L'incoronazione was written, so I think "infancy" needs qualifying.
    Ok. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sometimes the article uses "17th century" and sometimes "seventeenth century" - this should be standardized according to WP:MOSNUM.
    I have done this
  • "Writing history" is an awkwardly phrased section title. Can we come up with something more elegant?
    How about a really magisterial title, like "Creation"? Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    I like it. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    Done
  • Conductor Nikolaus Harnoncourt, a leading Monteverdi interpreter, refers to the practice of the time whereby, to meet differing local performance conditions, the composer would leave as much as possible of a score open. Another convention made it unnecessary to write down detail that performers would take for granted." - Missing open quotation mark
    Fixed - quotes not necessary as this is paraphrase. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A more "modern" style of metric notation which is used in some passages of the L'incoronazione scores suggests the work of younger composers. - Why is modern in quotation marks? It looks like scare quotes to me.
    Rephrased and clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rosand has suggested that Venetian audiences would have understood the story in the context of their own times, as contrasting the decadence of Rome with the moral superiority of civilised, republican Venice. - Could you explain the contemporary analogy a little more clearly?
    I've rephrased and added a bit, which I hope makes things clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    Yup. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Should the quotes in the "Synopsis" section have the untranslated versions in a footnote?
    I'm not sure this would really help, or why it should be necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    WP:CITE says "When directly quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation. The original-language quotation aids readers in verification, and the translation makes the information accessible to readers that do not read the original language." Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    Done (moan, groan, grump). Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    All of those obscure policy points you never knew about. Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of "Early performances" could be interwoven more seamlessly into the article. It doesn't clearly relate to the opera at this point.
    This has been done, also theatre details reduced. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Malipiero's edition was the basis of staged performances in Paris (1937) and Venice (1949). - Awkwardly worded
    TWeaked
  • Should there be redlinks in the article for various opera companies and pieces of music that could have their own articles?
    Various redlinks introduced. I'm doing a short article on the Accademia degli Incognito so that will soon turn blue, and I will try and do one on Ellen Rosand but that may take time. Please feel free to wikilink anything else you think is potentially an article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Written when the genre of opera was still in its early stages - Sounds just the teensiest bit awkward.
    Reworded
  • Ringer calls the opera "Monteverdi's last and arguably greatest work,[58] a unified masterpiece of "unprecedented depth and individuality". - Ending quotation mark missing
    Fixed
  • I don't see all that many books in the references - why is that? What about the following sources (these are just a few of the ones I found in about 5 minutes - I can send you the full citations for them, if you wish:
  • Mark Ringer's essay "Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria -- "Nothing human is alien to me" : L'incoronazione di Poppea" in Opera's first master : the musical dramas of Claudio Monteverdi
  • Gary Tomlinson's essay "Hamlet and Poppea -- Learning to curse at sixty-seven" in Music and historical critique : selected essays
  • Jürgen Schläder's essay "Offene und verdeckte Wahrheiten : zu Monteverdis Oper L'incoronazione di Poppea" in "Der moderne Komponist baut auf der Wahrheit" : Opern des Barock von Monteverdi bis Mozart

This is the point I'm most concerned about - I was surprised to see so many articles and books on this opera in particular turn up so quickly in my library search that had not been used in this article (I think I found about 10). Perhaps there is a very good reason for that, however.

I hope these comments are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The comments are helpful and I am working on them. Thank you. Do you have anything to add re images? The source link for the Lucan image is now repaired, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The rest of the images look fine. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see responses to individual points above. On sources, three kinds of source are used: books, articles and websites, the last being mainly reviews of performances/recordings from magazines and newspapers. Rosand, Carter and Ringer are three of the leading Monteverdi scholars currently writing in English, and their recent books are widely used in the article. So far as Poppea is concerned these books outweigh others in terms of the attention they give to this opera, particularly Carter and Ringer. There are of course other books, Denis Arnold's for example, which I have in front of me now. Arnold, the great Monteverdi expert of 20 or more years ago, has to some extent been superseded by such as Carter; in any event his two main Monteverdi books don't say a lot about Poppea. His best writing (in my view) on that opera was in his long article in the 1980 New Grove, which I have used.
  • There are of course other books. Earlier versions of this article cited Paolo Fabbri's 2007 biography Monteverdi (CUP), and Francesco Bianconi's 1987 Music in the seventeenth century (CUP). Neither book has much text specific to Poppea, and their ground is pretty well covered in the main sources, so they disappeared from the article. It would be easy enough to restore them, and cite stuff to them, but unless there was a new and important insight revealed, I see little point in doing this.
  • There are hundreds of potential article sources. Many of them are distilled in the Carter, Rosand and Ringer books. I have also used and cited articles by Rosand, Carter, Arnold, Clifford Bartlett and Nikolaus Harnoncourt, among others. As to the three essays you suggest, Ringer's "Nothing Human is Alien to Me" is pages 213–308 of his book Opera's First Master and is well cited in the article. I don't know the Tomlinson essay you mention, though I have looked generally at his work. Finally, with plenty of English language sources to choose from, it seems unnecessary to choose a German one. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • One reason I cited the German essay is because there tend to be distinct national traditions is musicology, so I was wondering if the German article would have a different perspective than the English material (I know, for example, that there are distinct national interpretations of Liszt). I just wanted to raise this issue. In general, your reasoning sounds good here. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Tim riley
  • General
    • Capitalisation – a familiar bleat from me about consistency. The carnival is variously capitalised and not capitalised within the article; I'd recommend not. You have the "Glyndebourne festival" (a proper noun, surely) but the "Imperial Palace" (cap not needed.) My Latin dictionary doesn't put a cap on "lictor". Do Consuls and Tribunes need capitalising?
    • Critics and musicologists – e.g. Carter – suddenly appear in the text as if they are familiar names: some context would help at first mention, e.g. "The musicologist Tim Carter"… (not, for preference, the journalese "Musicologist Tim Carter", omitting the definite article – all right for The Sun but not for a serious encyclopaedia article.) Rosand – as for Carter, though she is accorded a first name a few paragraphs later.
  • I'd go a step further and not mention the names of those critics and musicologists who are not bluelinked, unless the person is an important expert in the field whose name adds something to the content of their reviews. You can just name them in the footnote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • Last sentence of first paragraph. Can one conscientiously describe the work as part of the "operatic mainstream"? I don't recall its ever being done at Covent Garden, for instance (though I am open to correction on this point), and the ENO has had only two productions of it in the last forty years.
  • Historical context
    • The last para of this section appears to consist entirely of speculation. If you think the speculation is worth including I feel it might bear more conviction if you briefly set out the reasons given by Carter, Ringer et al for so speculating.
  • Composition
    • Rosand confesses might never be wholly resolved – "confesses" is an odd word, here, almost implying guilt – perhaps "acknowledges" is more neutral.
    • music by other composers, has – the comma is an intrusion, surely?
    • recently-discovered score of Francesco Sacrati's previously lost opera – as it's recently-discovered, do you also need to describe it as previously lost?
  • Morality
    • Yet despite the lack of a moral compass in virtually all the main characters, critic Edward B. Savage asserts that Busenello's plot is itself essentially moral… – as drafted, this reads like POV, i.e. despite the evidence, Savage says something debatable. Is it correct to say (more neutrally) "the critic Edward B. Savage asserts that despite the lack of a moral compass in virtually all the main characters, Busenello's plot is itself essentially moral…"?
    • the context of their own times terms – "times" or "terms", I imagine
  • Early performances
    • the première of Monteverdi's lost opera Le Nozze d'Enea in Lavinia – I see what you mean, but it reads rather oddly. Premiering a lost opera can't be easy. Tricky to reword unambiguously, I admit. I'd be tempted to lose the word "lost" altogether.
  • Rediscovery
    • parts of the work." d'Indy's edition – I think d'Indy gets a capital D when he begins a sentence.
    • the Lincoln Centre – an Anglicisation? Oughtn't it to be "Center" as a proper noun?
  • Recent revivals
    • arising from Monteverdi having left – gerund needed here, i.e. "Monteverdi's having left"
    • Evening Standard critic – the poor old Evening Standard deserves a blue link
    • with Leppard's heavy orchestration – "heavy" is a bit judgmental: perhaps "large-scale"?
    • Teatro Real – another deserving candidate for a blue link
  • Music
    • still in its relative infancy – can one be a relative infant? I'd be inclined to lose the adjective.
    • Arnold – another sudden appearance of a pundit who could do with a tiny bit of introduction or context.

A most satisfying article throughout (though I was sad to learn that the only number in the whole show that I – and, I suspect, most operagoers – can remember, viz "Pur ti miro", may not be by Monteverdi.) The balance of sections seems to me just right: there are no sections that cry out for expansion or for pruning. The whole article is easy to read and to understand. It will certainly grace the front page. I've made what seem to me to be straightforward corrections of ten typos, but please check that you're happy with them. – Tim riley (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this review and for the helpful comments. I have adjusted all of them in accordance with your suggestions. Most importantly, you reminded me of something that I had forgotten - the weakness of the third paragraph in the Context section. I have rewritten it, removing the speculation and saying only what is specifically covered by the sources. One other thing: within the next day a short "Recording history" will be added to the article and you may want to look at that. Brianboulton (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It was and I have. The article gets even better. Bravissimo! - Tim riley (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Jonyungk
  • Lead
    • In the final paragraph, you write that "the work is universally accepted as part of the Monteverdi operatic canon as his last and perhaps his greatest work." Maybe I missed it, but this point does not seem to be addressed in the body of the article. The closest mention is a (negative) comment by Romain Rolland after the d'Indy edition was first performed.
    • In the same paragraph, you mention that the opera "helped to inaugurate a new era in the history of theatrical music, and established Monteverdi as the leading musical dramatist of his time." I was hoping to read more about how this was so, especially considering there is "no record of the opera's initial public reception", but did not see anything else pertaining to this comment in the body of the article. The closest the article comes is in addressing, in the "Music" section, how the opera "broke new ground in matching music to stage action". That information in itself is very well presented but does not address how it established Monteverdi nor how other composers might have followed in Monteverdi's footsteps.
I have modified the comments in the lead, and have added a little text to the final paragraph of the Music section to support them. There is also Harnoncourt's comments, at the end of the Music section, about the lasting influence of the work. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Historical context
    • The final paragraph is slightly confusing. Monteverdi might have become acquainted with Busenello through a mutual associate and produced one of Monteverdi's operas together. Then we read that "the details of their professional relationship are unknown; there is no record of any meeting between Monteverdi and Busenello, or any evidence of direct collaboration". How did they work together to produce an opera if they did not collaborate somehow? Maybe including the word "otherwise" before "unknown" might help.
This paragraph has been substantially written, with the speculative elements removed. See similar comments to yours from Tim Riley, above. The fact is, we don't know anything of the details of how Monteverdi and Busenello worked together, because nothing is recorded. However, Ringer's comment about the shared Gonzaga experience looks interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Writing history
    • In the "Libretto" section, we read, "Drusilla, despite her complicity in the attempted murder of Poppea, becomes an example of steadfastness and constancy that impresses even Nerone, whereas the real-life Drusilla, from an earlier Roman generation, was the daughter of Agrippina the Elder and the incestuous sister of the emperor Caligula.[14]" How is this a contradiction of actual events? Other readers may be remiss on their Roman history, even with the inclusion of the word "incestuous", so perhaps a few words to explain would help.
I have taken out the above sentence re Drusilla. On reflection, there is no evidence that Busenello meant us to identify his Drusilla with the historical sister of Caligula, who lived 25 years earlier anyway. I have replaced this with a brief sentence about Lucano. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I've mentioned this before, so please bear with me. It seems that the "Morality" part of this section refers more to the historical context of the libretto and how it would have been received by its listeners and readers than to its actual composition. Would "Morality" be better served in "Historical context", or perhaps as a section of its own?
The "Historical Context" section deals with the general background to the writing of the opera. The morality issue is a specific discussion which arises from a reading of Busenello's libretto. I don't personally think this single issue warrants a section to itself, and believe the matter is best placed where it is, but if other reviewers agree with you, I'll go with the consensus. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an altogether excellent article, even within the high level of your work in general, and I agree with you that it deserves FA status. Here's wishing it the best. Jonyungk (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and kind words. Just to clarify: it's not for me to say that the article "deserves" FA status. My hope is that after the peer review it can realistically aspire to that, but let us wait and see. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I would like to thank the above reviewers for their helpful comments. Further comments and suggestions are of course welcome. I shall be away unti Friday 20 November and will be happy to respond to any outstanding points then. Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks very good to me, and as Brian knows I am not an opera expert. Sorry for the delay in this review - enjoy your time away. Here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • This sentence seems a bit awkward and I have had to reread it each time: The opera was revived in Naples in 1651, but was then neglected until, after the rediscovery of its score in 1888, it became a subject of scholarly attention in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. perhaps something like The opera was revived in Naples in 1651, but was then neglected until the rediscovery of its score in 1888, after which it became a subject of scholarly attention in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. or even ...but was neglected until the rediscovery of its score in 1888. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries it became a subject of scholarly attention. would read better?
    • Perhaps even better would be to get shot of the subclause altogether (this is a summary lead, after all). Thus:- "The opera was revived in Naples in 1651, but was then neglected until it became the subject of scholarly attention in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."
      • Hmmm, I think the fact that the opera's score was "lost" for centuries / only rediscovered in 1888 probably should be in the lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
        • All right, I've adopted the first of your two redraft suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Having read the comments above, would a more specific time period be clearer than "relative infancy"? Perhaps something like "Written when the opera genre was only a few decades old, the music for L'incoronazione di Poppea has been praised for its originality...?
    • Others have commented on the vagueness of "relative infancy"; I have defended the term but your suggestion is clearer, so I'll go for it.
  • There is only one wikilink in the second paragraph of the lead and none in the third paragraph - not sure what else to link though (there is no article I can find on "traditional literary morality")
    • I really can't see any other opportunities for wikilinks without contriving them.
  • Should the article be consistent on whether Italian titles and names are translated into English or not? For example the title is translated and Nerone is helpfully translated as Nero, as is the Return of Ulysses, but operas are not always translated. Would it make sense to say that L'Orfeo relates the myth of Orpheus and L'Arianna the myth of Ariadne and Didone is about Dido (and not the pop singer)? I also have to confess I am not sure what Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda is about.
    • I have added translations and/or explanations as appropriate. As far as Didone is concerned I'm relying on the link to demonstrate what this opera is about, rather than overcomplicate things with extra wording.
  • This seems ultra-picky, but will the average reader realize that "Teatro Santi Giovanni e Paulo" in the lead is the same as "Teatro SS Giovanni e Paulo"? Would it also help to say it is the Theater of Saints John and Paul? The name appears four times in the article and the SS form is used only once.
    • Good point about SS; name needs to be consistent, so I've altered the SS form. I think translating the theatre's name to English is a bit cumbersome and unnecessary, though. In general we accept Italian names of theatres, e.g. La Scala, La Fenice, etc, and I certainly didn't use translations in Agrippina
  • "produced" seems an odd word choice in Musicologist Alan Curtis believes the collaboration involved only a single accomplice, and produced his 1989 edition of L'incoronazione under the joint authorship of Monteverdi and Sacrati.[19] If it is standard music termminology, fine. But if not, would Musicologist Alan Curtis believes the collaboration involved only a single accomplice, and his 1989 edition of L'incoronazione showed it as being produced under the joint authorship of Monteverdi and Sacrati.[19] (not great, but you get the idea)
    • I meant "produced" in the sense of "published" and have now replaced the word
  • This seems not to follow WP:MOSQUOTE Rosand has suggested that Venetian audiences would have understood the Poppea story in the context of their own times as a moral lesson demonstrating the superiority of Venice, and that "such immorality was only possible in a decaying society, not a civilized nation."[23] (should it end ...not a civilized nation".[23] ?
    • The full quote is: "There is some indication that Poppea could have been understood by its contemporaries as a moral lesson implying the superiority of Venice over Rome, and suggesting that such immorality was only possible in a decaying society, not a civilized nation." So the grammar is dodgy in the original. I've put in a bracketed insert, thus: "...not [in] a civilized nation."
      • That is clearer, thanks. My original concern was that the placement of the period (full stop) did not seem to meet the logical punctuation rule (what is quoted is not a full sentence, so the period should be outside the quotation mark). SandyGeorgia is very good at finding these (and I am not as sure of myself in this area), so it is probably OK to leave it as is and see if it is commented on in FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The New York Times is linked twice in two sections (Rediscovery and Recent revivals)
    • Fixed.
  • Should the artist John William Waterhouse be added to the caption of the Nerone painting?
    • Done
  • The abbrevaition ENO needs to be placed after its first full appearance, so "English National Opera (ENO)"
    • Done
  • Each of the paragraphs in the Recording history section seems to need more references - each ends with a sentence or two that has no source.
    • More citations added.
  • Everything else seems fine and these are minor points - please let me know when this is at FAC. This is entirely speculation / OR on my part, but I know in Germany Carnival (Fasching) is often associated with a "world turned upside down" reversal of expected roles and mores. Is it possible that the fact that this opera which praises adultery etc. and premiered in the Carnival season somehow also reflects that tradition? Just wondering...
    • Interesting thought, and if I can find it in one of the published sources I will add it to the "Morality" section. Thank you for your helpful review, see my responses above. Brianboulton (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


D.C. United[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We brought the article up to GA status this summer, and are looking for more areas of the text that could use some help. I'm particularly interested in feedback regarding the tables and lists, and on places that need more references. Best-- Patrick {oѺ} 20:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Good article, but maybe a little more explanations would be helpful, such as the History section. For example, the caption to the image says "D.C. United won the 2004 Eastern Conference championship in what has been called one of the best games in MLS history" --- By who???...Also "Since 2006, United has played well against international competition, beating Scottish champions Celtic F.C. and tying Real Madrid in Seattle. In addition, the 2006 MLS All-Star Team, which included seven United players and was managed by United's manager Piotr Nowak, defeated English champions Chelsea" This should indicate that these are exhibition games. Later, "play by play" and "color commentary" should be Wikilinked (color commentator is Wikilinked later in the paragraph) as the average reader in non-US countries would not know what these are. I'm not sure what "Certain home matches" and "Select matches" are specifically? Does this need further explanation? Overall good work in the article...well done and best of luck for FAC later. Seth Whales (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Things that came up in the Seattle Sounders FC and Qwest Field peer reviews that seem to apply here as well:

  • Per WP:LEADCITE the lead section should not require footnoted references since it should only be a summary of information listed in the body.
  • List of seasons should be moved to a separate article and linked to from here
    • Based on a brief look at other WP:FA club articles listed in WP:FOOTY it looks like the "Statistics and Records" section may also need to be split out.

Overall, this article is well referenced has good coverage of the subject. Good work! --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Objections to evolution[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think this article is close to FA quality, I want to better identify issues that may stop that. Such as:

With appreciation. - RoyBoy 20:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

RJHall comments: Overall this is a really nice piece of work. However, I do have a few suggestions that I hope are of some use:

  • There is widespread use of the double quotation marks in the text. Are these meant as specific quotations, intended to be ironic, or to signal unusual usage? I'm not completely sure that the current usage is properly encyclopedic. For example, are quotes needed in the following? Are they specifically quoting somebody?
    • Biologists do not consider any one species, such as humans, to be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another.
    • The scientific consensus of biologists, not popular opinion or "fairness",...
    • ...to make them scientific "alternatives" to evolution.
    • The purpose of this criticism is to undermine the "higher ground" biologists claim...
  • "...evolution than calling it a "theory" is." It's usually not considered the best form to put an "is" at the end of a sentence. The wording would look more polished if this was addressed.
  • "...apparent design of snowflakes is." Ditto.
  • "...enthusiastically or dogmatically engaged in." is ending a sentence with a preposition.
  • "...beneficial to be selected for." Ditto.
  • "Critics also state that..."; the 'also' here is an additive term that is redundant, per User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating_redundancy. Perhaps this can be re-worded in some manner?
  • "One of the most recent major objections..." may be considered unnecessary vagueness. How recent was this?
  • In the sub-sentence, "...defined by how dogmatic, closed-minded, or zealous its adherents are...", are the 'closed-minded' and 'zealous' statements appropriate or necessary? The text here is only comparing religion to the supposed dogmatism of evolutionary supporters. It says nothing about them being 'closed-minded' and 'zealous'. Thus the wording appears to be deliberately adding extra emotive weight to one side of the argument.
  • I think the statement that "...certain fossils, such as polystrate fossils, are seemingly "out of place"." could use a counterargument.
  • The paragraph "In addition to complex structures... ...biological origin of these phenomena either." is missing a citation.
  • "Many still object to the idea ... have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through theistic evolution." Ditto.
  • From a readability perspective, I might suggest that a few of the later paragraphs are on the overly long side. Inserting an extra paragraph break or two would make for more pleasant reading.
  • An objection I didn't see mentioned was the early but important issue, raised by Lord Kelvin, that evolution hadn't had sufficient time to work because the Earth couldn't be more than a few hundred million years old. (Subsequently refuted of course.) But perhaps you didn't want to delve into that much detail.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'm working my way through this article to see if I can add anything to what RJH has noted above. Clicking on the tools in the toolbox on this review page, I see that the link checker finds seven dead links in the citation urls, the dabfinder tool finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets, and the alt text viewer shows that all of the images lack alt text. The latter is meant for readers who can't see the images. Please see WP:ALT for details. All of these things should be fixed before taking the article to FAC. I'll come back in a while and post a few more comments. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting, certainly broad and illuminating. The prose is of professional quality and should be fine at FAC. I made a tiny number of proofing changes, and I have some further thoughts and suggestions.

"Heads and subheads"

  • Objections might be raised regarding the section heads, which repeat the main words of the article title over and over again. WP:MOSHEAD says in part, "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." Although I can usually think of short, snappy heads and subheads to replace long, repetitive ones, in this case I'm unsure. Perhaps (1) "Definition", (2) "History", (3) Scientific acceptance, (3.1) Just a theory, not a fact, (3.2) Controversial or contested, (4) Scientific acceptance, and so on would be better, but this may be a case where the usual guidelines do not apply.

Lead

  • "A number of objections to evolution have been raised... " - Tighten by deleting "A number of"?

Defining evolution

  • "Humans are led to believe otherwise by our tendency to evaluate nonhuman organisms according to our own, anthropocentric standards, rather than more objective ones." - Wikipedia generally avoids using first person pronouns except in direct quotes. For that reason, I'd suggest using "their tendency" and "their own" rather than "our tendency" and "our own". WP:MOS#First-person pronouns has details.

History of objections

  • "as this conflicted with First Vatican Council's (1869-70)" - All date ranges and page ranges in the article should use an en dash rather than a hyphen; e.g. (1869–70).
  • "This position has been adopted by denominations of Christianity and Judaism in line with modernist theology which views the Bible and Torah as allegorical removing the conflict between evolution and religion." - Tweak slightly for better flow by adding ", thus" after "allegorical"?

Evolution is unfalsifiable

  • The Manual of Style (MOS) advises against using blockquotes for any quotation of less than four lines. The Darwin quote in this section is only two lines on my computer screen. I'd recommend embedding it in the text with ordinary quotation marks. See WP:MOSQUOTE for details.
  • "Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raised more questions than it can currently answer." - "raises" rather than "raised"?

Evolution cannot create complex structures

  • The Dawkins' blockquote is only three lines on my screen. It's pretty close to four, so it may be OK.

Evolution cannot create information

  • The Answers in Genesis quote is only two lines. I'd suggest embedding this one.

Evolution leads to immorality and social ills

  • "teen pregnancies, homosexuality, abortion, immorality, wars, etc. are caused... " - I'd either drop the "etc." or complete the list.
  • "Kent Hovind's son Eric Hovind has now taken over the family business while his father is in prison... " - Is it relevant that his father is in prison?

Notes

  • Citation 3 has a line of all caps that should be rendered in title case even though the source uses all caps. WP:ALLCAPS has details.
  • I see minor variances in the citations that should be eliminated. The date formatting, for example, should be consistent. Most are yyyy-mm-dd, but I see some in m-d-y format. In some citations "page" is abbreviated "p.", but in others it appears as "Pg." They should all be the same. Several of the citations are incomplete. When possible, it's good to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date for Internet sources.

References

  • The Kitcher ref should take the same form as the refs in "Further reading".

Images

  • The license page for Image:Charles Darwin 1880.jpg lacks a source that can be verified by fact-checkers. You might be able to get the information from the original uploader and add it.
  • It's not clear from the image license page for Image:Haeckel drawings.jpg whether the drawing was scanned from the Richardson and Keuck book or whether the book is being cited to support the incorrect attribution claim. In either case, what is the provenance of the original? When was it published? How can a fact-checker be certain that the copyright has expired if no date of publication is included in the description? (Date of creation is not the same as date of publication.)
  • What is the source of Image:WilliamPaley.jpg? The given source link is self-referential, and won't be of any help to fact-checkers.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Richard Dawkins[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through some structural and text improvements and the citations have been made more uniform. It is GA for years and it has not received any peer review or FAC in over a year. Most or all of the current results of the automated peer review are because of words in citation titles or inline quotations. Any advice as to how to suppress that would be appreciated (as opposed to just regurgitating its output back to here). Can I somehow URL-ize the strings and thus defeat the tool? Are there any more respectable ways?

Thanks, Findaknow (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Review by Seegoon

I'm just going to go through this line-by-line, essentially, at first.

Lead
  • Two consecutive sentences in the lead start with 'he'.
  • "He popularised the gene-centred view of evolution, and the meme." is basically repeated two sentences later: "He came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term meme."
  • "well known"→"well-known"
  • "Dawkins is one of the most widely publicised atheists." seems like a fragment of a sentence to me; you can't use a term like this without a frame of reference. For instance, "the world's most widely-publicised".
Early life and education
  • "During the second world war, he was called up into the King's African Rifles, based in Kenya, returning to England in 1949, when Richard was eight." I'd venture that there's a neater way of wording all this so that you don't use his first (almost said Christian) name.
  • Citations aren't well-distributed throughout the first paragraph; they all simply come at the end. Some specificity would be nice, because it's just not clear which references are for which statements. The same actually applies to the second paragraph too.
Career in academia
  • See above re: citations.
  • The entire second paragraph needs citations.
  • In fact, the whole sections seems a little aimless. What does the last paragraph and quote have to do, specifically, with his career in academia? I'd argue that the answer is nothing.
Career as a popular science writer
  • Again, consider structure. Why is the first paragraph located where it is? I'm beginning to feel that his strictly biographical history might be better served in its own section.
  • "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales" quotes-within-quotes should use apostrophes.
  • See the {{citation needed}} tags I've inserted.
  • "Some such as Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett accept the latter." could do with being "Some, such as Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett, accept the latter."
  • "Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year." doesn't need four separate citations. However, the first clause "Dawkins... relationship" could do with citation, I feel.
  • "Reductionist" could do with linking.
  • The meme section is a touch short.
  • "Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist, and supporter of the Brights movement and has involved himself with the corresponding organizations." this sentence could do with splitting.
  • "In 2003, he signed Humanism and Its Aspirations, published by the American Humanist Association." in what way did he 'sign' it? What is/was it?
  • Reading through this section, it's clear that it's basically an exploration of his positions and philosophies; it doesn't really fit under the banner of his 'Career as a popular science writer'. This galvanises my belief that this article needs re-organisation.
  • "Dawkins anti-religious stance prompts a wide variety of response."→"Dawkins' anti-religious stance has prompted a wide variety of responses."
  • "Oxford theologian Alister McGrath (author of The Dawkins Delusion)" book titles should be in italics.
  • "Christian philosopher, Keith Ward explores" needs a comma after Ward.
  • I really feel that 'Atheism and rationalism', as a section, is too long. That's not to say that any of it is irrelevant, and I don't think there's any repetition – but it could do with subdivision at least.
  • "this campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think — and thinking is anathema to religion." that's a spaced em dash; it should either be a spaced en dash or an unspaced em. However, as the whole article uses British English, I'd argue for the former.
  • That last paragraph, on the bus campaign, could also do with some distribution of citations.
  • As for the first paragraph of 'Criticism of creationism', see above re: citations.
  • ""it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English." needs a closing quote and consistent ellipses (i.e. a...b a ... b or a... b – I think the second is preferable, although [...] is the least ambiguous form)
  • "In 2009, Dawkins expanded on his ideas about purpose, positing archeo- and neo-purpose." this is totally esoteric. Some further explanation would help.
Awards and recognition
  • "The Richard Dawkins Award has, since 2003, been award by the Atheist Alliance International" 'awarded'

In general, the article seems damned comprehensive and is a fascinating read about a fascinating bloke. However, I feel it could do with some reshuffling and clearer structuring, perhaps with one about 'beliefs and philosophies'. Your citations look perfect by any standard. If you'd like any further clarification or discourse, I'll be glad to help out. Seegoon (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


M6 motorway[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have studied (not editied) this article and it seems to meet most of the critera for GA. I would just like a quick peer review to see if it is up for GAN.

Thanks, 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: No, it's not ready for GAN. At a minimum, the sourcing problems need to be addressed to satisfy WP:V, a fundamental requirement. Here are some comments and suggestions for improvement.

  • I think the map at the bottom of the infobox should have a caption.
  • The cleanup tags about references needs to be addressed. In fact, large parts of the article are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that is challenged or apt to be challenged, and every paragraph.
  • The lead should be a succinct summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not in the rest of the article. The existing lead doesn't mention most of the main sections.
  • Quite a few of the imperial measures need to be converted to metric as well. Some already are, but many are not. The {{convert}} template is handy for doing the math and getting the spellings and abbreviations right.
  • Extremely short sections like "Junction with M1 and A14" and extremely short paragraphs like the series in "M6 motorway in culture" give the article a choppy feel in places. It's generally better to expand these shorties or to merge them with other paragraphs or sections.

Legislation

  • I don't think this section contains much that is useful. It's essentially a list of statue numbers without any substantive details. I'd consider eliminating it or reducing it to a footnote, compressing it as much as possible.

External links

  • I'd suggest compressing these lists into fewer lines of type. For example, The Motorway Archive could be one line of type that included all nine links separated by unlinked semicolons.

General

  • The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. You might not need this for GAN, but you will if the article ever goes to FAC. Please see WP:ALT for a full explanation.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


Edward Drinker Cope[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A biography on one of the most important men in the field of natural history, and one of the pioneers of American paleontology. I'm looking for comments on anything in the article; I hope to eventually polish it up and get it to FA to stand alongside Bone Wars. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks very good, though I agree it needs a fair amount of polish before FAC. WIth that in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement, most fairly nitpicky.

  • Lead - awkward sentence Cope married his cousin and had one child, moving closer to the marl pits of Haddonfield, New Jersey to be near fossil finds. First off, the two parts of the sentence don't really go together well as written. Perhaps a better transisition would help (...had one child, and moved his young family closer ...), or splitting the sentence into two? The other problem is that the lead has not said where he lived before, so the move lacks context - see WP:PCR
  • Some other places in the lead could benefit from a bit of added context / detail: I think I would say his father wanted him to be a gentleman farmer, or give years for some things (beginning in 18XX, Cope made regular trips to the American West prospecting) or giving some examples of the dinosaurs he is credited with discovering / naming. The lead should draw the reader in and be a good summary - I think this is a decent summary, but if it were expanded a bit, it might be more interesting / inviting
  • The lead says Cope's career helped define the field of American paleontology; he was a prodigious writer, with a record 1,200 papers published over his lifetime. but the article says it was over 1,200 papers - which is it? Also would it read better to say something like helped define the field of paleontology, especially in America?
  • I am really not sure what this sentence means and it is awkward His most established theories on the origin of mammalian molars and the Cope’s Law on the gradual enlargement of mammalian species are considered his best generalized theories.
  • In Early life I would mention his sisters before Despite complaints about his schooling, Cope returned to Westtown in 1855, accompanied by two of his sisters...
  • The article seems under illustrated - on Commons there is a drawing of skulls that seems to have been made by Cope - could this be added? Also in the Bone Wars article there is a picture of an Allosaurus skelton Cope funded, but which was not opened until after his death - could that go in the legacy section here?
  • Since the Legacy section says His childhood home at “Fairfield” and his Pine Street homes are recognized as national landmarks.[113] and Pine Street is a National Historic Landmark, I assumed Fairfield was too. However when I checked the ref, it does not mention Fairfield and it is not obviously on either the Philadelphia or Pennsylvania NHL lists on Wiki (which are complete). A photo of Fairfiled would be nice for the first section, but this needs to be resolved / fixed.
  • There are many places where the language is rough - here a some examples (not a complete list) of where a good copyedit would help:
    • Alfred intended to give his son the same education that he himself was brought up in [received].
    • Unclear The school was founded in 1799 with fundraising by members of the Society of Friends (Quakers), as was the site of much of the Cope family's education.[4] First off, the Society of Friends was already mentioned, so the (Quakers) belongs at first mention. The infobox says he was raised a Quaker and this is mentioned later, so it should be made clearer here (and not just a cause his father supported, that also funded his school). Finally how about something like The school was founded in 1799 by members of the Society of Friends, who continued to support it. The school was the site of much of the Cope family's education.[4]
    • I assume Westtown is the location of the school, but we are never told this, just that it is near Westchester, then Despite complaints about his schooling, Cope returned to Westtown in 1855, accompanied by two of his sisters. I would also calrify where the Academy of Natural Sciences is in relation to the school (in Nearby Philadelpia).
    • This makes it sound like being a farmer is a professional scientific career In his letters to his father during this period until 1863, Edward continually yearned for more of a professional scientific career than that of a farmer..
  • Typo (Britic?) Cope returned to Europe in August 1878 in response to an invitation to join the Britic Association for the Advancement of Science's Dublin meeting.
  • The whole ordeal might have passed easily enough had Leidy not exposed the cover up at the next society meeting, not to in any way alienate Cope but only in response to Cope’s brief retracted statement where he never admitted he was wrong. Weeks later Cope paid a visit to the marl pits and found that men in Marsh’s employment were busy collecting in an area that Cope had thought his own. The two would never talk to each other amicably again. - needs a ref
  • Here is a file of the wrong Elasmosaurus drawing File:Cope Elasmosaurus.jpg
  • I think several of the monetary figures in the article would benefit from the {{inflation}} template - cost of tuition, size of his inheritance, what he got selling part of his collection...
  • Link Philadelphia Zoological Gardens in Early life? Also the NAACP if that is what is meant in His father was a philanthropist and gave money to the Advancement of Colored People...?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit more - I went back and reread the lead just now. I think it should say more of the things that are so intriguing about Cope - that he had a very limited education and no university degree or academic base. That he spent most of his personal fortune on science. That his prodigous output also meant that he made frequent mistakes in print from writing things up too quickly. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Great comments as always, Ruhr, many thanks. When I've whipped the article into a more finished shape I'll make sure to ping you and see if it works better for you. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:David Fuchs:)

I was compiling a list of scientists published (or mentioned) in the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, and one of the better-written articles I came across while doing this was Edward Drinker Cope, so I looked in the history and saw your name there. If it is of interest, there are 17 papers that mention him in the search link I've just given from the AMNH publications. Those are in fact posthumous references to him, not his actual papers, and I see he published 1,200 papers in his lifetime, so those papers might not be of much interest, but I thought I'd drop a note off here anyway. The AMNH (which isn't linked in the article) may, however, be a good starting point for more about him (it seems strange he was turned down for a job there and at the Smithsonian), but these two pages ([5], [6]) do say that the Cope collections purchased by the AMNH were the core of the museum's paleontological collection. I can see from the article (and the Bone Wars article) that Marsh and Cope were competing at the time to build up their collections, but I'm wondering what the comparisons are like now - what is the legacy considered to be nowadays? It would be interesting to know where precisely Cope's collections ended up - I don't think the article makes that entirely clear - did everything go to the AMNH and the University of Pennsylvania (I can't find references to Cope specimens at UPenn), or did some of the specimens go elsewhere? I found this source (www DOT suite101 DOT com/article DOT cfm/paleontology/26564 - site currently blocked by the spam filter) that says "Today, Cope's collection of fossils is housed at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, PA.". There is confirmation of that here: "Cope described over 300 species of fishes between 1862 and 1894. His entire personal collection of fishes, reptiles and amphibians was bequeathed to the Academy in 1898. Most of Cope’s type specimens are in the Academy’s collection, with others in the USNM." (USNM = National Museum of Natural History). That's fishes. The herpetology collection is described here. More obscurely, there is a mention of nematode worms from his collection here. As I said, I don't know the full story of what happened to most of his collection, but the bit earlier in the article "The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia's foremost museum, did not bid on any of Cope's sales due to bad blood between Cope and the museum's leaders; as a result, most of Cope's major finds left the city", may give the wrong impression, as it seems large parts of at least some of the collection did end up back there, unless by "major finds" you mean the dinosaur finds? Also found this collection of Cope material. I should have put all this at the peer review - feel free to copy it over. Hope it helps. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Oops. I see the Haverford College Library link is already in the external links. Oh well.

The article version I reviewed was this one.

  • I fixed one of the disambiguation links, but left the other one as I was not sure which Charles Knight is being referred to in the article. I presume it is Charles R. Knight (given the common paleontology connection), but it would be best checked in the source that gives the quote from Knight. Also, the reference (Davidson, 106–109) is at the end of that paragraph - does the quote itself have to have its own reference to make quite clear where it comes from?
  • Some other quotes are not quite clear as to where they are from either: (1) "her amiability and domestic qualities generally, her capability of taking care of a house, etc., as well as her steady seriousness weigh far more with me than any of the traits which form the theme of poets!"; (2) "less than perfect" or "not quite satisfactory"; (3) "severe attack of nightmare" in which "every animal of which we had found trace during the day played with him at night [...] sometimes he would lose half the night in this exhausting slumber." There was also one unclosed quote which I think I fixed correctly.
  • One other thing I noticed: the early part of the article says Cope burned his letters from his European tour, but later it says his daughter burned any he had kept, so it sounds like he didn't burn them all?
  • I linked various terms, and turned H. G. Seeley into a redirect to Harry Seeley (almost certainly the right one).
  • Maybe see if Haddonfield have any local history resources on Cope?
  • There seems to be an untold story here: "although he would never explore a cavern after an 1871 trip to the Wyandotte Caves in Indiana" - any idea what happened on that trip?
  • Someone should write a stub on marl pit (we have marl, but that's not quite the right focus).
  • I was going to link Fort Bridger, but that sounds like the wrong place.
  • Do we know what happened to the museum he made to house his collection? Are there any museums or commemorations made in his name today? You mention "countless" memorials and commemorations to him - is it possible to give a few more?
  • I agree with Ruhrfisch that the spelling should be British Association for the Advancement of Science (we don't have an article on the French one [AFAS] -yet!).
  • There is also repetition of some links, but sorting that out might wait until you are more certain where the first mention of something will appear in the article, and how far away the next mention is.
  • There is mention of the "Wheeler Survey", the "Hayden Survey" and the "Texas Geological Survey" - it would help if some of the details were explicated in the article.
  • It's not clear how this sentence relates to what precedes it: "Cope’s relations with the president of the University of Pennsylvania soured, and the entire funding for paleontology in the government surveys was pulled".
  • You might want to try and give good external links to the major works published by Cope (if any are online), or at least do a bibliography of his major works at the end of the article.
  • In the paragraph on Julia and Annie and Julia's marriage, maybe make clear that Julia is his daughter and Annie his wife?
  • There is a touch of repetition in places: (1)"bad blood between Cope and the museum's leaders" (Acadamy of Natural Sciences) and "Cope’s relations with the president of the University of Pennsylvania soured" (UPenn) - are these different clashes?; (2) "Marsh urged John Wesley Powell to request fossils Cope had collected during government surveys and attempted to persuade Ferdinand Hayden to "muzzle" Cope’s publishing." versus "At the urging of Marsh, Powell pushed for Cope to give back the specimens that he had unearthed during his employment under the government surveys."; (3) "The most prolific journal on amphibians and reptiles, Copeia, is named after him, as well as many other species" vs last paragraph; (4) "Cope was a staunch Neo-Lamarckian..." paragraph versus later sentence "He was an outspoken proponent for Neo-Lamarckism".
  • Is the Collins at Cope's funeral his son-in-law? And, amazing though it seems, I think we have articles on several of those six people at his funeral: William Berryman Scott, Persifor Frazer (OK, that's a miss, as that is the patriarch Frazer, not the one at Cope's funeral), Horatio Curtis Wood, and Harrison Allen (who died later that year, it seems). Not 100% on those, so leaving it to you as to whether to link them or not.
  • First mention of Davidson should say she is his biographer. First mention of Lanham doesn't make clear who he is.

That's probably enough for now. Oh, and nothing directly to do with this article, but I just discovered Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards. My jaw dropped open when I saw that! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review! I admit after writing Bone Wars and Bone Sharps, Cowboys and Thunder Lizards I forget what I've mentioned in which article, so I will try and make the survey information a bit more detailed so it makes more sense throughout. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I've just been trying out some alt texts for the images. Hope they are OK and not too long. I tried to follow what it says here. Is it possible to get someone else to check the alt text? Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Eubulides, I know, is a big ALT checker. I'll get him/her to look it over; I'm currently looking at possible new images to add. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Review by Jappalang on this version

Lede

  • "Born to a wealthy Quaker family,"
    It is not explicitly stated in the article that the family were Quakers; they are mentioned as having close ties with the religon. Perhaps a change is needed in the main text.
  • "... his father initially tried to rear Cope as a gentleman farmer,"
    Somehow, the phrasing made me picture Cope as a farm animal... replace "rear" with "bring up"?
  • "Cope married his cousin and had one child; the family moved from Philidelphia to Haddonfield, New Jersey to be closer to fossil finds."
    The mention of his moving to be closer to fossil finds is too sudden. There is no earlier mention of Cope's interest in fossils, attractive enough for him to move.
  • "Though he had little formal scientific training, Cope eschewed teaching for field work."
    I would think that "formal scientific training" is also a "plus point" to have in teaching. Is it not?
  • "he was a prodigious writer, with a record 1,400 papers published over his lifetime."
    There is (valid) criticism that his speed of publishing is (slightly?) marred with inaccuracies. Should this not be mentioned here?

Early life

  • "His father was a philanthropist ..."
    What profession was his father in? It is not mentioned in the main text (hence a question of what made them wealthy). Annotation 1 mentions a shipping business... was he a trader?
  • "Edward was born and raised in a large stone house in present-day suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania called "Fairfield"."
    He was born in present-day suburban Philadelphia and not in 1840? Perhaps... "Edward was born and raised in a large stone house in rural Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; the site was much later subsumed by the city as part of the suburban area, "Fairfield"."
  • "Edward's letters home requesting a larger allowance show he was able to manipulate his father,"
    How would requests show manipulation? I suspect phrasing and "story-telling", but these should be made clearer.
  • "... Cope returned to Westtown in 1855,"
    Where is Westtown? How can he return to it when it is not mentioned before this sentence?
  • "While at the prestigious school ..."
    Which prestigious school in Westtown?
  • "... for quarrelsome and bad conduct, and. hHis letters to his father show that he chafed at farm work ..."
  • "In his letters to his father during this period until 1863, Edward continually yearned for more of a professional scientific career than that of a farmer, which he called "dreadfully boring.""
    Suggestion: "Up till 1863, Cope's letters to his father continually expressed his yearning for a more professional scientific career than that of a farmer, which he called "dreadfully boring.""
  • "In 1858 he began working part-time at the Academy of Natural Sciences part-time,"
  • "Though Alfred resisted his son's acceptance of a science career, he also paid for his son's private studies."
  • "... Edward rented out the land ..."
  • "Alfred finally gave in to Edward's strong intellectual capabilities and paid for classes."
    Can we rephrase this? It sounds like a war of minds (psychological battles) to get Al to pay for Ed's classes.
  • "... gave him outlets to publish work and announce said publications his work;"

European travels

  • "Osborn attributes Edward's sudden departure ..."
    Who is Osborn?
  • "instead Edward considered working in the South ..."
  • "He was also caught in a love affair ..."
    Is this phrasing too flamboyant to be encyclopaedic?
  • "Osborn attributes Edward's sudden departure for Europe as a method of keeping him from being drafted into the American Civil War. [...] Cope did write to his father from London on February 11, 1864 that, "I shall get home in time to catch and be caught by the new draft. I shall not be sorry for this, as I know certain persons who would be mean enough to say that I have gone to Europe to avoid the war.""
    I think the two sentences should be placed in the same paragraph (the second) instead. In the first sentence's place in the first paragraph, we can say that "During this period, the United States was in a civil war, and young men were drafted into the armies."
  • "Eventually however Cope decided to take took the pragmatic approach and waited out the conflict."
  • "... which author Url Lanham deemed a "partial suicide"."
    What makes this writer a noteworthy source or authority on Cope?
  • "... and met with some of the most highly esteemed scientists ..."
    Examples would be much better than "some".
  • "Marsh, aged thirty-two, was attending the University of Berlin."
  • "After Edward left Berlin the two maintained a correspondence,"

Family and early career

  • "... seems to be the most practically the most suitable for me [him]..."
    This is a matter of quote styles, so it is up to your preference.
  • "The two had a single daughter, Julia Biddle,"
    "Julia Biddle Cope" or just "Julia Biddle"?
  • "Alfred Cope appeared not to press his son to continue to be a farmer, and Cope instead focused on his scientific career."
  • "He primarily visited caves across the region, and although he would never explore a cavern. However, he stopped these cave explorations after an 1871 trip to the Wyandotte Caves in Indiana,. Nevertheless, he remained interested in the subject."
  • "including an 1868 descriptions in 1868 of ..."
  • "Cope's proximity to the beds upon after moving to Haddonfield made more frequent trips possible."
  • "The Copes lived comfortably in a frame house backed by an apple orchard. and tended to by tTwo maids, tended the estate, where they which entertained a number of guests."
  • "... Cope would write up wrote his findings ..."
  • "... provided "the most important find in geology I have [he had] ever made"."
  • "In 1875 Alfred Cope died and left Edward Cope with an inheritance of nearly a quarter of a million dollars. His father's Alfred's death was a blow to Edward, who had always confided in him Cope; his father was his constant confidant."
  • "In 1877 he purchased half the rights to the American Naturalist in order to have an avenue in which to publish the papers ..."
  • "... that Marsh questioned their dating. [...] Marsh's attempts to damage Cope's reputation ..."
    This is abrupt. There is no mention of the animosity between them (how it formed) before this. The last mention of Marsh was their meeting in Europe and their friendship.
  • "many of the collection boxes remained unopened ..."

Bone Wars

  • "Cope's relations with Marsh led to turned into a competition for bones between the two,"
  • "When Marsh the two visited the marl pits with Cope, Cope introduced his colleague Marsh to the pit owner, Albert Vorhees."
  • "Marsh would go went behind Cope's back and privately arrange for the made a private agreement with Vorhee: any fossils that Vorhees's men found were to be sent back to Marsh at New Haven."
  • "When Marsh was at Haddonfield examining one of Cope’s fossil finds, the Elasmosaurus—a complete skeleton of a large aquatic plesiosaur, the Elasmosaurus, which that had four flippers and a long neck. hHe commented that the fossil's head was on the wrong end, evidently stating that Cope had put the skull at the end of the vertebra of the tail."
  • "Cope was outraged and the two argued for some time until the two they agreed to have Joseph Leidy come examine the bones and see judge who was right."
  • "Leidy came and, simply picked up the head of the fossil and put it on the other end."
  • "Cope was horrified since he had already published a paper on the fossil that had with the error in it at the American Philosophical Society."
  • "He immediately tried to buy back the copies, but some remained floating around with their buyers ..."
  • "... but only in response to Cope's brief retracted statement where he never admitted he was wrong."
    Confusing here... is the "retracted statement" the one in which "he never admitted he was wrong"? Since he retracted it, why respond?
  • "The two would never talk to each other amicably again."
    This sentence ends the paragraph, and is not cited.
  • "... fossil leaves ..."
    "... fossilized leaves ..."?
  • "Cope was described as a genius and what Marsh lacked in intelligence, he easily made up for in connections—Marsh's uncle was George Peabody..."
    The opening clause seems out of place and disconnected from the context. What has the description of Cope's genius to do with their discoveries and sabotage? If the focus is on Marsh's connections, why not "Marsh exploited his connections to men in high power; his uncle was George Peabody ..."
  • "They were both Cope and Marsh were extremely secretive as to where there of the sources of their fossils. were coming from and wWhen paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, at the time a student at Princeton, visited Cope to ask where he and some of his classmates should travel to look for fossils in the West, Cope politely denied them access to the knowledge of where the fossil fields were in Kansas refused."
  • "Among these dinosaurs would be was Camarasaurus, today one of the most recognizable recreations of this time period."
    What does "today one of the most recognizable recreations of this time period" mean?
  • "... consolidated the various government survey teams into one the United States Geological Survey ..."
  • "This was discouraging to Cope because King immediately named Marsh, an his old college friend of King, Marsh, as the chief paleontologist."

Later years

  • "The 1880s proved to be disastrous for Cope."
  • "With hHis fortune alone was not enough to support his rivalry, so Cope invested in silver and gold mining., Most of his properties were mostly silver mines in New Mexico."
  • "One such mine yielded an ore vein of worth $3 million worth of silver chloride."
  • "For a while he made good money, but by 1886 had to give up his now-worthless stocks."
    Huh? Why worthless? What stocks are these?
  • "During this period he still managed to published from 40 to 75 papers each year."
  • "Rather than work with Powell and the Survey, Cope instead tried to inflame sentiment against him and the Survey them."
  • "... who had used his own money while working as a volunteer with the survey ..."
  • "Since at least 1885, Cope over the years had kept an elaborate journal of mistakes and misdeeds that both Marsh and Powell had committed over the years."
  • "From scientific errors to publishing mistakes, he had it them written down in a journal, which that he had kept in the bottom drawer of his Pine Street desk."
  • "Cope attacked Marsh for plagiarism and financial mismanagement, and attacked Powell for his geological classification errors and misspending of government allocated funds."
  • "Marsh and Powell were each able to published their own side of the story and, in the end, little changed."
  • "Marsh, however, was however quickly removed from his position as paleontologist for the government surveys,. Cope's relations ..."
  • "In writing to Osborn about the articles, he laughed at the outcome,"
  • "... and in 1889 he received a position at the University of Pennsylvania as the pProfessor of zZoology,"
  • "The small yearly stipend was enough for the Cope's family to move back into one of the townhouses Cope he had been forced to relinquish earlier."
  • "With Hhis finances having improved, he was able to publish a massive work on the ..."
  • "These two books, along with his short essays on amphibians and reptiles, would placed Cope as one of the pillars of scientists in these fields."
    I have not heard of "pillars of scientists" before; is this correct phrasing ("pillar" used in this manner)?
  • "His final expedition to the West took place in 1894, where when he prospected for dinosaurs in South Dakota ..."
  • "On returning from a After their European honeymoon, the couple returned to Haverford."
  • "The University of Pennslyvania, in turn, bought ..."

Death

  • "His wife cared for him when she herself was not ill;"
    I thought they had separated and she moved to Haverford? Is the distance that near that daily commutes are short?
  • "... but the plans were put on hold after a temporary improvement in Cope's health, during which time he. Cope went to Virginia looking for fossils, became ill again, and returned very weak to his home."
  • "Osborn visited Cope on April 5, inquiring about Cope's health, but was pressed by the sick paleontologist instead pressed his friend on for his views on the origin of mammals."
  • "Cope died oOn April 12 1897, sixteen weeks short of his 57th birthday, Cope died."
  • "Sternberg wrote in his memoirs [...] His Cope's Quaker funeral ..."
  • "Cope gave his family a choice of taking his books,"
  • "Cope insisted through his will for that there be no graveside service and no or burial;"
  • "His bones were to be extracted and kept in a locked drawer to be studied by anatomy students at the University."
  • "Osborn had listed Cope's cause of death as uremic poisoning,"
  • "... he had contracted in his travels from the women he fraternized with."
  • "... no evidence of bony syphilis on Cope's skeleton."
    Is "bony syphilis" a common or accurate expression? It seems the term is only found in Kricun's notes on Cope.[7][8] If so, it should be in quotes.
  • "Cope had been was survived by Marsh,"

Theories and legacy

  • "... Julia burned any of the scandalous letters and journals ..."
  • "... their recollections of the scandalous nature of some of Cope's unpublished routines."
  • "... she therefore wanted to ..."
  • "He did not blame blacks for their poor virtue, but wrote that, ..."
    This may need rephrasing as it seems to put it as a fact that blacks had poor virtues, which Cope did not blame them for, rather than Cope thinks blacks were inherently inclined to vices and did not blame them. Suggestion: "Although he believed the blacks had poor virtues, he did not blame them, writing, ...'"
  • "Though the view has been shown incorrect, in Cope's time it was the prevalent theory among paleontologists in Cope's time."
  • "As a young man, Hhe read Charles Darwin's Voyage of a Naturalist as a young man, with the book having which had little effect on him."
  • "... was that Darwin had discussed "too much geology" ..."
  • "In 1887, Cope published his own Origin of the Fittest: Essays in Evolution."
    Is "Origin of the Fittest: Essays in Evolution" supposed to be in italics (work) or in quotes (articles, essays, or papers) per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)?
  • "Cope was a strong believer in the law of use and disuse, that an individual will slowly, over time,"
  • "These include three major volumes: On the Origin of Genera (1867), The Vertebrata of the Tertiary Formations of the West (1884: "Cope's bible") and The Origin of the Fittest: Essays in Evolution (1887)."
    Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) issues (quotes or italics)?
  • "His greatest anatomical generalization on the origin of mammalian molars and 'Cope's Law' on the gradual enlargement of a population lineage tends to increase body size over geological time, are testaments to the brilliance and attention to detail that Cope commanded."
    Grammar and length issues: the second clause starts with an "are"...
  • "The most prolific journal on amphibians and reptiles, Copeia, is named after him, as well as many other species that he discovered or was named in his honor, such as the Gambelia copeii. He was an active member of many different scientific societies, most notably the American Academy of Sciences and the American Philosophical society."
    The nearest cite is Levins, but the source state none of these things. Copeia should be in italics.
  • "The salamander, Dicamptodon copei Nussbaum, 1970; the toad, Bufo americanus copei H. C. Yarrow and Henshaw, 1878; the lizard Gambelia wislizenii copeii (H. C. Yarrow, 1882) and the snake Cemophora coccinea copei Jan, 1863 were named for Cope by various other naturalists."
    What the heck is with the formatting here?
  • "The Copeia, the foremost journal for ichthyologists and herpetologists, was named in Cope's honor in 1915 because of his work in the field."
    Totally unsourced. This is also somewhat repetitive of the much earlier sentence "The most prolific journal on amphibians and reptiles, Copeia, is named after him,".

Images

  • File:Cope Edward Drinker 1840-1897.png - Marcus Benjamin is not the author of this photo, he is just the author of the article, "Edward Drinker Cope Paleontologist 1840-1897". This is a crop of F. Gutekunst's work on p. 11 of The Century illustrated monthly magazine (1898), Volume 55.
  • File:Cope Quarry.jpg - publishing date? How did Anky-man acquire it? Was it sold/given to him by relatives of the photographer, or he inherited it from his ancestor or the photographer? A sale (from author to someone else) could constitute first publishing.
  • This article has some pictures of the dinosaurs described by Cope, as restored by Professor H. F. Osborn.
  • This article has an early portrait of Cope, many scans of one of Cope's journal (with his handwriting and sketches) and a photo of him when he was ten years old. I feel these add more to the article than some of the above pictures (and are verifiably published in US before 1923 to boot).
  • My two above suggested sources come from the first two pages of this Google Books search. Perhaps there are other noteworthy photos related to Cope among these pre-1923 books.

Sources

  • dinodata.org, and elbetz.net are not properly or consistently formated in the Notes.
  • What makes dinodata.org a reliable source?
  • What makes elbetz.net a reliable source? Can we not check the sources provided there and use them instead? Note: User:Ellin Beltz.
  • I did not dwelve too much into the sources, but as pointed out above in one example, there might be issues with whether a source contains the information presented here.
  • I believe ref tags can be used for the Annotations.

General

  • Not a concern of mine, but some people might prefer "though"s to be changed to "although"s.

Very fine article on the whole, but there are issues (information not reflected in the sources is serious). Some language issues pointed above might not be, since my standard is not as good as others... Jappalang (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Krrish[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has just recently passed it's Good article status and I think ... with several improving suggestions and hard working on the article, it could actually deserved it's Featured article status. So, if you editors found any mistakes or any suggestions to improve the article, you can write here.

Thanks, World Cinema Writer (talkcontributions) 09:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments I believe the article has some catching up to do to retain GA standards and aGA reassessment might be in order.
    • Entire plot summary is unreferenced
    • Ref 1 is to a forum post on Naachgaana; why is this source considered reliable?
    • Refs 4, 7, 8, 10 are to a fan forum; why is it considered reliable?
    • Ref 9 is not a reference, it's a link to the movie's official website, not even to the section where the statement is supposedly mentioned.
    • Ref 11, looks like cinegoer is a user forum as there's nothing at all to mention authorship or date the article; why is this source considered reliable?
    • Ref 12, the news article looks credible, but the source seems a bit odd to meet our standards. The front page of the website Starswelove.com appears to be that of some spam linker.
    • Ref 17 is a primary source advert/brochure.
    • Refs 14, 18, 19, 40 are to imdb; while some referencing like this is acceptable, there are just too many statements referenced to imdb.
    • Ref 23, referencing six reviews on RottenTomatoes seems quite odd.
    • Ref 29, fansite -- not reliable
    • Refs 30, 31 -- should do better than this.
    • Refs 37, 39, 39, product catalog refs to be avoided.
    • Ref 41, not a reliable source
    • Ref 42, not a reliable source
  • I would suggest that the nominator work on these referencing issues to retain GA status. The article is also in need of a copy-edit, but that would have to follow rewriting based on reliable source references. Best of luck! -SpacemanSpiff 04:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I knew the problems could be the references, but their statement was true and it could be the only website providing the news. Moreover, it's a Hindi film and not many sources I could get to write. World Cinema Writer (talkcontributions) 07:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sholes and Glidden typewriter[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like for this article to ultimately reach FA status. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. The GA review mentioned that there might be some focus and tone issues, so comments or suggestions on those aspects would also be welcome.

Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • Only concern is ref 2, the Oden, that's a published work that's being hosted online, so it should be formatted like a book with just a convenience link to the online hosting.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit (talk · contribs)

  • This is a wonderful article - it flows well and is impeccably written. I really can't find anything wrong with it - what a pleasure to read! The only sentence that stuck out at me was "Before the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) established the first typing school in 1881,[58] women were trained by the manufacturer and provided to customers along with the machine." - This sounds like they are selling women. Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, in a roundabout way... I added "optionally" to try to tone it down a bit. Unfortunately, the women were, at least initially, seen more as appliances than people. (In 1870, there were 7 women stenographers in the US; there just weren't women in the clerical workplace at the time so, especially with attitudes of the time, people didn't know what to make of them in that setting.) Эlcobbola talk 16:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A most interesting article, generally well illustrated and presented. I have confined my comments to prose, which I believe could be improved in small ways; my suggestions are listed below. If any of these have already been raised by other reviewers, strike them out.

  • Lead
    • "After numerous revisions and several failed or short-lived attempts to manufacture the device, the machine was acquired by E. Remington and Sons..." A bit confusing. "Revisions" suggests that a machine was manufactured and then revised. But then we read of failed attempts to manufacture it. In what form did "the machine" exist that Remington's acquired? I think the problem is with the word "manufacture"; if you made this "finalize", the sentence becomes clear.
      • I was hoping to capture/summarize the manufacture in Chicago in 1868, the platen redesign in 1869 and the second manufacture in 1871 (which is also when the third platen was being developed). There seemed to have been a distinct back and forth before moving to Remington. The machine probably wouldn't be considered to have been "finalized" until around the time the No. 2 came about, if ever. I've removed discussion of the revisions to clear confusion and focus the sentence on the manufacturing aspect. Эlcobbola talk 14:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Why is "uppercase" linked on second rather than first mention? Incidentally, my dictionary gives "upper case" (two words) for the noun form, "upper-case" for the adjective form, but not "uppercase", even as a US variant.
      • I wanted a wikilink in the third paragraph to provide some degree of "visual balance" (I had thought the MOS recommended this at one point, but I'm likely wrong). Germans love compound words, so that's just bad English on my part. Wikilink moved and "uppercase" hyphenated. Эlcobbola talk 14:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "1800s" is a bit ambiguous (decade or century?) It would be clearer to refer to the late 19th century.
  • Early development
    • Suggest serial numbers "on", not in tickets
      • Looks like Awadewit got that one for me. Эlcobbola talk 14:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Tense confusion: "Carlos S. Glidden, an inventor who had been frequenting the machine shop..." Suggest: "Carlos S. Glidden, an inventor and frequent visitor to the machine shop..."
      • I've changed the tense from "had been frequenting" to "frequented". Эlcobbola talk 14:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "...adapted to print letters as well as numbers." It would be more accurate to say "...adapted to print alphabetical as well as numerical characters."
      • I prefer that phrasing as well. Changed. Эlcobbola talk 14:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Style point: I'd say he "read" rather than "encountered" the article.
    • ...found the machine "complicated and liable to get out of order" I think "thought" rather than found, since he was only reading about the machine, not testing it.
    • "As a proof of concept, a telegraph key was modified to print the letter "W". This is slightly cryptic. I think it means "To demonstrate that the proposed machine was feasible the key from a telegraph machine was adapted, and was able to print th letter W." It may be worth extending your sentence a little.
      • It now reads: "To test the proposed machine's feasibility, a key was taken from a telegraph machine and modified to print the letter 'W'". It that more successful in getting the point across? Эlcobbola talk 14:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "by September" - give a year, I'd forgotten what year we were in.
    • "despite its flaws" - grammatically, it refers back to the patent, not the machine. Specify "despite the machine's flaw..."
  • Refinement
    • "iteration" is a strange choice of word, normally used for repeated speech; I've not heard it used otherwise. "Version", perhaps?
    • Link stenographer
    • Perhaps we could have some information about the "hard use" that destroyed several machines?
      • The sources don't really elaborate, I'm afraid. Iles says he "reduced the machine to ruin", but not precisely how. Other sources mention only his harsh feedback or again fail to specify his actions beyond being "abusive". My supposition is that he used the machines continuously for long periods of time and wasn't exactly gentle while doing so; I worry that adding that, however, would be considered OR. Эlcobbola talk 15:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, if no more information is available, let it stand as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Clarify what Densmore was asking $50,000 for. The rights, presumably.
      • I'm struggling with this. I'm not sure how to specify without making the sentence awkward. Any suggestions? Эlcobbola talk 15:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
        • On reading it again it seems clear enough, so I suggest it is left Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "infringed on a patent" - "on" is redundant
    • We hear no more of Washburn's patent. Did they pay him royalties, or change the design?
      • He was indeed paid royalties. I've tried to clarify. Эlcobbola talk 15:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It's probably worth giving us a reminder of who Schwalbach is, e.g. "the clockmaker Schwalbach"
      • I've removed the mention of Schwalbach, as it didn't really seem necessary here. Эlcobbola talk 15:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "In exchange for funding the ventures, Densmore had been acquiring an ever increasing interest in the typewriter." Clarify this means an increasing finacial share. Also, this is the first time you have referred to the machine as a "typewriter", thus. When did this become the machine's accepted name?
      • "Typewriter" is mentioned as "type-writer" in the second-to-last sentence in the Early Development section, which is the name used in the June 23, 1868 patent. I used typewriter here, however, in the hope of distinguishing the "larger concept". His interest in the venture as a whole (i.e. the intellectual property), not necessarily a physical manifestation thereof was increasing (although the interest no doubt also included rights to the hard assets). I've removed "in the typewriter", hoping that context will still make it clear what was happening. How does it read now? Эlcobbola talk 15:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Start of an industry
    • "This work was largely overseen..." Clarify this means the production work
    • "Remington lowered the price of the Sholes and Glidden (referred to in sales literature as the Remington No. 1) to $80" - were they still selling the No. 1 model after the No. 2 had been introduced?
      • Yes. However, sources don't say that the No. 1 was still being produced. The sales, then, may have been actual new production or, more likely, just remaining stock. Эlcobbola talk 15:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Clarence W. Seamens (Fairbanks & Company's former sales manager), Benedict and William O. Wychoff," These lists of names - they're a bit tedious to read, and I'd forgotten who "Benedict" was. Do we need such detail as "Fairbanks & Company's former sales manager"?
      • I'm getting ahead of myself here. These three bought the typewriter business from Remington in 1886 when it (Remington) is dealing with insolvency. They're quite important to the industry and the Remington Typewriter Company (currently just a redirect), but not so much here. I've generalized the reference to the firm name. Эlcobbola talk 15:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Design
    • Some of the information in the first paragraph, e.g. Thurner's cylinder, has been mentioned earlier. It may be possible to abbreviate some of the description here.
      • I was also a bit concerned that the platen design was being beaten to death. I've removed the sentence all together, as it is indeed mentioned elsewhere. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "held in place by a movable (to provide line and letter spacing) square frame." - very awkward placing of the parenthetical phrase, between adjective and noun.
    • Best, I think, to remove the parenthetical (platen), as this word is used also for a different part of the machine
  • QWERTY: No issues with this section, which is admirably clear. I've always wanted to know how this keyboard configuration came about; now I do.
  • Reception and legacy
    • "The Sholes and Glidden was the first commercially successful typewriter." If Sholes and Glidden refers to the Remington No. 1, is it correct to call it commercially successful? You refer, above, to sales being "lacklustre" before 1878, the year the Remington No. 2 was introduced and sales seemed to take off.
      • I had the same concern, but that's indeed how the sources attribute it. I assume selling several thousand was sufficent to be considered a success, as previous attempts at producing writing machines produced either no or very minimal sales. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
        • So perhaps it was the first typewriter to achieve relative commercial success? That would be another way of putting it, and has the advantage of qualifying the success. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Women and the typewriter
    • Link on "attractive women"? What's all that about?
      • The women were used as sex appeal. Sex appeal is a redirect to Sex in advertising, which is why it seems an odd wikilink. The link isn't necessary to understand the article, so I've removed it. Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Does "major consequence" need quotes? It's a commonplace phrase
      • It seems, to me anyway, to be a rather bold conclusion, so I've used the exact phrase the sources use ("major consequence"); the quotes are to avoid concerns about plagarism. I've moved the cite to directly after the phrase to clarify (hopefully) what is happening. Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "women were trained by the manufacturer and provided to customers along with the machine." - and sales were lacklustre! Needs a mite rephrasing, perhaps?
      • I'm not sure I follow. Sales took off in 1878 with the Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict marketing and the No. 2. The typewriting school opened in 1881, so there are several intervening years of "successful" sales for typists to have come from the manufacturer (and even the 4,000 machines sold by 1877 needed operators). Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
        • My point was, jokingly, to highlight the impression given in the prose that the company was selling women along with their machines (Awadewit makes the same point). Sorry I didn't make that clear. You could say, "...women operators were trained by the manufacturer and their services provided to customers along with the machine." Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "or less of those paid to a man..." Should be "less than"
      • It's supposed to mean women's wages could have been 50%, 40%, etc. less than those paid to a man. Wouldn't "often 50% less than those paid to a man" imply just 50%, or even above (e.g. 60%, etc.)? Do you have any suggestions on how to rephrase it? Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I meant to suggest in my comment that the phrasing should be: "often 50% or less than those paid to a man - I wasn't suggesting the "or" be dropped. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Clarify: gave them an economic advantage over men.

That's all I can find. I learned interesting stuff from this article which has future FAC written all over it. I shall be away from Wikipedia from Sunday until Friday 20 November, so if there's anything I've not made clear, please contact me fairly quickly. Good luck, Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a few comments where there was uncertainty. You are not obliged to take them up. It's a fine article and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Moni3

  • Interesting article. It seems my only comments (good for you) are to insert brief clauses to explain some terms like economies of scale and how it prevented a profit, escapement adapted from clockwork.
  • I feel somehow that my ignorance of inventing and such allows this scant review, but I found the article engaging and interesting. Thanks for asking me to review it. I probably would never have found it otherwise. --Moni3 (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A few comments from Graham Colm

Very well-written and thoroughly engaging, this article is a joy to read. I got a little tired of being told three times what "blind writer" means and I found this sentence passive "Although also the result of a need to maintain manufacturing efficiencies with Remington's sewing machine division, these characteristics were meant to facilitate acceptance of the typewriter into the household". I think it would read better turned around, "These characteristics were meant...." And, will every reader know that the per capita income means each year, (on reflection does it?). Lastly, and no big deal at all, "typed" and "entered" are both used to mean the same thing—I wonder what this action would have been called at the time. Graham Colm Talk 20:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re per capita: it does and they won't, so I suggest link it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Per capita means per person. Capita is accusative plural of caput (head) - think of the root of the English word "capital". When you talk about per capita income, it means the average (personal) income per person. Clarification would seem to be in order. Эlcobbola talk 13:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look, Graham. I've made changes to address (hopefully) your comments. I've tried to use alternate wordings (e.g. going between "device" and "machine" to refer to the typewriter) to avoid getting too monotonous or repetitious. Perhaps references to "typed" or "entered" aren't frequent enough for this to really be an issue; do you think the article would be stronger with consistency? The Scientific American article from 10. August 1872 refers to the process merely as "writing". I hadn't paid attention to the verbiage used in other contemporary descriptions, however. Эlcobbola talk 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I understood per capita in the sense of per person, but I thought it needed "per year" as well. Anyhow, you have changed this for the better already. Regarding "typed" and "entered", this is a completely trivial issue that made me curious as to what the action was originally called. I associate "type" with typewriters (yes I am that old) and "entered" with PCs. I would leave them in the article because, I agree, the variety is good. I think that passive sentence reads better now. As you know, I watch the FAC page and I look forward to seeing this article nominated. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 15:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cavalier King Charles Spaniel[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because while I want to see if improvements can be made to it in order to move it up to at least GA, I'm wondering about the major differences it has compared to some of the other dog breed articles.

For instance, it's health section is massive - should those enormous paragraphs be culled and potentially moved into their own relevant pages?

Also I'm always wondering if a gallery generally has any place in such an article.

Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dana boomer

Hello! This is a very nice start to a dog breed article - and they're such a beautiful dog that it's nice to see their article get some TLC. The first thing I would suggest would be to look at some other recent dog breed GAs, to see if they give you any ideas. None of them are perfect, but they may spark an idea - I'd start with German Shepherd Dog and English Cocker Spaniel. As for specific comments for this article on its way to GA:

  • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, two to three solid paragraphs (each a little longer than the current one) is appropriate. The lead should be a summary of the entire article, while including no new information.
  • In the infobox, the FCI and ANKC links are not working.
  • Ref #2 (Dog Breeders in Denial) deadlinks, and blogs are generally not considered reliable sources anyways.
  • There is a complete lack of references in the first three sections, which will need to be remedied before GAN. Two subsections of the Health section are missing references, while the Syringomyelia section is missing references in its last paragraph. The History section is also completely unreferenced.
  • The formatting of the web references needs some work. They should always include publishers and access dates, and should include authors, publication dates and other info when available.
  • The article needs extensive work on spacing and punctuation - please comb through it thoroughly, and possibly get another editor to also look through the prose. Perhaps post on the dog breeds project talk page?
  • The article isn't that long, so I don't think the health section needs to be removed to its own article. However, it does dominate the TOC, and has several short sections. Perhaps work on combining these based on type of disease? For example, Keratoconjunctivitis sicca and Other eye disorders could be combined into simply "Eye disorders", while Hip dysplasia and Luxating patella could be combined into "Joint disorders". Primary Secretory Otitis Media and Deafness could also be combined into "Ear disorders".
  • The Health section has no images in it. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it would be neat to include images, either of a couple of the specific diseases or of the breed in general (possibly the photos you keep from the gallery, see below).
  • The gallery is probably not necessary in this article, especially as many of the images do not show anything new about the breed or give the reader any additional information. I would keep the first photo (of the Blenheim sitting), and only then if it is really an especially good representation of the color. I would also keep the last photo, of the best in show dog, and maybe even use this as the lead image, because it is a wonderful representation of the dog, showing its full body, well groomed, and even facing into the article (a huge plus!). The middle three show nothing new and could be tossed.

I hope the comments above help you in your quest for GA or more. I realize that it may seem like a lot of work to do, but as I said above, this is a really good start on the article. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. I will be watchlisting this page, so either ask me here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Gray Wolf[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its one of the higher importance Wikiproject Dogs articles, is a former FA and has now dropped down to a B class. A fair amount of edits have occured since the drop and I'd like to get it back up to GA and eventually FA once again - however I'd like to know where to start as I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article with a lot of information in it. I think it needs to be better organized and have some MOS issues addressed to get back to FA. With that in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • This is a fairly long article, with a fairly short lead (two paragraphs and a one sentence third). The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, even if it is just a word or phrase. Please see WP:LEAD, which says the lead can be up to four paragraphs.
  • Also seen in the lead, but noticable throughout is a tendency to have short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these interrupt the flow of the article and should either be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.
  • Article has a lot of references, but there are still some places which need refs - for example, the third paragraph in the Physical characteristics section has no refs, or in the next section this she and her mate will spend an extended time in seclusion. Pheromones in the female's urine and the swelling of her vulva make known to the male that the female is in heat. The female is unreceptive for the first few days of estrus, during which time she sheds the lining of her uterus; but when she begins ovulating again, the two wolves mate. needs a ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I did not check all of the sources used for refs, but make sure they also are reliable and meet WP:RS - for example, what makes this a RS?
  • WP:MOSIMAGE says to avoid sandwiching text between two images, but there are several places that do this, such as twice in the Taxonomy section
  • WP:HEAD says not to use the article title in a section header if at all possible, so sections like "Wolves as pets and working animals" should be renamed (and as this is a two sentence section, could it be combined with another?)
  • The toolbox in the upper right corner finds five disambiguation links, at least three dead external links used a refs, and no alt text - see WP:ALT. All of these need to be fixed before GAN< let along FAC.
  • File:Man-wolves.jpg needs a WP:FAIR USE rationale for inclusion in this article.
  • Use of bold in the Body language section does not seem to follow WP:ITALIC
  • The article as a whole is very much a hodge-podge - it reads like it has been worked on by many editors and had lots of material added haphazardly over time. One of the main challenges will be to better organize the article so the material flows well and the prose is at a professional level, one of the most difficult criteria for FAs for most articles to meet - see WP:WIAFA
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on species that would seem to be good potential model articles, see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Biology

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


A Rugrats Chanukah[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get it to FAC. Almost all of the sources are offline, so I do not believe there are any issues with RS, but any structural or grammar corrections the reviewer catches would be appreciated (please note I have asked a copyeditor to copyedit the article, so the grammar fixes will probably be fixed once that happens)

Thanks in advance, The Flash {talk} 16:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This sounds like a fun episode. I have just a few suggestions for improvement.

Lead

  • "The plot of the special sees the babies visiting a synagogue with Grandpa Boris and learning the story of Hanukkah, imagining themselves as the people featured in it." - Since plots don't see, this might be better: "The plot involves a visit by the babies, accompanied by Grandpa Boris, to a synagogue. While there, they learn the story of Hanukkah and imagine themselves as the main characters." Or something like that.
  • "The idea of making a Rugrats Hanukkah special was pitched to the crew in 1992... " - Since "pitched" is slang, perhaps "suggested" would be better.
  • Are you sure that it is slang? Its a common term in animation, television, and media in general. I, for one, have never considered "pitching the story" as a slang term; could you explain to me why its slang? The Flash {talk} 06:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You could be right, as in "sales pitch". Maybe "pitching" could be linked to Pitch (filmmaking), even though that short explanation is, alas, unsourced. It would improve the encyclopedia if you could find and add a good source to the "pitch (filmmaking)" article; then the link would be more meaningful. Finetooth (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. I'll get to sourcing that page is just a few. It shouldn't be too hard, I have a few sources at the top of my head already. The Flash {talk} 14:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Page has been expanded with extra sources. Check it out. The Flash {talk} 15:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Production

  • "the crew began to consider creating the Hanukkah special Nickelodeon originally pitched to them" - Ditto on the slang.
  • "Paramount Home Video began wrapping up production for home-media releases of the episode... " - Slang. Perhaps "finishing" instead of "wrapping up"?

Release and reception

  • "It was repeated twice that night,[14] receiving a Nielsen Rating of 7.9 in the "Kids 2-11" demographic." - I'm not sure why "Kids 2-11" is in quotes. Also, the age range needs an en dash rather than a hyphen.
  • "On December 1, 2001, CBS broadcast the episode for the first time on their channel at 8:30 p.m., Eastern time, carrying a TV-Y parental rating." - CBS is an "it" rather than a "they". Thus, "on its channel" would be correct. But shouldn't the word be "network" rather than "channel"?
  • "TV Guide later wrote that "Nickelodeon's Rugrats secured its place in television history" with the episode — "The babies acting out their own version of the story is enough to entertain a child of any religious denomination, so learning the historical meaning behind latkes and dreidels is just an added bonus." - I'm not sure repeating this quote twice—once here and once in the quote box—is a good idea.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one.


DAMS GD-01[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello all, I have just created this article and I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve it.

Thanks, --Midgrid(talk) 22:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Dbratland (talk · contribs)[edit]

Unfortunately, only one of the pages I cite in the article is available on Google Books, but I've included it anyway.--Midgrid(talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, because this book is used several times, it's kind of distracting to see it cited five times in references just because the page numbers are different. One option is to have only one citation which says <ref name=unraced>{{cite book|last=Collins|first=Sam|title=Unraced...Formula One's lost cars|chapter=DAMS GD-01|publisher=Veloce Publishing|year=2007|pages=8-14, 122 |isbn=978-18458-4084-6}}</ref> and then for each inline citation, use superscript to give the specific page number, like <ref name=unraced/>p. 14. I saw this done on a recent Featured Article; I'll point it out if I can remember which one.
Hmmm, call it personal preference, but I think I would find this option more distracting! Might the style of referencing used in Forti be an suitable alternative?--Midgrid(talk) 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC) See below.--Midgrid(talk) 18:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I'm one of those people who doesn't like the Harvard style of referencing.--Midgrid(talk) 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Ignore that, I misinterpreted how this system works. I'll have a go at reformatting the references later.--Midgrid(talk) 18:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Midgrid(talk) 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In the infobox racing car, the usual practice is not to write Length Unknown, but instead to just leave any fields you don't have data for blank. It serves the same purpose and reduces visual clutter. "Unknown" is also incorrect -- the data is known, just not by us.
Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Use {{convert}} for all of the statistics like the capacity=3.0 L field, maximum power of 610 bhp, etc.
Sorry, I'm not too familiar with non-metric units. Which are the best choices for these two fields to convert to?--Midgrid(talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It's cubic inches for displacement, 3.0 l (180 cu in) and kilowatts for brake horsepower, 610 bhp (450 kW). See Template:Convert#Parameters and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Units.--Dbratland (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Note that I haven't done anything to "a new unit for the three-litre era of F1 that began in 1995" in the text because this isn't meant to be a technical description.--Midgrid(talk) 17:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This article leans heavily on Wikilinks to make sense. This is fine but it is a little challenging to the general reader to have to read many sub-articles to make sense of it. I would consider adding a little bit of gloss or explanation for some of the more obscure linked terms. For example, the lead could say:

    The DAMS GD-01 was an unraced Formula One (F1) car used by the French motorsport team, Driot-Arnoux Motor Sport (DAMS). The GD-01 was designed and built by a collaboration of DAMS and Reynard engineers from 1994 to 1995, and was intended to establish the team—which had achieved considerable success in lower categories—in Formula One, the premier FIA class. But a continuing lack of finance meant that the team never entered the championship, despite completing construction of the chassis and conducting some testing.

    The linked article says F1 is the premier class, but this gives you a little clue without having to click on the link. Another example:

    It proved to be off the pace due to its cautious bodywork and aerodynamic design, indicating that it would need a thorough development programme in order for it to compete effectively in Formula One, particularly with the introduction of the 107% rule, which eliminated drivers too far behind the pace of the pole position, for the 1996 season.

    Might do the same for a few more opaque terms, like Elf fuel, etc. It has Goodyear tires, but what size?
Done. Regarding tyres, the size isn't considered to be important during this period in F1 history, as Goodyear had a supply monopoly and all F1-specification tyres were the same size.--Midgrid(talk) 17:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Another strategy to deal with the thick forest of Wikilinks is to get rid of as many as you can. I'm thinking of French and British, for example. Everyone knows what France and the UK are and they can get by without Wikilinks for common words like this.--Dbratland (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Done, although I didn't think any of the links apart from those two were trivial enough to be removed.--Midgrid(talk) 17:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments!--Midgrid(talk) 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem! By the way... --Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Aha! Sadly my knowledge of bikes is extremely limited, but I'll take a look at it from a layman's perspective when I have some time.--Midgrid(talk) 17:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Apterygial (talk · contribs)[edit]

Interesting article! Note that I am deliberately picky with my reviews, and the issues I raise are not necessarily problems I had, but are things which could create trouble in the future, depending on where you want to go with the article.

  • First of all, I love the way this PR is filed in "everyday life".
  • Perhaps change the first Formula One link to Formula One car, and link the second to the generic page. Could probably get away with moving the acronym there too.
  • As laborious as it is, FIA should be spelled out on first mention.
  • Link chassis.
  • "conducting some testing." The word "some" always seems a little unprofessional. Maybe "limited"? By
  • "In order to design and build a competitive Formula One car". A problem which is developing here is that you are switching between "F1" and "Formula One". Would it be acceptable to change all to "Formula One"?
  • "...but progress was slow due to limited finance." Maybe "limited financial backing"? And again later? Something about that sentence bugs me.
  • The second sentence of the Construction sentence is pretty long; you could probably split it off after "...its 24-hour race", and say "In addition, changes to the sport's...".
  • Maybe hyphens to stop the sentence run between "regulations" and "as a", and "Grand Prix" and "further hindered" (if my convoluted way of explaining this is too convoluted, let me know).
  • Get that Larrousse link in.
It's already linked earlier in the paragraph. ;) --Midgrid(talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes it is. Apterygial 20:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If you are going to mention the Evin Law, you really have to explain it, which I think means that you are probably better off without it.
  • "...due to the modifications it would have to go in order to comply with the rules." Maybe "...due to the modifications which would have to take place in order to comply with the rules."
That was meant to be "undergo", but I think your wording sounds better anyway.--Midgrid(talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Xtrac gearboxes were also used in the Minardi M195 and Simtek 951 chassis in 1995." Is this really needed?
I think it's certainly worth including, as it emphasises the team's reliance on customer parts.--Midgrid(talk) 17:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "to go racing" would probably be better as "to race" (NASCAR fans may disagree).

Just those little niggles. Apterygial 07:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I'll make these changes when I have some more time.--Midgrid(talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I've addressed all of your points. Thanks again for the comments.--Midgrid(talk) 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a well developed article that I believe is worthy of a C or better class.

Thanks, FELYZA TALK CONTRIBS 05:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a history of the device, based on what I could source. FELYZA TALK CONTRIBS 11:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is nicely written, interesting, and nicely illustrated. However, fairly large sections of it lack sources, and the lead needs to be re-worked to more accurately summarize the whole article. Here are a few suggestions:

Lead

  • MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead says little about "Health issues" and "Legal status". Also, it says that these devices have "...undergone several laboratory tests, with mostly positive results." The latter seems both incomplete and misleading since the last two sections of the article suggest that many agencies in many countries have substantial doubts about the safety of these devices.
  • The lead should not include important information that is not developed in the main text. For example, the claim that "it has been gaining popularity world-wide" doesn't seem to be developed in the main text. What supports this claim? Are any statistics available? This kind of information, if available, could be added to the History section. It also might be possible to add information about device styles (pens, cigars, and so on) to the "Components" section rather than just putting it in the lead.

Components

  • The Manual of Style (MOS) generally deprecates extremely short sections, subsections, and paragraphs. The two general solutions are either to expand or merge. I think you could safely eliminate the subheads in this section and just go with the head, "Components". Doing that would solve a second problem related to layout. The MOS advises against placing images in such a way that they overlap section boundaries or displace heads or subheads. If you merge all of the subsections of "Components", you'll have room to move Image:Components of a MiniCiggy e-cigarette.jpg down into the Components section and still have room for Image:Ecig usb charger.jpg further down in the same section.
  • Most of this section as well as other parts of the article lack sources even though the information in them is not common knowledge and must have come from somewhere. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph in an article as well as sources for statistics, direct quotations, and any claim that is extraordinary, has been challenged, or is likely to be challenged.
  • The dabfinder tool in the upper right-hand corner of this review page finds some wikilinks in the article that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended target.
  • The images lack alt text, which is meant to describe the content of the images to readers who can't see them. Please see WP:ALT for details.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Ashley Tisdale[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it again for FA but I'm not sure if this article is ready for it. In my opinion, it is but I wanted to see other editions opinions before nominating it.

Thanks, Decodet (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Liquidluck (talk):

  • There are a number of broken links.
  • Images need alt text per WP:ALT
  • What makes these cites reliable?: Interfaith.com (appears to be a blog), Fanbolt.com,
  • Go through each citation and make sure the formatting is identical. In some cases, the cites list the website as the publisher (I.E. MTV.com), while others list the publication as the publisher (I.E. MTV), and others list the publiher's owner (I.E. MTV Networks. For example, citation numbers 42-52 are all formatted differently. Pick one and reformat the others to match.
  • The "Not Like That" sample does not include a non-fair use rationale for Ashley Tisdale, only for Not Like That. You need a very strong rationale for using it on the Ashley Tisdale page (Why this song, why this song on this page.). See rationales for Smooth Criminal and Thriller for examples.

Body

  • In the lead, specify which film in "...both songs from the film's first soundtrack."
  • According to the Phineas and Ferb article, Tisdale is a main cast member. Since she is featured on the show's title card along with the title characters, I'm inclined to agree. Is there a reason you wrote supporting instead?
  • switch "pursued" to "launched" or "began", since she continued to act following her first HM appearance.
  • Early life seems disjointed, from commercials to major Broadway show to community theatre to singing for the President to commericals again. The sentences are fine, but change the order to more than 100 commercials, became a Ford Model, community theater, Broadway, President.
  • Tisdale was soon cast as Sharpay Evans in the Disney Channel Original Movie High School Musical, which premiered _____.
  • You need another comma after EP title, Headstrong, and Not Like That.
  • Give her role on Phineas and Ferb more emphasis; mention that she also sings here. Info might be found on the Phineas and Ferb page as it is a good-looking GA article.
  • This sentence is too long. Break it up: "Guilty Pleasure was first released in June, 2009 in several countries and in July of the same year in North America,[5] it later debuted at number twelve on Billboard 200, selling 25,000 copies in its first week of sales.[27]"

I stopped going through the article after that, as it appears there are no serious content issues, just grammar issues. Get someone else who is not a major contributor to read through and copy-edit the article, or at least read it outloud to yourself. Fix the grammar, and I'd say you have a good FA candidate. Good luck! Liquidluck (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed most of your issues but Im still working on some of them, such as the references. Thanks for your help! Decodet (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Let me know on my talk page if you have questions or need a copy-editor. Liquidluck (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get suggestions on areas of imporvement for the article in terms of tone, style and content. Ultimately, I want to make this a featured article.

Thanks, Vastrapur (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is well-written in terms of prose quality, and it is nicely illustrated. However, it has several problems, some of them serious, that will have to be addressed for the article to be considered minimally acceptable, much less good or featured.

  • Most of the article lacks sources and is therefore in violation of one of Wikipedia's prime directives, that the claims made in any article be verifiable. Please see WP:V for details. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for each paragraph and to provide a source for every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every direct quotation.
  • The lack of sourcing is connected to another big problem. Much of the article reads like boilerplate material from publications promoting the institute. This kind of material is often produced by very good writers who work for an institute or university and whose job it is to present the university in the best possible light. Alas, that makes it not directly suitable for Wikipedia because it is not neutral. Please see WP:NPOV, which says in part, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Sentences in the article such as "This has contributed significantly to IIMA's distinctive identity as a premier teaching institution in India" may well be true but since they are not attributed to any source, they cannot be verified. Sentences with similar honorific language appear throughout the article; repairing this is therefore not just a matter of changing a few words but of re-writing the entire article in as neutral a fashion as possible. To do a good job with this, you'll probably need to find additional reliable sources outside the institute that discuss the institute or analyze it or criticise it or produce statistics about it. It's fine to cite institute sources for basic facts about the institute (enrollment figures, class sizes, building descriptions, names of programmes, and the like), but the institute is not a reliable source for judgments about itself or its programmes. Please see WP:RS for more information about reliable sources.
  • Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these can be found. Thus citation 1 should include the publication date, October 14, 2009, and the access date (the last date the url was clicked and the page viewed by someone altering the citation). The site does not list an author, so we can't add one, and that is OK. For more information about citations, please see WP:CITE.
  • MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." - The existing lead in this article reads more like an essay introduction that a true summary or abstract. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of the main text sections and not to include anything important that is not developed in the main text. However, I would suggest putting off a re-write of the lead until you're satisfied that the main text sections are complete or nearly so. It's easier to write the complete lead last even though it comes first in the article.
  • It's often helpful to look at good or featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar material. See Florida Atlantic University, a featured article, for example.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful, and I wish you luck with the project. Finetooth (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Vastrapur comments:Thank you for your comments. I'm working on them. Vastrapur (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


Whiz Kids (baseball)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for GA. KV5 (TalkPhils) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is interesting and parts of it are well done, much of it is still in need of a lot of work before I think it would pass at GAN (or survive a merge proposal) Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • As it currently stands, the article would probably be merged with the 1950 Philadelphia Phillies season article - there just is not that much on the Whiz Kids themselves in the article and the best part is the section on the season (which is lacking in the other article).
  • It would be inappropriate for this article to be merged with 1950 Philadelphia Phillies season for two reasons: 1) the Whiz Kids are a phenomenon that lasted, and were referred to, beyond the 1950 season. They are not exclusive to one year. 2) Notable teams can have their own articles (see $100,000 infield and Murderer's Row. The 1950 season article should deal with the day-to-day workings of the team (see 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season as an example); the reason that it does not is because there are minimal sources available at this time. If Wikipedia had been around in 1950, it would be a different story. KV5 (TalkPhils) 12:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be unclear, I should have said it could be merged in its current state, not that it should be. I do not doubt the notability of the Whiz Kids, but the article needs to focus more on them. A search on "Whiz Kids Phillies" on Google Books here finds a lot of potential sources. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I also note that when I couldn't recall the exact title and just entered "Whiz Kids", the Whiz Kids (disambiguation) page gives two facts which should be in the lead and rest of the article but are not the youngest squad to ever win the National League pennant, and at that time the youngest to ever play in a World Series. Who gave them the name Whiz Kids? When? I would also explain in much greater detail some of the items that are just mentioned in passing, like the Bonus Babies in the lead. I think this can be a very nice GA, but it needs to provide context for the reader and focus on its subject better.
  • The "Before 1950" section is jumbled and hard to follow - it also ends with the Yankees wining the World Series in 1950 and for 3 more years after (which hardly matches the section header). I would start by making the timeframe clearer in the first sentence, something like Prior to the 1950 sesaon, the Phillies' last and only appearance in the World Series was in 1915.
  • The whole second paragraph in Before 1950 is confusing. Unless the reader already knows more about the Phillies than I do, it is hard to figure out who was the manager and when. Also the whole section on bonuses needs to then include the logical consequences - because of the large bonuses awarded, the players were forced to be on the Phillies roster, leading to the youngest team ever... (right??)
  • I also wonder if it would help to briefly introduce the major players on the team before the section in the season. Since the article is about the team (Whiz Kids) and not just their season, I think this makes sense (like a cast section in an article on a movie).
  • WP:MOSHEAD says to avoid the use of "The" in headers ("The 1950 season", could this just be "1950 season"?)
  • I thought the section on the four games of the 1950 World Series seemed too short, especially compared to the much longer section on the one game season finale right before it. Any analysis on why the lost in the Series that could be included? Did their youth and relative inexperience finally catch up with them? Or was it just the hated Yankees having sold their souls to the devil for five years of baseball glory?
  • The sections after the World Series need to focus more on the Whiz Kids too - were any players traded or did any retire (contributing to their slump the next season?)
  • The block quote in the Aftermath section is too short (supposed to be at least four lines long to be a block quote)
  • The images of the Wall of Fame are very nice, but my fear is that the sculptures are works of art and thus considered non-free. This will probably not be a problem at GAN, but could be at FAC.
  • Bottom line - what made the Whiz Kids special and unique? Does this article convey that to an interested but otherwise ignorant reader?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this obviously isn't nearly as ready for GA as I thought by a long shot. I suppose we can go ahead and button this review up, and I'll work on it piecemeal as I have time; I can't take care of this many fundamental issues in a short period of time. KV5 (TalkPhils) 17:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not a bad article, but it does need work. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a great source here Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take this to FL status. The main problem at the moment is the lead, which I'm not really sure what to do with, but clearly needs quite a bit of work. I also welcome feedback on whether or not I have comprehensively covered the subject.

Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks like a more comprehensive constituency listing than others I've seen, and could set a standard in this topic area. Here are some suggestions that might help to bring it to FL standard:-

  • Prose and presentation issues: Lead
    • "Each constituency elects a Member of Parliament (MP), who represents their constituency at the UK Parliament in Westminster." This is ungrammatical. Best to simplify: "Each constituency elects a Member of Parliament (MP) to represent it at the UK Parliament in Westminster."
    • "Nine of Hertfordshire's eleven MPs are Conservative Party MPs, while the remaining two are part of the governing Labour Party." Sentence needs a time reference, and also slight rephrasing to avoid unnecessary repetition of "MPs". Thus: "Following the 2005 General Election nine of Hertfordshire's eleven MPs are Conservatives, the remaining two being members of the governing Labour Party."
    • Wrong use of hyphens in "...two urban borough constituencies- Broxbourne and Watford- while the other..." These should be ndashes, with spaces around them, thus: "...two urban borough constituencies – Broxbourne and Watford – while the other..."
    • "county constituencies" should have the same wikilink as "borough constituencies", since each term is explained in the same place. Since you later adopt the letters "BC" and "CC" as you should introduce thewe abbreviations here.
    • It would make things clearer if the second lead paragraph began with a brief explanation: "Since the last constituency elections in 2005, some boundaries have been altered. The present boundaries..." etc
      • I think I've dealt with everything raised here (thought I'd posted this last night!). WFCforLife (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Parliamentary history of Hertfordshire
    • The word "also" is redundant in the second sentence.
    • The words "in the thirteenth century" in the fifth sentence, are redundant since you have already mentioned the thirteenth century as the starting point.
    • Awkward phrasing: "...which increased the constituency of Hertfordshire's representation from two MPs to three..." This would be clearer as "which increased Hertfordshire constituency's representation from two MPs to three,..."
    • This history seems incomplete, ending as it does with the 1885 Redistribution of Seats Act. There needs to be a couple more sentences explaining that the rising and mobile population, and the gradual extension of the franchise from a privileged few to a mass electorate, meant that all over the country, not just in Hertfordshire, constituency boundaries have continued to be redrawn at regular intervals. That would give you a proper run-in to your first table, which is not well-integrated with the article at present.
  • Constituencies for the 2010 General Election
    • Section needs a brief introduction saying when the current boundaries were determined. The "Key" table which follows I found unhelpful. It would be better to replace this with a text summary of the five ward changes, or possibly with a three column table: Ward name; Previous constituency; New constituency
    • There needs to be an explanation of the divisions in the main table's lists of wards as between local authorities. I wonder, is this division relevant or necessary?
      • Completely agree about the need to explain what these wards are. The division into separate rows was unnecessary and I have removed it. That said, I believe the wards would be relevant to a serious researcher on the subject, whom we should be attempting to cater for at FL level. WFCforLife (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Other points
    • Page ranges should be indicated by pp not just p
    • It might be worth adding details of each sitting member's current majority to the main table.
      • On the one hand I think it's certainly relevant, and on the other I'm wary of creating a jumble of statistics that aren't really related to one another, or are no more useful that other statistics or facts that I've decided to omit. Perhaps I should split the table, so that one covers the geography, and the other covers the electoral side? WFCforLife (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I think I've found a reasonable balance. WFCforLife (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


That's about it. Please call my talkpage when you have worked on these changes, and I'll be happy to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll address any individual responses under the appropriate bullet points, and drop you a note on your talk page when I believe I've dealt with/queried everything. WFCforLife (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm closing this as my concerns have been commented on, and Brianboulton has indicated his approval of the improvements made. For anyone interested, the final comments relating to this peer review prior to closure can be seen at our talk pages. WFCforLife (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Fusion Energy Foundation[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a brand new article and I'd like to get some outside opinions. My aim is to bring it to Featured Article standards. Most of the sources are temporarily quoted at Talk:Fusion Energy Foundation/Sources.

Thanks,   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I having a hard time with this one because it doesn't seem to have a center. One set of paragraphs doesn't seem to lead naturally to the next. Why, for example, does the list of personnel come first, right after the lead? I really was expecting something like a description of the founding of the think tank and a summary of its first meetings, goals, and actions. The first date mentioned in the lead is 1974, but the first date mentioned in the first text section is 1983. What follows in the subsequent sections is a kind of hodge-podge of anecdotes (some of which like the Kissinger and Fonda incidents are quite interesting in themselves) and lists and examples that seem strangely uncoordinated. I get no sense from the article of how the FEF began and evolved over time or what exactly it was. What background did LaRouche have that made him an expert on fusion? Was the FEF a think tank? Was it a fund-raising machine? Was it a scam? Was it a political movement? Did it have any consistent political core? Who got the money? Were the think-tank members the same people who raised funds and insulted people at airports? Was it a cult? What did membership entail? How did people join?

Sorry, I can't get my head around this.

Lead

  • "It was known for soliciting subscriptions to their magazines... " - "its" rather than "their"?
  • has been described by many writers as a "front"... - I'd drop the scare quotes. They are easily confused with direct quotations.

Images

  • The license page for Image:Ibykus Farm combined.jpg is incomplete. It lacks a description, a source for the original(s), and the date or dates of creation. What does "on behalf of XLCR" mean? Was XLCR the photographer?
  • Image:Winterberg.jpg has similar problems.
  • In the Reference section, the words in all caps should be written in title case even if the source uses all caps.

I hope these brief comments are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Those comments are very helpful indeed. Piecing together a narrative for this group is difficult, but you've pointed out specific problems that I can address. Thanks for giving your time and attention to this article.   Will Beback  talk  07:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Philip Larkin[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is on its way to FAC, so please evaluate accordingly! Thanks in advance! Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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

University of Valle[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Greetings. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to continue improving the article to FA status. I'm not a native English speaker, so there might be some issues with redaction. I count with enough bibliographic material to improve the contents of the sections. I think the weakest ones are the History, Organization and Research sections. Also, I would like to know what information should be added and if what kind of figures should be included. Thanks, Andremun (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Overall it's a very good article. Not surprisingly, the biggest issue I see is with the prose. Since your goal is FA, I compared this article to other university FAs such as University of Michigan and Duke University, and didn't see much in the way of gaps in coverage. You've got history, administration, the campus, activities, et al.

  • As you've said, there are issues with the prose. You're going to need a good copyeditor; I can try and fix things where possible but that's not enough to get anything to "brilliant" standard. Generally I see incorrect tense and possessive use, along with redundant commas as the major issues.
  • On the images: File:Uvtexto.gif and File:Univalle.svg are not the author's to release into the public domain or license according to GNU. You could argue that the logo is simple enough to be ineligible for copyright, but either way they are incorrectly licensed and the uploader is not the author.
  • Sources should be fully formatted, giving publisher, author, date info where available; since you're using {{cite web}}, just fill the rest out.
  • I'm somewhat concerned that the vast majority of the information is sourced to non-independent sources (i.e., the college or material the college has published itself.) That creates bias issues...

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to comments

Greetings, Thank you for your comments. I think I can reply about two issues that concern you:

  • New pictures can be taken from current events. As for historical pictures, this might be tricky since usually are hard to come by. I'll see what I can find.
  • I understand the issue about non-independent sources. The books about the history, organization, and other issues, mentioned as references are published by the university press, which is actually common for several colleges and universities around the world. Other sources are difficult to find, but I'll try to find out more.

Again, thanks for your recommendations. I'll wait for more suggestions. Andremun (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to be slow in reviewing this. I have to say I agree with all the comments above, and here are some additional suggestions for improvement.

  • As far as the historical images are concerned, the images have to meet WP:FAIR USE individually, and the overall article and all of its images have to collectively meet WP:NFCC. If some place looks about the same today as it did in the old photo, then using a historic image probably does not meet the fair use criteria. If the place has changed a lot, it might be OK to use the old photo, but the text has to discuss what is in the photo and the two (text and fair use image) have to work together.
  • One criterion people often use is: does the image show something more than the mental picture of words alone conveys? To pick one example, why does File:Univalle Biblioteca Mario Carvajal Construcción.jpg need to be in the article? What does it show uniquely that words cannot convey? What does it show that a modern freely licensed picture of the same building would not? I also note that the article does not even mention the construction of the library, so my guess is this would not meet the Fair Use criteria.
  • Per WP:ITALIC watch the use of italics in the article. It is fine to italicize the Spanish names, but why is "Tulio Ramirez" italicized in: "The developed area is enclosed by the Tulio Ramirez Avenue, and it is composed of more than 30 buildings, including the main administration building, the faculties of Science and of Engineering, part of the faculty of Integrated Arts, and the Mario Carvajal Library, which is the main library of the university.[27]" (notice "Mario Carvajal" is not italicized).
  • Per WP:MOSIMAGE, images should sandwich text between them, and images should not be left justified directly under a level three or four header, but there is a text sandwich in the Libraries section and several left justified images under level three or four headers like Faculties, Institutes, and Rankings
  • Per WP:CREDENTIAL people's titles are not usually included, so drop the "Mr." from things like ... under the leadership of Mr. Tulio Ramírez Rojas, and Mr. Severo Reyes Gamboa.
  • The English unit equivalent of square meters used for buildings is generally square feet, not acres - see things like ...correspond to a three story building with a surface area of 5,200 m2 (1.3 acres), with a cost of $6 billion COP.
  • I agree that it would be very useful to have more sources which are independent of the university. I also note that while this is generally well-referenced, there are still a few palces that would probably need a ref in WP:FAC. Some examples include Also, the debt contracted with the private banking sector was renegotiated and will be paid in full by 2010, and the wages were paid. or the whole third paragraph in the Organization section (no refs at all). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • People willing to help copy edit articles can be found in the last section at WP:PR/V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I originally found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to comments

Hello and thank you for your comments. I'll make sure I address them over the next days. Regards - Andremun (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Bob Willis[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm eventually hoping to go for FA, and I want a peer review of this first draft to iron out initial problems before moving for GA. I am aware thus far that the Commentary section needs expansion, the context of his career needs expanding in areas where only his scores etc. are discussed, and it needs a copy edit for grammar and spelling.

Thanks, SGGH ping! 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I'll do as much as I can; so far I've checked out the lead and the first couple of sections, and done some copyedits. Some points for attention:-

  • Lead
    • Remember that your potential readership includes those who don't speak cricket-ese, and won't understand terms that sound natural to you. Thus:-
      • "...325 wickets at 25.20" needs to be expanded to "325 wickets at 25.20 runs per wicket"
      • "8/43" needs to become "8 wickets for 43 runs". These longer formulations can be discarded after the first couple of times, when you can reasonably assume your readers know what you mean by the shorter versions
    • Don't rely on the link to explain "Ashes series". Add "against Australia" the first time an Ashes series in mentioned.
    • "national notoriety" means famous in a bad or detrimental way. This whole sentence needs to be reconstructed, along the lines: "He nevertheless continued to find success, taking a career best eight wickets for 43 runs, one of the all-time best Test bowling performances, in the famous 1981 Ashes series against Australia."
    • Suggest begin second paragraph: "In addition to his Test matches, Willis played 64 One Day International matches (ODI) for his country,"
    • Add an explanation of List-A, e.g. "a prolific List-A (one-day) cricketer,..."
    • He captained England "in", not "through" 18 Test matches - the 18 games were not consecutive.
    • "He formed a noted commentary partnership with Botham, however contrasting styles found Willis as a second string commentator from 2006 onwards." As written the sentence is not grammatical (comma should be either semicolon or full stop), but more importantly, it doesn't make its point clearly. "Contrasting style" doesn't seem a reason for demotion. How about something like: "He formed a noted commentary partnership with Botham; however, Willis's relatively low-key style, in contrast to Botham's ebullience, meant that from 2006 onwards Willis tended to be used as a second string commentator."
    • Last sentence, I'd say "broadcaster" rather than repeating "commentator".
  • Early life
    • "at age six" is too American. "...at the age of six."
    • Something wrong with the grammar here: "His father was an employee of the BBC, and Willis an elder brother named David, and a younger sister, with whom he played cricket in the garden." Missing word or words? Needs fixing.
    • "...an avid schoolboy footballer..." I don't think "footballer" is adequate, seeing there are so many football codes. Best specify: "an avid schoolboy soccer player."
This article is written in British English, would that mean it ought to stay as football? SGGH ping! 10:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The term "soccer" is quite OK in British English. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • County debut
    • "In 1968, Willis joined Middlesex and Surrey Young Cricketers in Pakistan to further hone his skills." How did this come about? As written it sounds as though Willis simply attached himself to a cricket tour for his own purposes. I imagine, however, that he was invited. So I suggest: "In 1968, Willis accepted an invitation to join Middlesex and Surrey Young Cricketers on tour in Pakistan, and used this opportunity to further hone his skills."
    • As this article is about cricket, can I request consistent use of English dating, i.e. 26 August not August 26?
    • "He played several further Second XI matches through May and June,..." We seem to have jumped a season here. We've just learned that he played for Surrey Seconds on 26 August and again two days later. So the next sentence should begin: "In the 1969 season Willis played several Second XI matches through May and June,..."
    • 6 August, not August 6 (take other requests for Eng dates as read), and give the year: 6 August 1969.
    • "Scotland were touring England that season and had already beaten Warwickshire when Willis took three wickets for 13 runs from 13 overs in his first innings, and two for 37 in his second, to help Surrey to victory by an innings and 97 runs." This is telescoping too much information into a single sentence, and also gives the wrong impression that Scotland were the major touring side that summer. In fact Scotland rarely play first-class matches. My advice would be to run on from the previous sentence thus: "before his first-class debut on 6 August against a touring side from Scotland. The tourists had already beaten Warwickshire when they faced Surrey, for whom Willis took three wickets for 13 runs in Scotland's first innings, and two for 37 in their second, to help Surrey to an easy victory."
    • Specify 22 first-class wickets, and 15th in the national first-class bowling averages
Changed the first, the second says "15th in the national averages for that season's County Championship" which specifies that it is the County Championship (i.e. not all FC matches) SGGH ping! 10:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Surrey came third that year." Say what they came third in.
Referenced to previous sentence SGGH ping! 10:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Second paragraph: needs to be date specific. Thus: "Willis had thus earned a second season at Surrey, and in 1970 played 14 Championship matches,..." etc
    • "280-5" → "280 for five wickets"; the rest of the innings score summaries in the paragraph can stand.

That's all I can do for the moment. I will try to get back later this evening, otherwise tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have sorted all your helpful comments, apart from the two under which I have made comments. Thanks for your help, it is useful to have a detailed run through. Cheers, SGGH ping! 10:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Continuing
-
  • International beginnings
    • A footnote needs to explain that until 1997 English international cricket sids toured under the colours of the Marylebone Cricket Club
I can't even find that information in the Marylebone Cricket Club article. Will chec, SGGH ping! 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I suggest that all not out scores are written as, say, "142 not out" rather than "142*" which non-cricketers won't understand.
General practice in other cricket FAs I have seen is to use "not out" for the first few examples, or * wikilinked to not out, and then use * for all remaining instances. I think this is what this article does too. SGGH ping! 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • In the second paragraph I suggest you preface the second sentence: "In the two remaining Tests, Willis took three wickets at the Adelaide Oval..." etc
    • Last sentence needs amending: there were two Tests played in New Zealand in Feb-March 1971. Willis played in the second, which was drawn.
Sorted, he only played one of them, the second. SGGH ping! 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Surrey to Warwickshire
    • The term "five-wicket haul" needs explaining to non-cricket people
    • "He was not selected for the 1972 Ashes series in England, and instead travelled to South Africa as part of DH Robins' invitation XI. The Robins tour in question was January-February 1973 when the Ashes season was long over, so his participation in the tour was an entirely separate venture, not an "instead".
My meaning was he spent the same winter season in SA. Will fix. SGGH ping! 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Robins has a Wikipedia article and can be linked.
Ah,Derrick Robins, I have been looking for him. SGGH ping! 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • This doesn't make sense: "The West Indies, the more powerful team of the period,..." It would be grammatical to say either "The West Indies, one of the more powerful teamS of the period", or "The West Indies, the most powerful team of the period". However, neither of these statements would be remotely true. In 1973 West Indies had not won a Test series since 1966-67. They had lost series to England (twice), Australia (twice) and India, and had drawn with New Zealand twice. They had won none of their previous 20 matches. In other words, they were considered one of the weakest of the international sides at the time. The 1973 tour to England, however, proved a turning point for them.
    • "He did, however, make his ODI debut..." There's no "however" here. Simply, "He made his ODI debut..."
    • Jargon needs rewording: "Willis went wicketless and at 5.5 an over..."
  • West Indies, sub-continent and Australia
    • Problem again with "top Test side". You could call them "rapidly-improving"
    • "he took only one wicket,[41] followed by three in the second,[42] and 1/100 in the final match." Why the change in representing his bowling for the final match?
    • Wikilink bowling average unless this has been done earlier.
I will link it in the lead. SGGH ping! 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Pakistan touring in early August, and Willis featured in one Test – taking one wicket for 133 runs – and one ODI where he took one wicket caught and bowled as Pakistan took a seven wicket victory." A very untidy sentence, needs serious attention.
    • "He played 13 Championship games for Warwickshire that season," - specify the season
    • "He was, however, playing with a growing injury and requiring several painkilling injections." How many "-ings" in a singlr sentence? Needs rephrasing.

I've done what I can, but the prose needs a lot of serious attention and I don't have the time at the moment to keep doing it. I'm away for five days from Sunday and I've got a great deal to do before then. It really does need someone with cricket nous to run through the rest and put the prose to rights. Plenty of good stuff here, given time and attention. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, very helpful. SGGH ping! 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Kanhopatra[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article passed GA recently in October. The GA reviewer User:Nemonoman not only gave the article a through review but also copyedited the text and improved the article in the course of the review. This article about a Hindu saint-poet, who was a courtesan by profession and a prostitute's daughter. Only 30 of her poems have survived and little is known about her history. We know her only through legends and few poems left by her. Though the Prose size (text only) is 10 kB (1737 words) "readable prose size", IMO it is comprehensive due to the above reasons. I want the reviewers to examine the text for FA criteria WP:FA?. It was difficult to get English references that narrate her tale in detail, so references from Marathi dailies and magazines are used.

Thanks a lot, Redtigerxyz Talk 05:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Quick comment: I haven't read the complete article yet, but looking at the sources, I think objections with regards to FAC criterion 1c may be raised. In particular, the following points would need to be clarified:
  • Why is a newspaper article a authoritative enough source on the subject to be cited ~20 times. If you can argue that Madhavi Kunte is some sort of expert on the subject, then this should be ok.
If you notice the reference used for the legend, in places the reference is used with other references that tell the same legend ([1