Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2011

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

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


Best Thing I Never Had[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to take it to FAC someday. I am conscious that how it stands right now, it definitely has several issues and this is the reason for which i have nominated it for a peer review. I want someone who will help me bring the prose of this article to FA standard. I hope i am not asking for too much. Regards. Jivesh 1205 (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 05:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jivesh 1205 (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 05:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment

Peer review is not really the place to fine copy editors - I would ask at WP:GOCE Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 17:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments I agree with Ruhrfisch that WP:GOCE would be the place to seek copyediting help. That said, the prose in the existing article is reasonably good though not quite good enough for GA. It would not take a good copyeditor long to bring the prose to GA standards and not much longer to improve it to FA standards, in my opinion. The article looks comprehensive to me, though I am not a content expert in this area. I see no obvious problems with the images except for File:J.Que.jpg, which has serious licensing problems, and File:Vanessa Carlton promo photo (recoloured).jpg, which has incomplete data in its license. Ron Shapiro Management might be able to supply the missing information about the author and date of creation for the Carlton image.


  • I would change the second sentence, "It was released by Columbia Records on June 1, 2011, as the second single from the album", to active voice, as follows: "Columbia Records released the song on June 1, 2011, as the second single from the album."
  • I would do the same kind of thing to the third sentence. Instead of "was composed by", I'd rearrange the words to say blah, blah, and blah composed. You don't have to change every passive to active, but if you just go through the article and change the easy ones, the prose will get tighter and punchier. Active voice takes the general form "X did Y" and doesn't require as many words as passive, "Y was done by X".
  • Several other passive-voice sentences occur in the lead. Here's another: ""Best Thing I Never Had" was promoted by several live performances of Knowles, notably at the 2011 Glastonbury Festival, on the televised show, The View and was part of the set list for her 4 Intimate Nights with Beyoncé among others." It would be better to say, "Knowles promoted 'Best Think I Never Had' during several live performances...".
  • "It received a platinum certification by ARIA as well as a gold certifications by both RIANZ and RIAA." - Don't neglect to spell out as well as abbreviate most of these alphabet-soup things on first use. You can't assume that all readers will know what they mean. If you spell out and abbreviate the first time, you can just abbreviate on second and subsequent use.

Critical reception

  • "Leah Collins of Canadian Dose magazine wrote: "'Irreplaceable', 'Independent Women', 'If I Were a Boy', we could go on [...] - Nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked since the original does not include the link. Ditto for Lilith Fair in The New York Times quote a bit further down in this section.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that's all??? Thanks anyways. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 04:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment; The copyvio problem Finetooth pinpoints is something I've come across in several Beyonce articles; text is copy-pasted verbatim from different sources, with some messy quoting-paraphrasing going on.These need checking thoroughly and fixing before any request for GA or FA status is made. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Philip A. Payton, Jr.[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a long time (years!) Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias requested article which I feel it has the potential to make it to GA, and eventually FA. (It was a successful DYK a few days ago.) It's the biography of "the Father of Harlem", a real estate entrepreneur generally considered responsible for making Harlem black; as part of WP:CSB I am working to make such under-represented subjects more visible in Wikipedia. Especially say whether I should add more information about the times, such as the history of Harlem before and after Payton personally.

Thanks, GRuban (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


  • I did a general copyedit. Feel free to revert anything you don't like.
  • I added {{Infobox Person}} since I didn't see another one that fit. Check the parameters to see if any more can be filled in. Also, in the absence of a definite death date, I had to use {{death year and age}}. {{death date and age}} would be better if you have the exact date of death.
  • Not sure if the MOS gives any guidance as to the use of "black" vs. "African-American". Both are used in this article; I suspect it's preferable to use one or the other consistently. I ran into this with "Indian" vs. "Native American" in several articles.
  • The section titles are a little odd. The second one is "Real estate", but the next one is "The Afro-American Realty Company", which is still real estate. Should that be a subheading? The next heading is "After the Afro-American", which kind of implies that the Afro-American Realty thing was the highlight of his career. That doesn't seem to me to be the case, considering that company failed and got him sued. Consider some alternative heading-subheading titles.
  • I think it was the highlight of his career, not as much in the sense of being the most successful point of his career, but the most notable point of his career. It was the first real estate company targeting blacks, and possibly the first black-owned real estate company, certainly in Harlem, probably in the northeast. Payton broke new ground with this company. That's why Nail & Parker was important, because it was an example of the black RE companies which came after him. N&P was even more successful, being one of the most successful RE companies in New York City, even when compared to white-owned companies, but it wasn't the first. Sort of like Barry Bonds won MVP 7 times, but by that time it wasn't such a big deal, while Jackie Robinson only won it once, but that he did it first made it more important. But I see I need to say that explicitly, which means I need to find sources that say that explicitly.


  • Obviously, this will need to be longer, even to acheive GA. See James Fisher Robinson for the shortest lead I've ever gotten past GAC.
  • The title "Father of Harlem" is not cited in the lead, and the title cited in the text is "the father of his Negro community." Those are very different. They either need to be consistent or, if both were used, cite both and make sure both are mentioned in the body of the article. The lead should not introduce information not contained in the body.
  • You might also include in the lead that the properties he rented to African-Americans were previously rented by whites. Here and in the body, it could be helpful to provide a little context about why this was a big deal, although you obviously want to avoid going too far off-topic.

Early life:

  • Do we have both his parents' names (obviously, the father was Philip A. Payton, Sr.)? If so, the second sentence would read more smoothly with them included, even if they aren't notable in their own right.
  • Payton was the second child. Do we know whether the sister or one of the brothers was older? Again, it might help refine that second sentence or may even spawn another sentence.
  • "His father insisted that the children learn a trade, and so trained him in the family profession twice a week after school." This sentence needs some work, particularly the part I've bolded. Also, you might want to forgo the phrase "the family profession" and just say he trained him to be a barber. How did he train him twice a week? Without knowing, the fact that it was twice a week seems a little meaningless.
  • "a full-fledged barber" As opposed to what? Can you be a partial barber? Did he get some kind of barber's license? Was this an unusually young age at which to become a barber?
  • Do we know what kind of injury Payton sustained in football? It might help us understand what kinds of effects lingered for a year afterward.
  • Why didn't Payton go back to college after he healed from injury? If both brothers went to Yale, money doesn't seem to have been an issue, and it seems like education was important to the family. Why didn't the brothers go to Livingstone College, since their father was a friend of the college's founder? Do we know?
  • What was the name of the normal school when Payton's sister attended there?
  • "when he decided to make more of himself" This is colloquial. Did he want more money? An upgrade in prestige? What provoked the change in attitude? Why New York City?
  • "worked as a department store picture and weighing machine attendant" What is a "picture and weighing machine attendant"? Or is it two separate jobs? If so, I don't know what either one of them do. Are there relevant wiki-links that can help?
  • Why are his salaries important to note?
  • Did he work all these jobs simultaneously or in succession? How long did he do each one? If he left one for the other, do we know why he decided to change jobs?
  • "he got the idea of going into the real estate business on his own" Maybe "he got the idea of starting his own real estate business". Did some specific event trigger the idea?

Real estate:

  • "Payton and a partner" Who is the partner? We assume that his last name was Brown; do we know his full name? How did he know Payton? Was he also African-American?
  • "In June 1901, Payton married." This really seems misplaced as it is. Maybe consider renaming the first section "Early life and family" and placing it there instead, although it will be slightly out of chronological order that way. Also, we don't have the wife's name until much later in the article. It needs to be here, complete with her maiden name, if available. How did they meet? Did they have any children?
  • "The business was unsuccessful" How? Why? Why did Payton continue the business if it was so unsuccessful?
  • "the spring of 1901" The MOS discourages this kind of dating, since spring in the Northern Hemisphere is a different time of the year than it is in the Southern Hemisphere. If we can get at least a month, it would be best, but in the absence of this, if we could say "early 1901" or "mid-1901" with some certainty, that would be an improvement.
  • "At the low point" This is a little editorial. Find a way to avoid it.
  • "Paytons were evicted from an apartment house he had been managing, for being unable to pay their rent." The rest of the article seems to suggest that evictions were pretty arbitrary at this point in history, but when I hear eviction, I immediately think of not being able to pay the rent, so that phrase may be unnecessary. Alternatively, you might reword this part so that the death of the pets and the eviction are separate thoughts. They seem to be at vastly different places on the importance and severity scales. Where did they go after the eviction?
  • "I knew that if I made one good sale I could make enough to keep me going for a year. I came so near making a good sale so many times that I knew I was bound to hit it before long." I like this quote, but consider making it a breakout quote, with {{Quote box}} or something like it. As it is, it kind of interrupts the narrative.
  • "Soon after this, though, business improved." Why? If this is to be attributed to one of the reasons in the next couple of paragraphs, just delete it, get on to those paragraphs, and move the next sentence after the discussion of how he got his big break.
  • Speaking of that, "first break" is a little colloquial. You might change it to discuss the "event that changed his financial fortunes" or that "spawned his future success" or something like that.
  • "Yet other sources" Do we know who those sources are? Can we at least list one or two of them?

The Afro-American Realty Company:

  • "with the help of other affluent blacks" Who were these other affluent blacks? Were that affiliated with Payton before, or were they drawn in by his ads and prospectus?
  • "in the heart of Harlem". Colloquial.
  • "Eventually, Hudson sold the original three buildings back to the Afro-American at a large loss." Why? What turned the tides in favor of Payton's company?
  • The second paragraph in this section is far and away the most interesting part of the article to me. I think it is ripe for expansion with more details, as I expect it was heavily-covered in the local press.
  • "in Harlem neighborhoods never until then "invaded" by black tenants" I realize "invaded is probably a quote from some source and included to reflect the attitudes of the times, but I think it would be better to use a more neutral term, foregoing the quote and allowing you to simplify the "never until then" construct, which is awkward itself.
  • "occasioning near panic among neighboring owners." Statements like this are why some measure of context is required. Non-Americans may not understand why the reaction was so severe.
  • "the prospectus was fraudulent" Was the overstatment of the company's initial worth the only basis for this claim? Was this the sole reason for Payton's conviction? Are details of the trial available, including Payton's proffered defense?
  • "the courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs for investments, damages, and legal costs" I assume this refers to the award made to the plaintiffs. I understand damages and legal costs, but not investments in this context. Does this mean they were compensated for the difference between their actual return on investment and what they thought they should have received or what? Do we know what the total monetary worth of the award was? Were there additional consequences for Payton such as jail time or probation?

After the Afro-American:

  • "Payton continued to buy and manage Harlem real estate for black tenants" In spite of his conviction? Was he not personally tarnished? If so, why did people keep doing business with him?
  • "founding the Philip A. Payton Jr. Company" When?
  • "known for its PAP logo" Why was the logo notable? Do we have an image of it? If the company was started pre-1923, the logo should be public domain.
  • "He even ventured outside the city to Long Island." I know what this means, but as written, it might just mean he took a trip to Long Island. You need to make it clearer that he began dealing in real estate in Long Island. How did he get into that? Was he as successful there? Did he engage in the same kinds of practices to promote black residency there? If so, did it provoke the same reaction as it did in Harlem?
  • "John E. Nail and Henry G. Parker, former directors of the Afro-American Realty Company, founded their own company, Nail & Parker Real Estate, in 1907; it eventually became one of the most successful in New York." This seems tangetially relevant to Payton, at best. Unless there is some more direct connection to him, like this firm becoming one of his competitors, I'd suggest leaving it out.
  • "By 1914, The Outlook wrote that three-quarters of the black population of New York City, including all blacks of prominence, lived in Harlem". Compared to what? If we knew some previous statistics on where NYC's black population lived before, or how quickly the population shift occurred, this would be more meaningful.
  • "The entire street was white in 1900" Reword to make it clear that the street's residents were white, not the street itself. I know it should be obvious, but it'll read better with this change.
  • "Payton closed his largest deal in July 1917, a sale of 6 apartment houses for over $1 million, the largest sale of housing for blacks to that time." This kind of comes out of nowhere. What circumstances led up to the deal? Who did he sell the houses to? Were there race-based stipulations on the deal? How much bigger was it, in terms of monetary worth, than a typical real estate transaction?
  • "The black population in Harlem had reached 50,000 or even 70,000." This seems to me to be more related to the previous paragraph, unless the big real estate deal brought it about in some way. Also, who provided those statistics? Why is there uncertainty? A difference of 20,000 people is huge when you are only talking about 50,000 to 70,000 people total.
  • "Payton died of liver cancer a month later" Do we know if this was expected? Had he been suffering with cancer for a while, or was it a sudden thing?
  • "His younger brother Edward S. Payton, who had served as vice-president of Afro-American Realty, had passed even earlier, in 1912, at the age of 30." Again, this seems pretty tangential. Even if it's meant to show that folks in his family died young, this one data point isn't enough to demonstrate that.
  • Did his wife outlive him? Did she take over the business? Did it go to his children (if they had children)? The company only operated for five years after his death. Given that it seemed to be doing pretty well just prior to his death, was it mismanaged by its new leadership?
  • Is anything named after Payton? If he is considered "the Father of Harlem" and was involved heavily in real estate, surely they named a street, a building, a park, or something after the guy. Maybe his tactics in evicting white tenants were so unpopular that attempts to honor him were resisted; do we know?

Overall, this is an interesting article, and I think it has great potential to be a GA soon. Many of the questions I've asked may not be answerable in the short term without significant additional research, but the details will need to be beefed up considerably for it to reach FA, assuming there are extant sources that will facilitate that. I'll watch this page for a few days to see if you need any follow-up from me. I enjoyed doing this review, but the amount of time it takes reminded me why I don't do many of them! Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 17:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Those are excellent comments, I'll have to do research to answer many of them, even most; you did the minor copyedits yourself. Tell you what - if you want, you don't have to watch this page, and I'll drop a note on your talk page when I've done as many as I can do, or otherwise need your help. Very appreciated. --GRuban (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
That'll work. Just drop me a {{tb}} on my talk page if you need me to respond to anything. Good luck at GAC. Takes forever to get a review these days. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 18:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanita caesarea[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think a peer review will help me make more improvements in it.

Thanks, Sainsf <^> (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A few remarks:

  • Seems a little short. Compare to Armillaria gallica.
  • Perhaps add a little more detail about the spores.[1]
  • Several sources mention the mushroom's role in the death of Emperor Claudius.
  • Footnote 15 is not properly formed.

Regards, RJH (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments

  • I agree with RJH.
  • Citation 14 is tagged "dead link" but actually links to an unrelated advertisement. This really should be fixed.
  • The last two sentences of the first paragraph of the "Taxonomy" section need a source or sources. The entire second paragraph of this section is unsourced. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. If one source supports a whole paragraph, it should appear at the end of the paragraph. Anything that appears after the last inline citation of the paragraph will appear to lack a source.
  • Should "carpophor" be linked or briefly explained. It appears in "these tend to fall off as the carpophor ages".
  • "Certain varieties ( e.g. Amanita muscaria var. guessowii ) are close to yellow even at the juvenile stage." - Needs a source.
  • It's often helpful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar topics. You'll find a list at WP:FA#Biology, for example Armillaria gallica, as noted by RJH above.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Golding Bird[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review with a view to submitting to FAC. I would particularly like to address a comment at the second GAN: All in all, the prose feels a bit heavy at times. This is probably due to the sheer volume of information. It's fine for GA, but if you're shooting for FA then I'd go through a peer review first to make the prose a bit less weighty. I also request the reviewer to comment on a decision made during the first GAN to break out part of the material into a separate article, Interrupter, both for the principle and scope of the break out.

Thanks, SpinningSpark 07:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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

  • I would add a caption to the lead image
  • In the lead, I doubt most readers will know what the collateral sciences are. While it is linked, I wonder if it would help to include a brief definition here?
  • I would link Daniell cell in the lead.
  • Adjusted for inflation this amounts to a spending power of about £76,000 now. I would avoid now - what year was the inflation calculation made for? Also the refs cited do not seem to be related to inflation.
  • Not clear to me what "children's outpatients" are in and in October that year he was put in charge of children's outpatients. I think the American usage would be "children outpatients" (probably worth linking outpatient)
  • There is only one mention of "electrical room patients" so this comparison makes little sense The children, like his electrical room patients, ..
  • This is not as clear as it should be.
Bird became well known for his knowledge of chemistry. An early indication was his comments on a paper on arsenic poisoning (being delivered by his future brother-in-law R. H. Brett) to the Pupils' Physical Society. Bird criticised the copper sulphate test for arsenic poisoning. This test has a positive result when a green precipitate is formed.[22] Bird claimed the test was not conclusive because precipitates other than copper arsenite can produce the same green colour.[23]
  • Is this an early indication of his knowledge of chemistry or of being well-known for his knowledge? How about something like this
Bird became well known for his knowledge of chemistry. An early example was his comments on a YEAR paper on the copper sulphate test for arsenic poisoning, delivered by his future brother-in-law R. H. Brett to the Pupils' Physical Society. Bird criticised the test's positive result when a green precipitate is formed,[22] and claimed that the test was not conclusive because precipitates other than copper arsenite can produce the same green colour.[23]
  • more to come...
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Spinningspark's response to comments

  • "...caption to the lead image". I have now added alt text throughout. I don't see the point of a caption and the frame that would have to go with it in a self-evident lead image.
  • "...collateral sciences...", clarified in-article
  • " Daniell cell in the lead." Done
  • "Adjusted for inflation..." I think the reader needs some clue what this sum meant at the time, otherwise it is meaningless having it in at all. If there is no guideline against it I think it should be kept. The inflation calculation is done through the template and the years are embedded (1842 to present). Referencing is therefore the business of the template.
  • "children's outpatients". Changed this to "children's outpatients ward" which I hope makes it clearer. I have to disagree with "children outpatient". Besides the obvious comment that this article is in Briteng, not Ameng, I could not get any ghits at all for the latter term, American or British.
  • There is only one mention of "electrical room patients" so this comparison makes little sense The children, like his electrical room patients, .. I cannot fathom this comment, the article discusses his electrical room patients at great length. Even if there were only one mention, I cannot understand how that invalidates the comparison.
  • "...knowledge of chemistry..." inserted with the exception of "YEAR paper" which I am not at all convinced that is a correct description.
  • SpinningSpark 18:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • One major concern I have here and in most articles is to provide more context to the reader. Adding a caption to the lead image that identified it as coming from his 1855 obituary (and thus showing him late in his short life) would do this. Otherwise the reader has no idea at what stage in his life the image portrays him.
  • Sorry for the confusion and poor wording on my part. My comment was not against the use of inflation adjusted figures, it was agaist the vague time term "now". I think the actual year should be used. Since you are using the inflation template, CURRENTYEAR could be used here (so that it gave the current year).
  • As I also noted above, the inflation template needs a ref. {{Inflation-fn}} does this.
  • children's outpatients ward is clearer, thanks
  • The words "electrical room" appear together in the article only once, it is not clear to me what they mean. You know all about Dr Bird, but I do not - context needs to be provided.
  • I think the year of the paper his future brother in law wrote should be given in some way.
  • I am fine with the article that was split off.
  • The prose is quite good, but I would agree with the GA reviewer that a light copyedit would help before FAC.
  • I am sorry I have been so slow in reviewing this - have been very busy in real life.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  • On the image, it may have been first published in 1855 but I have no way of knowing if it portrays him in 1855. I seriously doubt that it does and to allow the reader to believe that to be the case would be misleading. SpinningSpark 21:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref added to inflation sentence
  • "electrical room" changed to "electrotherapy" which I hope makes it clearer.
  • Dated Bird's comments to 1832. The source does not give the date of Brett's paper but it does give the date of Bird's comment in the minutes as 27 October 1832. Brett's paper may, or may not, have been presented on the same day (but almost certainly the same year) - not able to tell without access to the primary sources.
  • On copyediting, I was kind of hoping that Peer Review would help with this, but I have now put in a request at WP:GOCE.
  • SpinningSpark 08:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You know that saying "thank you" (even if you don't mean it) makes the life of a reviewer just a little bit easier, don't you? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not thanking you. It goes without saying that I am very grateful for the time and effort you put into reviewing articles. I know for sure that I would not be willing to do the amount of review work that you do, and for so little reward. SpinningSpark 21:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Last comments
  • I think one thing that adds to the impression of heaviness in the prose is the length of some of the paragraphs. For example the first paragraph in Electrical equipment could be split into two (or perhaps three) smaller paragraphs, or the Controversy subsection could be split as well. The Electrochemistry section has nice paragraph lengths and flows well too.
  • I think it would help at the beginning of the Electricity section to indicate in some brief way how Bird treated patients with electricity. I had never heard of healing sores this way, for example, and it would help to have some examples early on.
  • Carbon monoxide was known before Bird's time - I think this could be made a little clearer.
  • I would move the fact that this is a review of the 6th ed earlier in the sentence here. Also watch tenses "noted" but then "observe": Popular Science Review noted that the author was now named as Brooke in their review of the sixth edition and observe that Brooke had now made it his own.
  • There is a fair amount of material on the 6th ed of Bird's book, but since this was published after his death, is there too much on it for this article?
  • Many biographies end with a legacy section - I wonder if it would work here? The information on the Bird Medal could be placed here, as well as the posthumous textbook, and perhaps the Christian Medical Association and his son following in his medical footsteps. Your call - just an idea (as it is, the article just sort of fizzles out at the end).
  • In particular I wondered about the medal - is it still awarded? If not, how long was it awarded? Are there any notable recipients?

Hope this helps, and apologies for my gripe above, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Response from Spinningspark
  • I have split the paragraphs you suggested.
  • I have added a short summary paragraph at the beginning of the electricity section. I have mentioned the electric moxa there but do not want to give it too great a prominence as it is somewhat tangential to the main electrotherapy work.
  • Carbon monoxide - discovery date inserted.
  • 6th edition and Brooke - done.
  • 6th edition - there is not as much prose on the 6th edition as you seem to think. One short paragraph of three sentences (the shortest para in the section) plus a small addendum to the last para. That's a total of only 102 words of readable prose according DrPDA'a tool, compared to 540 words in the whole section on the book.
  • I thought hard about how a legacy section could be done. The trouble to my mind is that much of the potential material follows on naturally where it is already. Brooke's edition of the book follows on from, and really belongs in, the section on the book, especially as the reviewers devote so much space to discussing Golding Bird and comparing to his editions. Likewise the Christian Medical Association really cannot be divorced from the history that led up to it. A legacy section would either be repeating material already elsewhere, contain just a few trivia, or else make for a very disjointed article.
  • I believe the medal may still be awarded but I have been unable to find a list of recipients. I have e-mailed Guy's to see if they can help in this.
  • Once again, thank you for the detailed review of this article. SpinningSpark 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

New York City[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, there's been a lot of work on improving the article ever since it got demoted. Now that it's been improved. I think it's time to go ahead and do a review of this, and find any problems and tie up any loose ends before we go ahead to nominate it for a repromotion. I haven't really done much editing to this article, but I want to know what needs to be fixed as the FAC that demoted the article, wasn't really clear over what's wrong with the article. Thanks, OpenInfoForAll (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I know you didn't necessarily come up with the infobox code, but it's pretty weird for it to start with
New York City
— City —
City of New York
There's probably a better way to format that. —Designate (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick note from Finetooth: The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds about a dozen dead URLs in the citations. These will need to be repaired or replaced to have any chance at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this important article. Although the article includes a great deal of useful information, seems comprehensive, and is easy to read, it will need quite a bit of work to regain its FA status. If what I say below seems negative, it's because I'm focusing on things that I think won't survive scrutiny at FAC. This is not a complete review but rather a short list of significant things to think about.

  • Claims in the lead usually need no supporting citations because the lead merely summarizes what's in the main text, and the claims should be supported there. Nothing important should appear in the lead that does not appear in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.
  • Even though the article has 276 citations, many claims still lack a source. In the History section, for example, a paragraph ends with "The Stamp Act Congress met in New York in October of 1765 as the Sons of Liberty organized in the city, skirmishing over the next ten years with British troops stationed there." What supports this? Or this: "By 1790, New York had surpassed Philadelphia as the largest city in the United States." I see unsupported claims scattered throughout the article. Most of the Sports section lacks sources, for example. My rule of thumb is to include an inline citation for every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. If one citation covers a whole paragraph, the citation should go at the end of the paragraph.
  • I would delete the "Cityscape" section, which is really a gallery. Readers who want to see more images of New York can always click on the Commons link in the External links section.
  • The article is over-illustrated in other ways. This results in text sandwiches and head or edit-button displacement. For example, text is sandwiched between two images at the bottom of the History section, and one of them, File:UA Flight 175 hits WTC south tower 9-11 edit.jpeg, overlaps a section boundary and displaces the Geography head. File:Manhattan from helicopter edit1.jpg displaces an edit button and overlaps a section boundary. The pizza image is too big to fit inside the section it illustrates. The Sports section has a text sandwich, and so on. My rule of thumb is to try to illustrate each large section with at least one image, map, or drawing but to avoid overdoing it. MOS:IMAGES has the relevant guidelines.
  • Reduce the overlinking. Generally, it's sufficient to link terms no more than once in the lead and no more than once in the main text. In the Transportation section, New York City Subway is linked twice; Grand Central Terminal is linked twice; Montreal is linked twice. These are just examples. Another kind of overlinking involves linking words already familiar to most readers of English. For example, in the Crime section, is it necessary to link gang and organized crime? Is it helpful to link both "homicide rate" and "homicide"?
  • Extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sentences make for a choppy article. There are a lot of these in the Media section. I'd be inclined to merge some of the shorties to make fewer but longer paragraphs where that is feasible.
  • Fancy quotation marks like the ones around the Tom Wolfe quotation are deprecated. Short quotations like this usually appear in the text inside regular quotation marks. In this case, I think you should delete the Wolfe quotation, which is essentially meaningless.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Gregory Heffley

You should mention in the article that Staten Island was home to the world's largest landfill. I'm still reading this article for anymore flaws.Gregory Heffley (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I agree with the comments above.

  • The lead needs to be a summary of the whole article. This means that there should be nothing that is just in the lead - it should all be in the article itself.
    • For example, the Located on one of the world's largest natural harbors ... claim is only in the lead, as is the making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world claim. I ma not saying I doubt these, but they should be in the body of the article too.
  • Some of the references do not provide all the information they should - for example current refs 104 and 105 are especially mal-formed (one is just "NOAA" linked, followed by "NOAA")
  • 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
  • Some of the refs used do not seem to me to meet WP:RS. For example, what makes a reliable source?
  • The lack of refs alone would make this a quick fail at FAC in its current condition.
  • The other difficult criterion for many articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. This can be as simple as avoiding POV words like "just" in With a 2010 United States Census population of 8,175,133[7] distributed over a land area of just 305 square miles (790 km2),[23][24][25]...
  • Avoid needless repetition - the article is going to be long no matter what, no need to make it longer by repeating things like Conference House, site of the only attempt of a peaceful resolution to the American Revolution twice.
  • There is one dab link and there are some circular redirects - see here
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Niagara

  • I agree with Finetooth about the Cityscape section, though I'd say keep one or two of the images and find some information about the layout of the city (e.g. Commissioners' Plan of 1811, street being east–west and avenues north–south, Manhattanhenge)
  • Ditto on the overlinking.
  • There is a plethora of one-sentence paragraphs throughout the article.
  • Nowhere in the article is FDNY mentioned.
  • The photo of the Manhattan Muncipal Building is somewhat confusing in that which city agencies are located in it are not mentioned. Perhaps replacing it with something else government-related (like NYPD or FDNY).
  • Why are some of the sister cities linked, while others are not. Also, nix the "historic" in "historic sister cities" (unless there is a specific source that says that).
  • What is the benefit of having the sister cities listed in a table, rather than just a bulleted list?
  • "Hurricanes and tropical storms are rare in the New York area, but are not unheard of and always have the potential to strike the area." — Perhaps you should mention Hurricane Irene. Could also mention nor'easters.

Nice work so far...just need to address comprehensiveness and style issues (like overlinking) before this would be ready for FAC. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

50 Cent discography[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've improved the article so much recently, and feel it may soon qualify as a featured list - however, I need someone to go over it and review the whole thing, so I know of any issues to fix. Please be strict on MOS, as I am keen for it to read well as well as look good, and please mention any issue, even really small ones. Your time would be much appreciated. Thanks, Sufur222 (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm free so I'll prepare some comments for you... —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Before I start going through the prose, tables, and references, you can take a look at the automated peer review here. Some may take more time to address than others, but you can start by responding to the quick fixes that are listed in the Peer reviewer. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Have read the comments: have sorted out everything that applies, as some were not appropriate. Sufur222 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin

(DISCLAIMER: After addressing my comments, I cannot guarantee that this article will meet the FL criteria; it may need input from other users as well)

  • Just letting you know that it isn't technically possible for an album to produce singles. Green tickY
  • " After signing to Shady Records in 2002,[3] 50 Cent's debut studio album, Get Rich or Die Tryin', was released on 4 February, 2003. " – Re-word this sentence. It reads ungrammatically and with little sense. Possible suggestion: " 50 Cent signed to Shady Records in 2002 and released his debut studio album, Get Rich or Die Tryin', on 4 February, 2003.[3] " Green tickY
  • " The album became a worldwide chart success " – Its level of success will be for the readers to determine; as the writer, you must remain neutral and use just the facts. Green tickY
  • " and also performed well in several international markets. " Green tickY
  • " It also included the internationally successful singles " → " It also included the number-one singles " Green tickY
  • " which both peaked at number one in the United States " – Remove if you address the issue above. Green tickY
  • " 50 Cent also collaborated with female rapper Lil' Kim on the single "Magic Stick" "
  • " along with featuring more songs designed to appeal to a mainstream audience. " – Confusing to read. What do you mean by mainstream audience? Green tickY
  • " In a similar performance to its predecessor " – What do you mean by this? Remove. Green tickY
  • " worldwide album charts " – There is no such thing as a worldwide chart. Green tickY
  • " and also produced the US number-one hit "Candy Shop" " Green tickY
  • " A reissue of The Massacre also produced the single "Outta Control (Remix)" " Green tickY
  • " 50 Cent starred in the movie Get Rich or Die Tryin', and recorded four singles for the film's soundtrack: the international hits "Hustler's Ambition" and "Window Shopper", and also "Best Friend" and "I'll Whip Ya Head Boy". " – When was this? Green tickY
  • " after a much-hyped sales sales competition between the albums " Green tickY
  • " the international hit "Ayo Technology" and the Billboard hits "Straight to the Bank", "Amusement Park", "I Get Money" and "I'll Still Kill" " Green tickY
  • " The album was described as returning " – Grammatically incorrect. Green tickY
  • " However, the album did not achieve " → " However, it did not achieve " Green tickY
  • Is charting at No. 5 on the 200 really that unsuccessful? Still hasn't been justified. Just remove this part of the sentence for good, because it fails WP:NPOV. Green tickY
  • Isn't "Outlaw" a single? (Please reply) Why isn't it in the table? Green tickY

More on the way. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Have attempted to address every issue above: please strike through each one that I have completed correctly, so I know which ones still need work. As for the issue surrounding "Outlaw", I initially thought it was a single and several outlets have reported it as being so, 50 Cent revealed through his Twitter page that the song was not actually a single (see here - this is the tweet in question). Although Twitter isn't always the most reliable source, considering 50 Cent wrote it himself it seems reasonable enough to use this as justification. As I can find no evidence of the song being a promotional single instead, it goes in the "Other charted songs" section, where it currently resides. There are other songs with similar status - for example, "Marvins Room" by Drake. Although it was released to iTunes and other major outlets, it was not the first official single from Take Care - which was "Headlines" - so it goes in "Drake discography#Other charted songs", even though it reached number 21 on the Billboard Hot 100. I rest my case. Sufur222 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, Twitter is not featured content business. I think the best thing to do here is get consensus and ask people to join the discussion because this will cause too much confusion. Before moving on:
  • please try to neutral and remove your own opinions on an album/single's success. Green tickY
  • don't leave readers wondering about things. If an album/song was described as something, who was it described by? As this is a lead, be general of course.
  • Green tickY The problem is that the sentence uses a quote, which has to be paraphrased to remain general. Second, do not use the word "various". Just remove it as it is too vague to mean anything.
  • grammar tense. You're saying this album included/featured this. So what you mean is it doesn't have those songs on it anymore? Green tickY

Have had another look through: have now resolved every issue with a cross. In the case of the critical reception of The Massacre, I removed the sentence entirely, as I decided it wasn't really relevant and the source I had supplied didn't really support the description I had written. I took your extra comments to heed, and have replaced all the "featured"s with "features", as well as saying that it was music critics that had these opinions - the specific publications are not mentioned, as you say, it needs to be general.

Anything else before sorting out the "Outlaw" issue? Sufur222 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm not done yet. I plan to do another round of prose issues, take a close look at the tables and sources, and finally, the reference formatting. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Moving on... —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

With schoolwork and trying to find free time, my schedule's pretty tight. It sucks, I know, but I'll try my best to catch up and get this done as quickly as possible. I'll try to finish by the end of this week :) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sufur, it would be helpful for you to give me updates on your progress on this page because the article isn't on my watchlist. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I'll leave the updates on your talk page. Sufur222 (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll continue shortly. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 09:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review by Wikipedian Penguin

  • First, let's look at reliability of the existing sources:
    • Yahoo! Music Blogs; they are fine for GAs, but need good establishment on how they are (per FACR) "high quality reliable sources".
    • SOHH
    • Discogs – This one is like a wiki and has provided incorrect information too many times. Definitely not FL material.
    • HipHopPow (???)
    • HipHopDX – This one look reliable to me, but I want your response.
    • MusicRemedy
    • DJBooth
    • MVDBase – Doesn't look that good to me...
    • IMDB – Do not use.
    • No Pinching Back – Never heard of.
    • Video Static – Ditto.
    • the.LifeFiles – Ditto.
    • Music Video Cast – Ditto.
    • BallerStatus – I don't like this one.
    • Dailymotion – no different from YouTube

Explain how these are reliable or remove and replace. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Here we go...

    • Yahoo! Music Blogs - I'm not actually sure about the first two of these. As they is reporting album sales, it really depends on how much you trust the author, and where he got his information from. Paul Grein is frequently asked by the readers of the article for sales numbers, so he must have an insight into the chart statistics that we do not. In short, he is a well trusted enough figure for these sources to be kept. The third one is also fine - it is reporting on gainers and falls on the Billboard Hot 100 (such as this one) show him to be right.
    • SOHH - A website similar to HipHopDX. However, have removed the two sources: I can't find any other information to back up the claims made in the sources.
    • Discogs - have removed all of the links for now: however, in the failed FL review, User:The Rambling Man told me that all of the singles that did not chart on the charts shown in the table had to have references to prove they were actually released as singles. Whether this should actually be the case is debatable, as several other similar discographies do not have these links. Clarification is needed.
    • HipHopPow - not really sure about this one. Have removed.
    • HipHopDX - in this case, I think these should be kept - many of them link to news stories that only appear on less reliable hip hop sites, and not to more notable outlets such as newspaper websites. The stories relating to comments posted onto Twitter especially need these HipHopDX links, because as you told me, the direct Twitter links cannot be used in a featured article. As for the ones that are used in the Collaborations table, they should be kept as well, as the only purpose of the source is to prove that this collaboration actually exists.
    • MusicRemedy - same justification as above: although it may not be the best known website, the only purpose it serves is to prove the existence of the collaboration, so ideally it should stay. Have kept this one for now.
    • DJBooth - ditto.
      Remedy and Booth still do not appear to be highly reputable sources. You will need to have a pretty good reason to still keep them. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • MVDBase - not really reliable: even creator of site admits to mistakes. Have removed these ones.
    • IMDB - have removed as instructed.
    • No Pinching Back: Unreliable - removed.
    • Video Static - have removed.
    • the.LifeFiles: Unreliable - removed.
    • Music Video Cast: Unreliable - removed (replaced with this one).
    • BallerStatus: Unreliable - removed.
    • Dailymotion: Removed, as this is a copyright violation: replaced with this one.

Wikipedian Penguin, you've done it again. The Award for Procrastinator of the Year goes to you. School is so annoying and boring... anyway, I'll start ref formatting. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Had to undo the bot's archiving. Oh well, here are some tips to start off...

  • Do not overlink in the references. A general rule is that the first time you link a work or publisher, that's it; you don't do it for following refs.
  • MTV refs are not printed sources and do not get their publisher (MTV Networks) parenthesized. They follow a "Work. Publisher." format.
  • This applies to all other web publications. The brackets are only used for newspapers and printed versions of magazines, for which {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} are respectively used.
  • Magazines are italicized. e.g. Entertainment Weekly
  • Newspaper sources have their publishers in brackets, e.g. USA Today.
  • Website names for the charts (, etc.) are not italicized.
  • Rap-Up links provided should have their publishers parenthesized because you are using the web articles, not the printed works. Newspapers are exceptions.

Work on these for now. Ask questions if needed. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There's still a Billboard overlink ;) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just read through MOS:NUM and realized that your date format is the wrong one because you are discussing about an American artist. What I am asking you is to change the Day Month, Year to Month Day, Year. Then I'll get to the final things in reference formatting. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you referring to in the actual article (e.g. album release dates) or the references? Sufur222 (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Both (except for quotes and titles for sources). —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

References (revised)

  • Are you aware of the difference between Nielsen and Prometheus? Not saying that you're not, just wondering, because the former is the only one that I see you use.
I'm pretty sure I know: I've used Nielsen for the chart position pages, and Prometheus for the news pages, of which there is one, reference 7 (although this all may be wrong). Sufur222 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Nielsen was actually Billboard's publisher until 2009, but that changed. Prometheus, a subsidiary of Nielsen, actually publishes Billboard now, as well as its charts.
What are you suggesting I do? Should I change them all to Prometheus, or should I change the ones after 2009 to Prometheus and keep the older ones as Nielsen? I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 16:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The latter. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
With news stories, this is easy, but on this page most of the Billboard sources are for chart positions, such as this one: I'm guessing that these ones need to be changed to Prometheus, as they include chart positions recorded with both publishers. With data only referring to a particular week (such as this one, the publisher should be whoever was the owner of Billboard at the time. Am I right? I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 15:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Bingo. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Done: weren't actually that many to change, as 50 Cent has not charted massively in the US or Canada since the changeover. But change them I did. I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 17:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove "Inc" from Nielsen, Yahoo and Apple parameters. Time Inc. is an exception because this is part of the company's name.
Done (forgot about this one) I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 16:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 1: Date format inconsistency
  • FN 9: Why cite news? And remove the period (full stop) in "Time Inc." after because if not, there will be two points, which you don't want.
  • Half-done: removed the full stop, but this reference isn't a cite news. Sufur222 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 24: Italics for Daily Mail.
  • FN 33

(After this point, the reference numbers do not correspond to the ones that need fixing: however, I have worked out which ones are needed to be corrected.

  • FN 47: Allmusic is not italicized.
  • FN 50: Why is the publisher in brackets for the last citation?
  • FN 53: Why italics?
  • FN 54: Radioscope -> RadioScope (dead link)
  • Done (is there an alternative source for NZ certifications until the RadioScope website is put up again?) Sufur222 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid not. You have to remove the information until the site is back up, if you plan on taking this to FLC. Plus, other sites are discouraged from using, as only an official site that records certifications are permitted for these cases. Long story short, you will just have to delete it for now. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 59: Why italics?
  • FN 72: Again, why brackets?
  • FN 136: Why italics? Remove "Inc." in Apple Inc.
  • iTunes is still in italics.
  • Done (I didn't actually know that it had a page, but there you are.) Sufur222 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • FM 144: Why italics and random bracket?
  • FN 169: Unreliable source.

WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Any comments on these edits, please tell me. Sufur222 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

FN 164 has incorrect italicization. Second, Template:50 Cent singles should be here as well. Other than that, I think we're almost finished here. I'll have a look at the tables (I'm not an expert at this stuff so it won't be too thorough). I've thought about it, and I believe that it is safe to assume that "Outlaw" is not a single. It has not been officially released to radio stations, but is simply an iTunes single. I think it would be more appropriate as a promotional single because most other prom. singles end up in a similar boat. (They are released only as iTunes singles and long before the full album is). It's a bit like what happened with "Let's Get It In". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Done, done and done once more. I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 10:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
From here on, it is pretty much up top you. If you want, you can ask someone else to take a look at the disco, because surely I am not 100% reliable for bringing an article to FL quality on my own. You can take your time and look for issues yourself and try to fix them, or if you really think so, go for FLC! The former is a safer approach, but will take time. :) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe Danger[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this to get it up to FA. So far it's hit GA and I reckon it's pretty close by now to the target, but I'd like some pointers on how to improve this further. Thanks very much for any help you can offer. — Joseph Fox 16:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang


  • "Joe Danger is a racing/platform video game .... Joe Danger is a 2½D side-scroller ..."
    I fear these sentences might confuse the common reader. He or she would likely not know what is a "platform" game (though "racing" is a recognizable description), worse would be "2½D side-scroller"... (even the casual gamer would not likely understand that term).
    "Racing", "platform" and "2½D" are all wikilinked; I don't understand how else I can expand on this without going into the absurd.
    Wikilinks do not help. A confusing term is introduced and we expect the reader to go read that article and come back. The reader might not come back. He or she might encounter another article that is more interesting, or worse than that, one that is full of obtuse terms and explanations, is dead boring, or again expects the reader to go to another article. In the bad scenario, the reader disregards the whole entire path of articles. It would be more effective to cast terminologies in the proper context or to coach an explanation in the text alongside the words. Let the readers visit the links if they want to learn more, not force them to go and never come back. Peppering an article with awkward complex terminologies is not really helpful to the reader and an obstacle to achieving the "engaging, brilliant prose of professional standard" requested at FAC. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    So how might I explain "platform" in this context? I can hardly say "Joe Danger is a racing/platform (which is a genre in which characters jump on platforms to progress) video game...". It is explained in the article proper what a platform game is, and more importantly how Joe Danger can be labelled as such. As for "2½D", I believe I got that term from Limbo (video game) who seem to have gotten away with it. I will remove this for the time-being.
    Do not judge just by one FA alone (sometimes FAs are promoted without a more broader reviewer base). One could try to eliminate confusing jargon as much as possible (shameless self-promotion: take a look at Sacrifice).
    That said, "Joe Danger is a video game published by Sony Computer Entertainment in June 2010 for its PlayStation 3 console. It is also British independent games developer Hello Games's first title. Joe Danger combines the features of racing and platform games. The player controls the titular daredevil, whose objective is to complete obstacle courses on his motorcycle under a time limit. The game is presented in a light-hearted, comic way, and gives focus to performing stunts and maintaining speed." would be my suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    That still uses the problematic "platorm game" phrase? It also wasn't published by Sony, "Hello Games's" just looks ugly and raises the question of "s or no s" that's easier to avoid, and gives the impression that completing courses under a time limit is the only objective (when one can see in "Gameplay" that it plainly is not). I've tried a different wording, regardless.
    It is not problematic when placed in context (the following details about the courses). In this way, we avoid distracting the reader with jargon at the start (introduce by saying said is a game, then talking just a bit later on what sort of a game with details that flesh out the "sort of game"). I would think of it as "it is easier to club someone on the head when you get them to focus on a handshake and come in closer, rather than brandishing your club openly and have them run off." In other words, lead them in with more common words before introducing them to complex terms (or have the terms next to easier to understand words). Jappalang (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The game was released on the PlayStation Network in June 2010 after Hello chose to publish solely with Sony Computer Entertainment."
    This sentence reads to me as if the game was released digitally because Hello chose Sony as its publisher. I am pretty certain Sony also distributes games on BluRay/DVDs so the logic of the sentence does not seem correct to me.
    The use of the word "after" (rather than "since" or "hence") surely removes ambiguity?
    Re-reading again after your explanation, it probably does. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "... exaggerated physics ..."
    How does one exaggerate "the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy"?
    I'm not sure how this could be better expressed - the physics are exaggerated (as in gravity is weaker, momentum is altered to make things easier...)
    One exaggerates the effects of physics, but I doubt exaggerating the science. Furthermore, the lede is a summary of the main body and nowhere in there is mentioned anything about "exaggerated physics". Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    How does "The game is presented in a light-hearted, comic way, and gives focus to performing stunts and maintaining speed." sound? Basically took the phrase out.


  • "... on his return to the sport after a debilitating injury, ..."
    Is this important to anything about the game?
    It's the only plot line in the game.
    But it serves no purpose. It does not explain why Joe has to jump those hoops. It is not part of a critically recognized plot device that motivates the player. The main plot line of the game (and the only one that matters here since it is not a complex story) is that Joe is racing against an enemy team in a sport full of obstacles and that is already sufficiently detailed in the article. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    Hmm. I'll take it out.
  • "... to defeat his nemeses, Team Nasty."
    The pairing of a plural with a singular/mass noun does not tally.
    WP:ENGVAR - this is perfectly correct in British English (of which I and Hello Games are speakers)
    British English would still prefer to be clear when it comes to mass nouns. "... to defeat his nemeses, the members of Team Nasty." would be clearer and proper in my view. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    While this is far from concise, I will defer to you.
    Well, if fewer words are desired, just use the singular: "... to defeat his nemesis, Team Nasty." Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    This is not correct in UK English. This reads incredibly badly to me. — Joseph Fox 13:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "While based on a 2D plane, courses are designed with three "layers", enabling the player to "shift" forwards or backwards into 3D space."
    A bit too technical and possibly incorrect in description... Furthermore, the Guardian article this statement is sourced to does not make any claim about three layers or 3D...
    The sentence was missed by myself earlier, should have been to Eurogamer where it is mentioned. Again, I'm not sure there is a simpler way to express this.
    "Players race Joe from left to right along a single lane. Some courses have three lanes, allowing Joe and other racers to switch among to dodge obstacles and take different routes to perform different tricks." According to the Eurogamer article, not every track has three "depths" ("Some tracks have three planes of depth which you can switch between at specific junctions. It pays to learn the most efficient."). Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    Would just adding the word "some" be alright? It's a fairly crucial gameplay element.
    I do not quite understand here. Are you saying that using "2D" and "3D" are crucial to explain how the game works here? I would say not (I believe my suggested phrasing can work and it has no use of 2D/3D). I would like to point out that the term "3D" does not carry the same connotation across (spatial, graphics rendering, display). Most casual readers would see "3D" and likely think of those stereoscopic glasses or the new-fangled television displays that allow the images to "pop out" of the screen. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    Uh, would they? I don't think they would; especially not for a game released before 3D tech made its name. "3D" is fairly universally the counterpart to "2D" and merely indicates that another axis is involved (in this case the Z axis).
    They might; 3D to the common people (who are more of cinema and television audiences than gamers) is more likely to be the "pop out" effect. In my opinion, it does not matter whether the game uses three dimensions in the gameplay or not. What Hello Games did was simply adding more lanes in certain tracks for the characters to race; anyone could easily envision that scene when reading a description phrased in said manner. A attempt to technically describe what is happening might be more droll and awkward to the reader. Jappalang (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    I think making that assumption is a bit unfair; goodness knows if it's true or not. But fine, how does "While based on a 2D plane, some courses are designed with three layers which enables the player to "shift" forwards or backwards into different lanes." sound? — Joseph Fox 13:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    I think it is much better than the original. Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The bike is controllable while in the air, allowing for various tricks, such as flips and grabs, as well as manoeuvring onto targets."
    I think "manoeuvring onto targets" is not that clear to everyone, and how is "grab" a trick?
    I don't see how "manoeuvring onto targets" is unclear even to those not gamers; would a wikilink on "grab" be an improvement?
    This again is sourced to the Guardian, which does not talk about "grabs", so is it that important a feature that must be described here? Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    It is, bar flips, the only class of trick able to be performed in-game.
    Then surely one of those sources would talk about it (and perhaps provide a more accessible phrasing); the Guardian does not speak of flipping over (handle?)bars. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    "Flip" = forward/backward flip. Not a clue how you can arrive at "flipping over handlebars". I would also note that I took this phrase out entirely. "The bike is controllable while in the air, allowing for various tricks to be performed and for manoeuvring onto targets."
    I saw "bar flips" and on searching this term, was directed to articles where gymnasts flip over bars and bike riders flip over their handlebars. That is sort of moot now, however... Jappalang (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Tricks can be linked with nose and tail wheelies to continue combos."
    Rather than using a gaming jargon and directing readers to its article (and possibly never coming back), it will be better to find another phrasing that is much clearer to the reader and avoids the jargon.
    Like what? They are wheelies, there is no real way to simplify this term, again, without being absurd.
    I am talking about "combos". Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    With respect, I can't imagine another way to word this. "Tricks can be linked with nose and tail wheelies to continue combinations of tricks that will earn more points"?
    How about changing "Tricks can be linked with nose and tail wheelies to continue combos. As well as awarding the player points, performing tricks builds up a 'boost meter'." to:
    "Performing tricks awards points. More points are awarded for performing long sequences of tricks, typically by linking each trick with a nose or tail wheelie. Executing these stunts also builds a 'boost meter'."? Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    Aaah, "sequences" never even crossed my mind. Sounds alright.
  • "Earning points by performing tricks building up a "boost" meter which, when activated, allows for a temporary speed boost."
    The grammar requires attention.
    "Building" -> "builds", typo.
    There are other issues with this statement. The source (A.V. Club) does not talk about points or that this boost is necessary for clearing long jumps. Furthermore, "activating" a "meter" to the common reader would mean a measuring device, like a taxi-meter. The game does not "use" a "meter" in that manner; it is a gauge to power an ability (one "activates" the ability). I would have phrased it as "Performing tricks builds up a "boost" meter. Pressing the boost button increases Joe's speed and drains the meter; Joe's gain in speed lasts as long as the meter is not empty." (based on reading the Eurogamer article). Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    Other than the fact that I have not even the slightest idea what a "taxi-meter" is, I think your recommendation is perfect. I've implemented it (and noted that tricks earn points, which again is a fairly important feature).
  • "... through the three 3D-space 'lanes'."
    I believe "3D-space" is not an adjective.
    Changed to "3D".
    I think even "3D" is not necessary, and lanes need not be put in quotes. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    Got it.

Downloadable content

  • "The patch added two features critics had marked the game down for: ..."
    Without reading the sources, I can tell that this sentence is the opposite of what they say (the current sentence would mean the patch added two features that gathered criticisms).
    I'm completely lost as to what you're trying to say here.
    "The patch added two features", "two features critics had marked the game down for": They added a patch; the patch added two features; the critics gave bad marks to the game because of these features (and not because the bad marks were about something that was lacking but which the features fixed). Am I conveying my concern clearly? Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I still don't understand. I'll leave this for the time-being, it's fairly late here in Australia.
    Okay, let me try again. What you have written above is that the critics gave bad marks to the features added by the patch; i.e. they disliked the features to upload videos to Youtube and to share courses with friends. Now, is that correct and what you intended? Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    Ah, right, I get it now. Sorry, bit dim sometimes ;) Does the addition of the word "excluding" allay concern? — Joseph Fox 13:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Further features included ..."
    "Other features included ..."
    Right, done.
  • "The announcement of the expansion came with a level-designing competition, with the top five winning tee shirts and artwork."
    The ambiguities of noun-plus gerund... The announcement was accompanied by a competition, top five tee shirts, and top five artwork (from where does the shirts and artwork come from then)?
    I'm sorry? You've added commas why?
    User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing could explain why I read it in that manner. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    I think I got it. "The announcement of the expansion came with a level-designing competition in which the top five won tee shirts and artwork."
  • "Speaking to Mike Rose of Gamasutra in October 2010, Murray explained ..."
    "Murray said in an interview ..." or "Murray said ..." would be much more concise.


  • "... their first real experience of creating their own games came ..."
    I do not think "came" is the proper verb here... this would be much better rephrased.
    "their first real experience of creating their own games was gained making levels for" - any better?
  • "... internally as part of a larger company."
    "Internally" is redundant.
  • "Joe Danger was heavily influenced by an Evel Knievel toy ..."
    Somehow this reads wrong to me. The game cannot be influenced. A game or its concepts bears an influence(s); the people who worked on the game can be influenced. It might be better to say that "An Evel Knievel toy was the main source of inspiration for Joe Danger; the team had fun "firing that stunt cycle out of windows and down halls"." The source also does not describe any "makeshift tracks"; the team just launched the toy into certain stunts.
    Pedantically, they would have needed tracks to drive it out of windows, but fair point, used that sentence.
  • "Speaking to Alex Sassoon Coby of GameSpot, ...", "Murray told Simon Carless of Gamasutra that ...", "speaking to the website's Tom Bramwell ..."
    Again these details are unnecessary.
    Really just to spice up the prose a little, but okay, "said" it is.
  • "... that they would be granting Sony console exclusivity;"
    A very clunky sentence, which makes me wonder why it cannot be rephrased as "... that they would be releasing the game only on Sony's Playstation 3;".
    "Console exclusivity" is the term used for such a stunt; the wikilink should be enough?
    I would refer to what I said earlier; there is no point in writing around a wikilink if it makes the sentence awkward. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    Despite the fact that rewording "console exclusivity" will invariably make the sentence less accurate (and more awkward), I'll do so.


  • "It holds aggregate scores of 86.89% at GameRankings based on 33 reviews, and 86/100 at Metacritic based on 48."
    Either remove this sentence from the prose or the scores from the table. One or the other is redundant.
    It seems to be a staple for other game FAs, but alright.
  • "... the quickfire level system ..."
    What is this?
    Removed "quickfire".
    It is not just that, the resulting change, "non-linear level system", could prove confusing as well. Do you mean a "non-linear level progression" (I am not sure if a non-gamer would catch on to this suggestion as well)? Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    How else might one describe non-linear progression?
  • "... Excitebike [1984] ... Super Mario Bros. [1985] .... Additional 90s video game influences were praised; ..."
    I presume "90s video game" means "video games from the 1990s"; even then, how does "additional" come in? The previous mentioned games are from the 1980s.
    I think I added "additional" as a rash extra clause of its own. Will remove.
  • "... influence of early, 2D Sonic the Hedgehog titles."
    What is the comma doing there? Why is 2D stressed here (and not for the earlier video games from the 1980s)?
    To differentiate from 3D Sonic titles, but I suppose "early" is enough there.
  • "While single-player gameplay was complimented, other features split opinion.
    The second clause is badly phrased ("the other gameplay mode "features split opinion"?).
    I've tried to work around this with "While the single-player gameplay was complimented, other modes split opinion."
    How about "While the single-player gameplay was complimented, opinions were split over the other modes."? Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    Aye, looks fine.


  • Please remove the total "revenue" figures. This is not WP:CALC compliant. There is a reason Gamasutra does not use its analysis to say the game yielded this much revenue (they are only implying monetary gains through counted Leaderboards numbers). As far as I understand it, the Leaderboards analysis has a flaw: on the PS3 Network, one can share games across (5) machines. People who receive the game "free" from friends never paid money to play it, but their names would still be recorded on leaderboards (the same with different XBox Live accounts playing on one machine). Claiming what Gamasutra never clearly stated (especially with a possibly flawed analysis) is original research/synthesis. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    Should something be noted to this effect in the article? I will admit that it was a silly decision to include these, and I have removed the financial aspects of these, but since I cannot for the life of me find a source to prove Sony don't release sales figures I won't be able to back that side of the story up. (After writing this I have found a comment by Simon Carless in the comments section for this article but it's likely useless.
    Unfortunately not, not all games are going to have revenue figures. Gamasutra's "guess" of number of sales is the best we are going to probably get for this game so far (but should not be taken further than what they have presented). Jappalang (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


  • Too much detail that is making this section tread upon promotional hype. Just state there is a sequel and what it is going to be about. No need for "ooo, it will have this and that".
    Got it. Most if not all of that is found in Joe Danger: The Movie so it's not a massive loss. Is it alright now?


  • File:Joe Danger - Chuckles the Chimp.jpg: this image does not comply with WP:NFCC. One does not need to see it to imagine a monkey in place of Joe and bananas in place of coins (failing #1). Furthermore, the material about this image is not even in the article but rather a caption (#8).
    Hmm, not sure I agree with that; if you're certain, though, I will happily remove (and delete) the image.

Overall, I think there is a need to pay attention to the use of gaming terminology here. This article is not supposed to be meant only for dedicated gamers. It is supposed to help inform the common reader (whether a gamer or not) about the game. Jappalang (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed the concerns listed (with exceptions as above). — Joseph Fox 12:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
And again. — Joseph Fox 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
All in all, the revised article now is more accessible in my opinion to the common reader. A comprehensive coverage appears to be there, including a "guesswork" of sales (albeit by a notable gaming industry reporter, I suppose). Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That's great, thanks for your help with improving it! :) Hopefully see you at FAC, haha. — Joseph Fox 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Le souper de Beaucaire[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I simply want a review to help it reach GA standards, I'm not interested in attaining FA class as the subject and context is relatively straight-forward, it lacks controversy, and is not given a great deal of attention by Napoleonic historians, though it is usually mentioned by his biographers to some extent, but not trivially because of its affect on his career rather than the effects of the publication itself, which were few.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 12:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Nev1
  • "to deal with the rebels from Marseille in Avignon, where army munitions were stored and required for the French Army of Italy": were the supplies needed by the army, or needed in Avignon? If it's the former I recommend changing the sentence to "to deal with the rebels from Marseille in Avignon, where army munitions [required by] the French Army of Italy were stored". The bit in square brackets could probably be swapped for "by".
 Done Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]
I've tweaked the end of the sentence so it reads ok, but the "Marseille situated in Avignon" bit could be misconstrued by readers. What's the demonym for someone from Marseille? Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Carteaux's troops attacked, they fought with National Guardsmen": "with" can be ambiguous, so I'd suggest swapping it for "against", or if the National Guard were the prime target then it could be rewritten to "Carteaux's troops attacked the National Guard". To be honest, the whole sentence could be rearranged, as it's unclear until the end what Carteaux's men were attacking.
 Done Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]
Still an issue here. Were the guardsmen killed during the siege or in the assault on the town? Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The "siege" refers to the town being attacked, troops on both sides attacked - there was no prolonged effort, no fort, it was probably just street fighting level as casualties were only ~30 dead according to one source, and citizens were involved, although that's not surprising in itself given that it was the French Revolution. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The manual of style advises against starting sentences with numbers. "28 July was the last day of the fair when Napoleon arrived" could be changed to "Napoleon arrived on 28 July, the last day of the fair". I'd also be tempted to start a new sentence at that point, but that's up to you.
 Done Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]
Adding "The" before "28 July" made it inconsistent with the rest of the article, so I rearranged the sentence. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of the Rebellion in Southern France section you switch from the past tense to present while explaining the debate between Napoleon and the merchants ("That evening Napoleon and the four merchants discussed the revolution", contrasts with "The merchant stresses that Marseille does not fight for the Royalist cause").
 Done Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]
  • The final sentence of the Rebellion in Southern France needs a source.
 Done Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]
  • "The pamphlet would be read by Augustin Robespierre, brother of Maximilian Robespierre, who would prove impressed by the revolutionary context": this could be rephrased to avoid the passive voice.
 Done Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]
  • "but it served to advance Napoleon's career, he quickly became recognised for his political ambitions": there seems to be a natural break where that comma is and I would replace it with a full stop, breaking up a long sentence.
 Done Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]
  • Is there any particular reason page 127 of the Doyle reference (#3 at the moment) is in italics?
  • Page numbers in italic refers to a full-page illustration or table on the cited page. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]
Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In the references section the first year of publication is given for Chandler and Hibbert, but not Doyle.
  • "First published" date, i.e. original year, only applies when the copy being used has a different publication date, but possibly no edition identified. Sometimes hardbacks/paperbacks, or later reprints have a different publication year. There would be nothing gained by citing "(1998) [1998]". I like to use the origyear parameter to give researchers precise details of the copy I have at hand when citing text. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]
I understand your reasoning, but it's easy to leap to the conclusion (as I did) that the omission was a mistake rather than deliberate. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In the same section you give the town/city and country for Chandler and Cronin, but not the others. You need to be consistent.
  • Major cities such as London or New York do not normally have their country follow because they are known to everyone, using country would be superfluous. Lesser known places, where the country may be less known, e.g Hull, require a country. More about clarity than consistency, and acceptable referencing. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]

If you're aiming for GA, the lead will need to be expanded to adequately summarise the article.

 Done Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]
The later reprints could be mentioned in the lead, just a sentence to round it off. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also expect some more information on the pamphlet itself. While the background is well-explained, the contents could be expanded upon. Was it a direct transcript of the conversation or was the meeting just an inspiration? As the article's slender there's plenty of room for details of publication. How long was the pamphlet, how many were printed and where, do any examples survive, was it ever reprinted, what was its distribution? How has the pamphlet been assessed by Napoleon's biographers and historians of the revolution? Nev1 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks Nev1, have answered a couple of points therein and will look into the rest shortly. As for the last paragraph, on analysis: to be frank, I don't know – I read history and judge for myself, I don't tend to read assessments of history – i.e. historiography. In most cases his biographers just briefly mention that the pamphlet was written and gained him political favour. It doesn't normally get an in-depth analysis, sometimes a few lines in the form of a short summary of what he wrote and what he gained. Sometimes the biographers suggest various views on why it may have been written, but as aside personal thoughts ("he probably wrote it because...") not as fact because no one can truly know his motives as he never documented them, which to me suggests he never expected it to be as well received as it was by politicians. I don't like to write "X historian believes... whilst Y historian believes..." type commentary: I prefer history "as is" over modern critical, political and sceptical analysis, to keep articles less prone to controversial views, as it sets a more neutral tone and less convoluted. That also helps give the overall article less pro- or anti-Bonaparte tone, which a lot of biographers have trouble doing because they often either love or despise the man and sometimes can't help conveying it subtly in their form of analysis rather than their biographical tone. David Chandler is one such Napoleonic historian – many reviewers consider him anti-Bonaparte and pro-British. I don't, I find him fairly even keel and fair-minded, in fact he's more disdainful of other historians who clearly glorify Napoleon and defend his every move or vilify him with unreasonable contempt. But even analysis itself is open to interpretation.
  • None of my books comment on quantity printed, how many survived etc (maybe no one knows, given that those who supported it were executed), they look at it as one of Napoleon's contemporaries, not as a piece of history – it's not treated as profoundly as, say, the original hand-written Gettysburg Address documents, and lacks the same reverence. I'm sure there may be detailed analysis somewhere, but that type of history is not my thing and I don't have time to research for too long on the matter, even though it would be nice to know the facts as to how many were printed and survived. I doubt they were reprinted as the rebellions in question were put down through sieges and bloody assaults shortly after so there would be no need to redistribute the documents. And if they had no effect the first time, doubtful they would a second. There may be reproductions, but only for the sake of recreating Napoleon's own work for historians, as is now common for many documents, but not for political distribution purposes. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It's usual to respond to a reviewer's comments rather than mark them done yourself as it could appear that I think the issues have been resolved when the case is I haven't yet checked the article again. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter.. it's a peer review, not a promotion, I'm not obliged to do or not do any suggestions - you don't need to consider anything resolved, there is no support/oppose whether I do or not because PRs are to aid development not just raise the status. I've always done it this way, anyway, even in class reviews so that reviewers know what I've done/not done in the case of a list of things to consider.. you always have the further option of striking things if you feel an urge to check them off yourself. But as the one who is technically being peer reviewed, as the author/nominee, I reserve the right to check things off as I see fit. Live with it. :)
Please explain: why have you placed a link to a "Thomas the Tank Engine" remix YouTube video? Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 22:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I had other things on my mind when I was writing the reply. I've replaced the link with the one I meant. In any case, I realise it is a minor point but it gives the impression that I agree your changes when I haven't checked what you've done to the article yet. It's a matter of transparency, and that this is a peer review as opposed to an A-class review is immaterial. If I wanted to show that I thought I'd addressed a point in a review I'd add :{{done}} ~~~~ so it's clear who said what. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, you have your way, I have mine, it's trivial. Moving on, as you can now see what I've done, as well as that new material has been added since, if you'd like to further your comments regarding the article, please feel free to do so. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 22:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I've made it clear you put the ticks there, as it' trivial I'm sure you won't mind.
Anyway, possible motives for writing the pamphlet are precisely the kind of thing that should be included. Speculation on the part of historians of course, but worth including. That Napoleon didn't bother committing his reasons for writing the pamphlet to paper doesn't mean the article can't include the possibilities. If he had, then I'm sure people would still speculate whether he was being completely truthful or not. It's a shame the sources don't comment on aspects of publication such as numbers and distribution, but perhaps not surprising. The bit from Bourrienne about later reprints is a nice addition. Is there any further information on why it was reprinted in 1798? Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
No idea why they published it in 1798, unfortunately de Bourrienne does not give any reasons in Memoirs. Perhaps, as the Revolution was drawing to a close, and it was evident, at least to the French, that history had been made over the past 10 years, that scholars were starting to gather together documents and such evidence from the period for publication? That's just my speculation, though. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah well, if the sources don't say anything about it our hands are tied. Nev1 (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
If anyone could get hold of a 1798 copy, as it was a book rather than pamphlet so I assume some may have survived, there might be a foreword from the editor or publisher to explain the reasons. Assuming also that there is, it's probably in French, so a translation would be needed. The National Library in Paris only has an 1821 copy, but nothing earlier, according to search results. Surprisingly, this article also lacks a counterpart on the French wiki, so perhaps one day someone will do that and expand it with reliable French sources regarding the reprints. It sould simply be a matter that the English don't care as much about the document as French ones might have. I'm going to drop an editor I know, living in Paris, a message in a moment to ask him if he knows of anything, that he might be good enough to reference. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 00:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my favorite Beyonce-song and i want to take it to FAC in December 2011. Please, i want someone familiar with issues often raised at FAC and especially someone who will help me better the prose considerably to FA standard.

Thanks, ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

To "better the prose considerably to FA standard" you should contact someone at WP:GOCE.

  • ""Sweet Dreams" was critically lauded, with critics" Can there be some variation here to avoid "critcally" and "critics" in such close proximity?
  • In Critical reception, you refer to an organisation called "BBC UK", which doesn't exist. I'm also pretty sure that Vicki (whose full name Vicki Lutas should be used in the author field of the reference) is a woman, not a man, and the work "The Chart Blog" should be incorporated into the reference.
  • "As a concluding sentence, he said that[...]" How about simply "In conclusion" or "concluding"? It cuts down on unnecessary word count without losing meaning.
  • How does Ref 92 support "At the final of a show of her I Am... Tour on November 2009, Knowles sang the full version of "Sweet Dreams" on the B-Stage for the first time, instead of a snippet or an acoustic version."?
  • Last paragraph of Live Performances section refers to "BBC’s Radio 1"; the station is called BBC Radio 1.
  • I can't see how any of the Shaq O'Neal stuff is relevant to helping a reader understand the topic of the article, even if it "was covered by both Billboard magazine and Popeater among others." Neither of the references support that the "issue" was covered by other publications.
  • Check refs for consistency; Ref 30 uses Hearst Corp as the corporate publisher of the Houston Chronicle and Ref 31 uses Jack Sweeney as the named publisher. Check also for repeated wikilinks.

Bradley0110 (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's all??? Thanks anyways. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 04:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical energy[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to GA but am stuck right now as to what I need to do further to bring it to that level. I would like suggestions for mostly new content - I do know that it needs a copy edit and I will contact the Guild of Copy Editors when I am sure that I have enough content. If there is something you want to edit, feel free - but please leave a message if you are doing any major changes.

The article is fairly short - I've made it much longer than it was before I started, but honestly, this subject is pretty straight forward. It will be something that high school students will be looking up pretty much so in that way it is an important article.

Thanks in advance for your interest, -- Regards Mottenen (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from RJH:

  • The article needs to clarify that the kinetic energy is with respect to an observer's frame of reference.
  • In the equation for U, I assume that F is meant to be a function of the vector x?
  • The article makes no mention of rotational energy, which can also be considered a form of kinetic energy. Only the kinetic energy based on velocity is covered.
  • It does not cover kinetic energy at relativistic velocities. The listed equation for K is only accurate for non-relativistic velocities.

Good luck with the article. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks foryour work on this article. Here are some more suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are quite a few FAs in Category:FA-Class physics articles and some may be useful models for this article
  • Ideally there should be an image in the lead section
  • Nothing should be only in the lead as it is a sumamry of the rest of the article. Saying that the energy unit is named for Joule seems to only be in the lead, though.
  • I would look at some textbooks and popular science books and perhaps other encylcopedias and see what they say about mechanical energy as a way of making sure this is comprehensive.
  • When an abbreviation or symbol is used, introduce it on the first use of the property. So U for potential energy should be defined in the first paragraph of the General section (where potenital energy is first mentioned) instead of the third paragraph (where it is defined now). If a symbol has not been defined
  • Abbreviations in the pendulum diagram also need to be explained (in the caption). Could this be used as the lead image?
  • Avoid bullet point lists where possible - can these just be converted to straight prose?
  • Seems odd that this is not mentioned in {{Footer energy}}
  • Article is pretty short so there is not much more to say
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… this article is new and well, it needs help Thanks, Gregory Heffley (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I think it needs a fair amount of work to better follow the WP:MOS, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I removed the {{new page}} template from the top of the article as it did not meet the criteria for the new article template (the article is several months old already).
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are quite a few Featured Articles on businesses at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Business.2C_economics_and_finance which may be useful as models.
  • The article has one dab link here which needs to be fixed.
  • Wikipedia does not typically show copyright and registered trademark symbols
  • The article needs more references, and as much as possible needs to use references from reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:CITE and WP:RS
  • Even some places that have refs still need a ref to a Reliable source. What makes a reliable source, for one?
  • 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.
  • Per WP:See also the See also section does not usually cite articles that are already linked in the article.
  • Any chance for some free images? The HQ building? Some of the executives?
  • This is so short it is hard to say much else. Do make sure to be neutral and avoid sounding like an ad or promotional piece for the company
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanita thiersii[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think a peer review will help me make more improvements in it.

Thanks, Sainsf <^> (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Rules for peer review limit nominations from a single editor to one per day. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Big problem here is I discovered copy and paste plagiarism in the article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • This source is copied word for word for at least two paragraphs of this article. See the paragraphs beginning and ending In 1978 Skip and Sherry Kay (future founders of the Kaw Valley Mycological Association) ... named in honor of Dr. Harry Thiers, fit the mushroom perfectly. I am removing this from the article next.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are 40 FAs on fungi at Category:FA-Class Fungi articles which seem like they would include some good models
  • Two dab links found here that need to be fixed
  • Biggest problem I see is references. First off there are parts that have no refs and need some. For example, 2 of 3 paragraphs in History and discovery have zero refs and three of four paragraphs in Description need refs too. As does the Distribution and habitat section.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Refs need to provide more information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The refs that are there need to be relaible and meet WP:RS What makes a reliable source? What references does it cite or where is its editoral oversight?
  • Avoid contractions like this Gills: They're crowded to subdistant, free, rather narrow to broad.
  • Make sure the lead meets WP:LEAD standards.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself *My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of this article is copy/pasted from two websites. I have placed a {{db-g12}} tag on the article and hopefully we can clear the history and start fresh. Sasata (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark Satin[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am preparing it for FA candidacy. It covers unusual ground - its subject played major roles in three "alternative" political movements over five decades - and I would appreciate any comments you care to give, the more exacting the better.

The article began as a squib in 2004. I put it up for FA review almost two months ago and resisted the initial comments, but I have seen the error of my ways; most of the suggestions there and in a subsequent Military History A-Class review have now been integrated into the text. And they inspired more improvements on my part. I cannot improve it any more without your help.

Note on citation style. I have retained the style I used in a 2005 revision (the original stub contained no references). It is a composite with the following major features: (1) first name before surname, as in the Bluebook; (2) all commas until the period at the end, as in the Bluebook; (3) no parentheses around dates or publishers (except around years of journals), as in the MLA Handbook; and (4) "p." or "pp." before page numbers, as is the practice of some American publishers.

Note on links in the "References" section. I have linked authors and publishers here only if they are not linked anywhere in the text or in the "Publications" section; and I have only linked authors or publishers here on first mention.

Thanks so much! - Babel41 (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I reviewed the article as I would at FAC.
Thanks for these incredibly helpful comments! I have tried to take full advantage of them, as you will see; - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • You need to eliminate any references in the lead that aren't strictly speaking necessary - I'd probably keep the ones for any controversial labels. Per the MOS, we don't use references in the lead when the fact is sourced in the main body of the article.
 Done I eliminated about two-thirds of them, and the lead reads much more smoothly now.
    • A bit of overlinking going on - we don't need to link to words such as ideology, newsletter.
 Done Sorry, I had geared my links to the average U.S. public high school student. Of the 69 links to things other than people, texts, organizations, and movements, I have now eliminated 56 (over 80%). The 13 remaining seem to me to be essential to grasping the article, but please correct me if I'm wrong (draft dodger. draft resister, neopacifism, New Age, radical centrism, pacifists, radicals, Quaker, deliberative democracy, amnesty, macular edema, diabetic retinopathy, and "Fool," respectively). - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Overciting going on also ... Generally there should only be one citation for most sentences - two is pushing it and three for any fact starts screaming that something's wrong.
 Done I have eliminated all 10 instances of three or more citations (a couple of times by bundling them), and have eliminated some double cites as well. - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Lead: "Despite its arguably off-putting.." you need to atttribute this to someone rather than imply that Wikipedia thinks its "off-putting"
 Done Rewrote to take Wikipedia off the hook. - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Link to "Green political thought"?
 Done Eliminated it - seems out of place at the beginning of the "New Age" section. - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "It became one of the few non-academic books to win a "Best Book Award" from an organized section of the American Political Science Association." Huh? Totally do not understand what an "organized section" is here.
 Done Many U.S. professional groups (e.g., lawyers, political scientists) are built around the work of their organized sections, which typically require a minimum membership (e.g., 250). In the APSA, one thing these sections do is hand out book awards. Rather than explaining all this, I simply changed "organized section" to "section," which is hopefully more self-explanatory. - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "Bringing war resisters to Canada was opposed by many in the anti–Vietnam War movement." but we've never been told that he did so..
 Done I now make this explicit in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Early years: Feels totally disjointed and strung together. The quotes from his mother aren't really placed in context here. Neither is the newspaper column thing.
 Done Great points. I have totally redone this section with your comments in mind. - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Need to explain/link what battle stars are - are these just campaign ribbons or a Silver or Bronze Star?
 Done In context of this article, that might be a distraction. Also, I cannot find any other references to the father's battle stars. I now simply say Satin's dad served in combat in WWII. (The point is simply to contrast the father's service with the son's draft dodging.) - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Please give years for many of the episodes in his life. We aren't told when he enrolled in the U of I - that would help anchor the article.
 Done I have added more dates both in the new "Early years" section and in its spinoff, the "Later life" section. - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • This source does not support the statements in the article that it is a citation for: "Six months later he discovered his only life partner, a poet and educator. In 2009 he retired from newsletter publishing. Although losing his eyesight as a result of severe macular edema and diabetic retinopathy, from 2009 to 2011 he presented occasional guest lectures on "life and political ideologies" for Americ Azevedo's".
 Done This whole passage has been rrewritten and moved to the "Later life" section. And it is better sourced. - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The organization of the article is somewhat disjointed. We have "early years" then a total overview of his career - complete until 2011, then a whole host of explanations of various behaviors/career twists that we haven't even been introduced to yet. I strongly strongly suggest integrating the factoids in "colleges and career" and "explanations offered" into the whole chronological framework that starts with neopacifism.
 Done It embarrasses me that I didn't recognize this earlier. I have done what you say, beginning with the new "Early life" section and moving certain biographical facts into the middle sections, and then ending with a new "Legacy" section that makes use of most of the material in the old "Explanatuions offered" sub-section. - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Don't use "Main article" for draft dodger, etc, use "see also". Main article is for a sub-article that is summarized in this article, but you're not summarizing the whole draft dodger article here - just using the link to add extra information to a particular person's career. Same with "New Age Politics" section.
 Done Changed all four "Main article"s to "See also"s. - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)s
    • " one journalist strained to objectively put it." Opinion, needs revising.
 Done Satin is now simply and unambiguously "fired." - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I do not see the connection between these two sentences: "Others took issue with the section on emigration. According to journalist Lynn Coady, the FBI and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) attempted to wiretap Anansi's offices."
 Done Good point. I have created a much better transitional sentence. - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "According to a study of the Manual in a literary journal, some editions experienced a falloff in quality." Name the journal and shouldn't that be "later editions"?
 Done And you're right about "later." - Babel41 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • In general, I feel there are too many "quotes" in the article, a lot of it feels like a string of quotes strung together into a narrative.
 Done In the article you reviewed on October 17, there were 81 direct quotes of three words or more (nested within approx. 7,200 words of text). I agree that that was too many. I am happy to report that I have now paraphrased or eliminated slightly more than half of them (8+9+15+9=41). Moreover, the vast majority of the quotes that remain are from the subject of the article (Satin), rather from secondary-source authors. - Babel41 (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, many of the quotes need attribution in the text, not just a citation at the end. Any time you have a significant amount of quoted material, it should be stated in the text who made the statement, not left up to the citation at the end.
 Done Every quoted sentence or lengthy phrase now has a speaker or author right there in the text. - Babel41 (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • An example of information that is given as quotes that would be better summarized and not quoted: "One of the council's announced goals was "to break away from the old quarrels of 'left against right', and help create a new consensus". Another was "to serve as one of the organizational vehicles for transformation"."" This could more concisely be stated as "The councils goals were to avoid the old political dichotomy of left versus right as well as allow the transformation of politics." If you quote too much, people don't pay attention.
 Done I understand. And I have now paraphrased both of the examples you cite. - Babel41 (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Much of these points holds true for the entire article - too much quotation makes it hard to read, too many citations in a row makes it hard to read, and the organization is just plain odd.
 Done That is, I have now gone over my ENTIRE text using the criteria you set forth above. - Babel41 (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
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.) 15:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You have helped tremendously! I'll let you know when I put this article up for FA candidacy. - Babel41 (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Ren & Stimpy Show[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review of the quality of its references. Some, added by myself, reference Usenet groups for lack of better documentation such as TV guides; others seem arbitrary and insubstantial, like Screen Junkies dot com, but removing them myself might seem like edit-warring and article ownership. Removing bad references or replacing them with better ones is much appreciated.

Thanks, IsaacAA (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sjones23

This article looks pretty good, but here are some possible suggestions:

  • A voice actors section may need to be created in the Production section with the character voice info moved from the characters section.
  • Lead may need to be expanded to three or four paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
  • In the production section, is it possible to detail animation production companies that were involved in the production and their involvement?
  • All redundancies in the article must be removed.
  • Writers for the series may need to be added to the production section with the proper sources.
  • A reception section needs to be added and the Legacy section merged into that section.
  • The controversy section needs to be moved down into the reception section as well.
  • Can we add a possible themes section and settings section to the article if possible?

Hope these comments are helpful. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, very helpful. More comments are welcome. –IsaacAA (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Since you asked specificlaly about references, here are some comments on them and other suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs on animated television shows at Category:FA-Class Animation articles. Both Animaniacs and The Simpsons are FAs, though these are also older FAs and standrads have gotten even tighter since they were promoted.
  • References need to be to reliable sources (see WP:RS). I am not an expert on animation refs, but things like look like fan pages and are not likely to be reliable sources.
  • The references that are present need to be formatted consistently and to present all necessary information - some internet refs are just URLs now (see current ref 70) but 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
  • Article needs more references, for example the COmic books, Video Games, and Parodies sections all need more refs.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. There are many sections listed in the Table of Contents which are not even mentioned in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Prose is very choppy with lots of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improved the flow.
  • One dead external link here
  • In general I would ask on the talk page for the Animation WikiProject or at WP:RS/N (the Reliable Sources noticeboard) about sources you are not sure about - if there is consensus to remove, that makes life easier.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Gert (1993)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done some major work to it and believe it is almost ready for FAC. The article is a cohesive and complete account of the subject at matter, with a good balance of reliable English and Spanish sources. I'll admit that although the information is thorough, the prose might be a bit neglected in some areas. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Auree 20:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: I'm currently providing feedback via IRC. HurricaneFan25 20:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Other feedback:

  • "Gert continued to produce moderate gales along its path through the country." - just sounds a bit strange, no big deal here
  • "Off the coast near Big Corn Island, the rough surf and winds destroyed nine fishing boats" - Remove "the" before "rough"
  • "...causing additional damage and disrupting transport." - Change that to "transportation systems" or something like that
  • "...plantations across low-lying areas, such as banana, sugar and citrus." - Use "including" instead of "such as" — doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me
  • "In at least one community, heavy downpours triggered damaging mudslides along a major highway." - using "at least" is awkward - if you don't have confirmation of any other communities being affected, remove that "at least" or reword it
  • "Urban areas of Madero and Altamira were also hard hit by the flooding." - "hit hard" doesn't sound encyclopedic, IMO
  • "...and increased as the flooding persisted in the following weeks." Remove "the" before "flooding" - sounds just a bit strange
  • "...this included 41,250 kilograms of food, 1422 mattresses, and 1350 blankets." - you used a comma the first time, why not the following instances?
  • "In its wake, largely disrupted road network across the affected regions impacted the..." - you need a "the" before "largely"
Addressed these points except for "hard hit" (I don't know what I could use instead) and "increased as the flooding persisted in the following weeks," since the flooding is already mentioned in preceding sentences. Thanks for the review Auree 22:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the length of the article, I feel a 3rd paragraph in the lede would be nice, although not absolutely necessary.
  • " and once again reorganized into a tropical storm" - there is a redundancy there. Gert reached TS status only once before, so "once again reorganized" imply it attained TS status for a third time.
  • "Sustaining winds of 100 mph (165 km/h)" - I found that a bit awkward, since I'm used to reading "sustained winds" but not the gerund form. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it felt weird.
  • "Due to Gert's broad circulation, heavy rains fell over large areas along its path through Central America." - did the rains weigh a lot? (heavy) Also, the "large areas" seems out of place. Why not something simpler like "The large circulation of Gert produced widespread precipitation across Central America"? You can get into the details later on rainfall totals, which would help expand the lede.
  • "Heavy" is a very acceptable term to describe rainfall intensity, lol. I tweaked it a bit, though. Auree 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "combined with saturated soil due to previous tropical systems" - the article only mentions Bret. Was there another tropical system that contributed to the flooding?
  • "caused heavy flooding of property and crop" - I think another word other than "heavy" would be appropriate here. Also, why is "crop" singular?
  • "Following the overflow of several major rivers, deep flood waters submerged extensive parts of Veracruz and Tamaulipas" - I believe "flood" and "waters" should be one word, but I'm not positive.
  • I'm not sure either. I remember being told to keep them separate in a previous review, and spell-check also prefers them being separate words. Auree 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The heaviest rains occurred further inland over the mountainous region of San Luis Potosí, however, where a record 31.41 in (798 mm) of precipitation was measured." - the "however" isn't needed. Also, you don't say what sort of record that total is. Highest total in one city? Something like that?
  • I mean the highest total for the storm overall. Not sure how else to put it without making the sentence bloated. Auree 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait, did the storm total set a record or not? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "road networking" feels sort of out of place (specifically the networking). I don't think it should have the "ing" on there.
  • " A large portion of the system subsequently moved inland along the northern coast of South America for several hours" - something happening for only a few hours seems out of place. Also, the article says something happened on the 11th, and then it emerged into the Caribbean on the 13th, so that implies two days. Be sure to check that out.
  • "Based on this and the presence of a surface circulation, it was reanalyzed as a tropical depression" - I think "classified" would be better than "reanalyzed", as the latter implies something different.
  • "about 105 mi (165 km) north of Panama" - Panama is a big country, and yet that measurement is pretty specific. Where in Panama?
  • "Since its cloud pattern continued to organize, it was upgraded to a tropical storm on September 15 and received the name Gert" - technically, it was upgraded to a tropical storm due to estimates that the winds had increased. It could have remained a tropical depression if they didn't think the winds increased. Also, it'd be helpful to say who upgraded (AKA avoid passive voice). Alternatively, you could say who classified it as a TD in the previous paragraph.
  • How strong was Gert at Bluefields landfall? I see you mentioned it in the impact, but that should be in the MH.
  • " Interaction with land impeded further development, and Gert later weakened back to a tropical depression." - when?
  • "This allowed Gert to retain its status" - what status? As a tropical cyclone, status as a tropical depression (which isn't that impressive, Mitch 98 did the same thing)
  • Changed to "This allowed Gert to remain a tropical cyclone," and it is impressive, especially when the NHC repeatedly forecast dissipation (which also now mentioned in the article). Btw, Mitch briefly lost its status, and it was a powerful hurricane at landfall. Gert was already a minimal tropical cyclone. Auree 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I noticed that the discussions mention that the circulation became broad over land, so you might want to mention that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What caused Gert's motion to go to the northwest like that? And while I'm thinking about it, what sort of conditions were favorable enough that it could have intensified into a TS the first and second time.
  • N/A Auree 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Did Gert's structure change while it was over land the first two times? Did the convection decrease over the center, and did the circulation ever get ragged?
  • Was it only warm waters that allowed Gert to intensify to a hurricane in the BoC?
  • The only discussion mentioning something other the waters is discussion number 17, which mentions it being a reason for restrengthening to a tropical storm. I think the mention of weak shear was too far away from it reaching hurricane status and don't feel all too comfortable using it, but I did anyway. Auree 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Its forward motion had slowed slightly" - why?
  • "allowing the hurricane more time to organize over favorable warm sea surface temperatures" - you already mentioned warm waters two sentences prior
  • "Gert accordingly attained its peak intensity as a Category 2 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale, reaching winds of near 100 mph (155 km/h)." - few problems. Why "accordingly?" Oh what basis was that peak intensity estimate? (recon, buoy, Dvorak?) Finally, the km/h estimate here is different from the infobox.
  • I refer thee to this. The accordingly comes from the TCR's usage of "consequently," so I'll change it to that. There's no mention of how the wind speeds were deduced. The discs only mention recon reporting a peak intensity of 80 kt, so that's inaccurate too. I can mention the minimum pressure, but that wouldn't fix the wind deduction issue. Auree 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Around 2100 UTC, Gert made a final landfall on the coast of Mexico at peak intensity, with its eye moving westward just north of Tuxpan, Veracruz." - what day did that happen? And when did the eye form? You never mentioned it earlier.
  • Neither did the NHC :P Auree 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why did Gert accelerate over Mexico?
  • N/A Auree 00:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "It continued a west to west-northwestward motion for a couple of days" - how many? "couple of" is a weasel word.
  • "and the system was declassified as a tropical cyclone on September 26" - did the circulation dissipate, or was it merely a remnant low?
  • "After confirming the development of a tropical depression, authorities in Costa Rica issued a green alert for coastal regions on September 14, although it was upgraded to a tropical storm warning along the Atlantic coast by the following day." - authorities confirmed that the TD developed? Also, using the passive voice means that "authorities" were upgraded to a TS warning. Instead of although, I would use "which was upgraded"
  • Yes, they did. And I tweaked it per your suggestion. Auree 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • How many people in Mexico were evacuated?
  • No idea. Auree 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Although Gert's center remained offshore, its large circulation produced brisk winds and heavy precipitation across Costa Rica." - well, the center did move onshore, just not in Costa Rica. I would clarify that (Although the storm did not strike the country - something like that)
  • Do you know where the station recorded 13 inches of rain?
  • "Geologically, the hardest-hit regions consist of sedimentary layers with poor hydraulic conductivity, and are therefore prone to soil saturation." - why the present tense in the first part? And is there any chance you could explain the "poor hydraulic conductivity"?
  • I did it because those regions and their characteristics still exist to this day. Also, I'll try... Auree 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The initial rains caused a significant water rise in many rivers, further exacerbating the flood threat." - doesn't water rise mean flooding?
  • It just means the water level in a river rises... that doesn't directly mean it overflows. Auree 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The floods destroyed about 500 acres (2.0 km2) of banana plantain" - banana and plantain are two different, albeit similar fruits. At least, I thought so.
  • "In addition, the Manuel Antonio National Park suffered great destruction from high winds" - could you find a different wording other than "suffered great destruction"? That same phrase is in the caption of the image on the left, and it feels weird for them to be identical.
  • I wouldn't call 27 destroyed houses "significant property damage" (ditto with the low damage figure). Also, when you say ($3.1 million), you should clarify USD, since other currencies use $.
  • Surely nearly 700 damaged homes is at least considerable, and $3.1 million isn't all that low for that region during that time. Clarified the other part though. Auree 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "A river adjacent to Rama crested at as much as 32 ft (10 m) above its normal stage" - try rewording that a bit
  • " affecting up to 12 municipalities" - can't you get an actual number? Also, that seems like a small number of municipalities to be affected by flooding.
  • "the flooding victimized 24,000 people" - victimized how? Prejudice? Sexual harassment?
  • "Following the destruction of its sole water reservoir, much of the city suffered potable water shortages for months in its wake." - why isn't that aftermath?
  • I was going to do that, just forgot to XD Auree 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "affected up to 67,447 people, of which" - it should be "of whom" since they're people.
  • Is "of whom" really grammatically correct? Auree 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • " although unofficial sources put the death toll for the country as high as over 100 deaths" - over 100 deaths could be 7 billion, so you should indicate whatever is the highest death toll estimate.
  • " officials reported up to 12 destroyed homes and five deaths in its wake" - you should either spell out both numbers or make them both integers, per WP:MOSNUM.
  • "Torrential rains from Gert affected up to 20,000 people in Guatemala" - up to 20,000 could be only 5 people. What is the estimate for how people were affected?
  • " It further caused significant agricultural losses across the country" - that reads a bit awkward. "further caused", IDK, I wasn't a fan.
  • " Just offshore, a weather station on Hunting Caye recorded up to 9.5 in (241 mm) of precipitation during the event" - see earlier about "up to"
  • "Quickly picking up Category 2-force winds over the warm gulf waters, Gert made landfall along the northeastern coast of Mexico as a large and powerful hurricane" - that's redundant. We already read that in the lede and the MH.
  • "catastrophic flooding washed over extensive areas in eastern Mexico" - I think you could find a better word for "washed over".
  • "Half of Tampico was inundated by flood waters and mud, demolishing structures and roads and forcing 200,000 residents to evacuate" - try and avoid the passive voice here.
  • "where up to 35 rivers burst their banks" - as before
  • "leaving 361 communities isolated from the rest of the world" - the latter portion isn't necessary, as "isolated" implies that.
  • You should clarify USD whenever you use the $
  • "41,250 kilograms of food" - convert please
  • To what? :S
  • "Over $300,000 in aid was donated by the federal governments of Japan, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, and Spain combined" - that'd probably be better written in active voice.
  • "the president of Honduras surveyed the affected region by helicopter" - only one region?

That's it. Nice work on the article overall. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive review; I was honestly expecting much more problems! If I didn't reply to a point it means it's addressed, and if I did it means I disagree or can't/don't know how to fix it. Auree 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Next (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it can achieve GA status with adjustments!

Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks good to me, are there any sections that you are specifically wanting feedback on? Jhunt47 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There was nothing in specific that I was concerned about. I just wanted an overall peer review. Thanks for doing so! Akcvtt (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Ginnis[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. I created this a while back, and it is far from the best article I have written. I would like to improve it - I made some minor restructuring edits about a month ago - and am interested in comments from other editors on the article's quality.

Thanks, DCItalk 20:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Hello, DCI. Interesting article. Sorry, I don't have any content knowledge, but I have some general suggestions (aimed towards raising the article to B class standard). Feel free to ignore or implement as you see fit:
    • the lead probably needs to be expanded to at least a full paragraph (currently it is only one sentence);
    • English variation: the article appears to use some US English spelling, when it should possibly use British English given that the topic relates to Britain (e.g "color" --> "colour", "defenses" --> "defences");
    • the addition of an infobox and/or some images (this would cover off on the B5 criterion);
    • referencing: at least one citation per paragraph for B class, but the more the better. If possible, my suggestion is to mix paper sources (books) with online sources;
    • watch out for overlink - "brigade" is linked a number of times in the one paragraph (there may be others);
    • is there any information on casualties that could be added to the article? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


  • Agree the lead needs expanding
  • The date format is not standard British style 30 December - its not a problem for me but it may be brought up at any higher review
  • Anglo-Egyptian Army - Anglo is not commonly known outside of ex British Empire country's suggest change to the British and Egyptian army
  • Dervish can be linked
  • Dervish State instead of Dervish Empire
  • The abbreviation Berkshire has been used while the other infantry regiment have the correct titles Durham Light Infantry for example. You should be consistent with what method you use
  • First Brigade and Second Brigade should be 1st and 2nd Brigade especially as you use 2nd Brigade later on. Or as was common for the time use the commanders name - Butlers Brigade - what ever you choose be consistent
  • White sun helmet can be linked to pith helmet
  • Screw gun can be linked to RML 2.5 inch Mountain Gun
  • More in line citations are required
  • The bare url reference should be formatted use the cite web format
  • If Queen Victoria's Little Wars by Byron Farwell is a book you should use the cite book format

Well done a good start, if you need any help or have any questions just drop me a note here or on my talk. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Hello. I am sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but I've been caught up in another review. I will be able to work on this more in the coming week. Thank you for your comments. DCItalk 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman battleship Abdul Kadir[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I really want to see if I can take this scrap of an article to GA.

Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - this is just a preliminary thing first off, I'll do some digging later and see what I can do.

  • The full refs to Langensiepen & Güleryüz and Keltie should be moved to the reference section and shorted, and the ref to Conways should be corrected (i.e., the short ref should be "Gardiner, p. 391")
  • The design and construction sections have redundant text which should be merged/trimmed as necessary.
  • I'd recommend looking through the old editions of Brassey's Annual and the like, surely they have some more information on the ship. And look under alternate spellings "like Abd el kader", etc.Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - there's definitely some room to give a bit more context on why the Ottomans were building such ships (including likely adversaries in the eastern Med). The picture could be cleaned up a bit in places (let me know if you need any help with that). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  • That's a good point - a good option for expansion is to discuss the naval arms race with Greece and that the Turks eventually turned to buying battleships from foreign yards. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


  • Armor is usually one of the last things added to a ship. Framed just means that the structural members of her hull were put into position. The next step is usually to plate the hull, usually from the keel outwards. So this ship didn't get very far before she was suspended.
  • What make Naval History via flix reliable?
  • "as a barbette ship" is redundant, rephrase the second use of the term.
  • Were the bulkheads transverse or longitudinal?
  • The Ottoman Steam Navy is probably the best source used. I'd follow its account of the ship's history, which will eliminate the confusion caused by the existing statement that work continued even after the ship's frame was twisted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Paul Green School of Rock Music[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on removing weasel words, adding cites and improving the balance on this page. Please review it and improve it. Thank you. K8 fan (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article and should not include anything important that is not mentioned in the main text. The existing lead seems to be mostly a history of the program rather than a summary of the article. You might consider adding a "History" section and moving much of the lead to that section. WP:LEAD has further general information about leads.
  • "In 2002, producers from VH1 filmed for four days at the Philadelphia location for a proposed reality TV series, then stopped returning phone calls." - I find this sentence puzzling because it seems to have no connection to Green or to the School of Rock.
  • "The Annual School of Rock Festival" section needs inline citations to reliable sources. So does the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "All-Stars" section. So does the second paragraph of the "Performances" section. My rule of thumb is to include a citation for every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. If one source supports a whole paragraph, the citation should appear at the end of the paragraph. If not, then the paragraph may need more than one citation.
  • Possible expansion: How much does it cost to attend one of these schools?
  • Possible expansion: How are the teachers chosen? What qualifications do they have?
  • Possible expansion: The reviews seem positive, and the school naturally views itself in a positive light. Is this the complete picture? Do any of the critics say anything negative about the program? Do parents and kids have anything to say?
  • Facebook (citation 9) does not meet the reliable source guidelines. See WP:RS for details.
  • Citation 10 does not seem to link to a supporting page.
  • Citation 11 is missing the publisher's name and an access date.
  • YouTube (citation 12) is not a reliable source.
  • WHYY in citation 17 links to a disambiguation page.
  • The date formatting throughout the citations needs to be consistent. Choose one format and stick with it.
  • Since the School of Rock web site appears in the infobox, it does not need to be in External links.
  • The School of Rock Festival link in the External links sections has a dead URL.
  • Why include the Boston branch of the School of Rock in the external links and not other branches? I'd suggest deleting it rather than adding a whole bunch of links to the other branches.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of the far future[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FL status and failed in a previous attempt. Since then it has expanded significantly, so may need a cleanup before the second try.

Thanks, Serendipodous 13:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

  • "The Solar System will have completed one full orbit of the Galactic center." Since the present?
  • Chaotic era for the Earth's obliquity.[2]
  • You could tell us when the Sun reaches peak vertical displacement above the galactic plane.
  • Some type of evaporation timeframe of the globular clusters could be listed. (Ex.: [3], p. 9.)
  • When will the Milky Way reach the Norma cluster? Never mind.[4]
  • Coalescence of the Local Group.
  • You might take a look through the following source for useful information covering the next million years. It's an interesting read.
    Dutch, Steven Ian, "The Earth Has a Future", Geosphere, 2 (3): 113–124, doi:10.1130/GES00012.1 
  • An entry about when all of humankind's nuclear waste will become "safe" would be interesting.

Regards, RJH (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Faye Wong discography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the discography of Faye Wong. I don't want either the FA or GA status, unless the article appears to meet the qualifications of GA rather than the FA. I want honesty about this article from anyone who joins this discussion. I have created this article on the sole purpose of separating the content away from Faye Wong article. I have created more content, such as covers that this singer performed, but I must give credit to other contributors who put their hearts on this. There should be sources of the third-party and the independent rather than less reliable. I and others will do our best to improve this article after this peer review.

Thanks, Gh87 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Michael Jester Good work on the article so far. Just a note, lists like this can't be GAs or FA; they're only qualified for WP:FLs. With that being said, here's my review:


There are two disambiguation links[5]
Two dead links[6] Possibly all done, but I don't know who did these: you or I? --Gh87 (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I did not do it. It probably happened when you removed the ELs / notes. Michael Jester (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


Have you considered using {{Infobox artist discography}}?
I did this. Michael Jester (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
An image in the lead would be nice. Her main page has File:Faye 2011 Hong Kong cropped.jpg, which is a good picture of her.
I added the image. Michael Jester (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The lead should have some background information about Faye Wong and how many of each album, single, etc has. Here is a list of all the FL discographies. You can use them as an example.
It should explain her music career. Discuss her albums. We need some information about them in the lead.


This section should just be called "Albums"
When discussing EPs don't use past tense. Example: "This was an EP, the first instalment of her final recordings with Cinepoly." Does this mean it was an EP, and now it's not? Changed verb tense to present participles, such as has been --Gh87 (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
What are "Teenage albums" and "Main discography"? I also see you have EPs listed with the albums. WP:DISCOGSTYLE says we should break up recording by type (i.e. Live albums, studio albums, EPs, soundtracks etc.)
Has any album charted in any country? If so, consider re-doing the table. The sample section as WP:DISCOG has a good example. Even if an album hasnt charted, most discographies still use the example. I know you have a column for English and Chinese titles, but you could just combine the both. Example using sample (I'm only doing the first 5:
List of albums
Title Album details
Shirley Wong (王靖雯)
  • Released: 1989.11
  • Debut album with Cinepoly
  • Released: 1990.06
You're the Only One
  • Released: 1990.12
Coming Home
  • Released: 1992.08.13
  • Contains first all-English track
No Regrets (執迷不悔)
  • Released: 1993.02.05
  • First album with Mandarin track
All done! --Gh87 (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


I'm assuming these are compilation albums. If so, then they need to go under the albums section.
This section goes in reverse chronological order; however, the albums section is in chronological order. Pick one and be consistent. One has to change. The most common is chronological.
It's best not to do subsections by record label. This could be added in the notes column. All  Done --Gh87 (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Songs only found in other albums

No offense, but what makes any of these songs notable? In order to establish notability, you need a [significant] coverage from a [third-party] source.
Dashes are wrong, per MOS:DASH.

Theme songs

Once again, what makes these songs notable? Remember, a discography is a list of notable releases.

Cover songs

Once again, delete this section unless the songs are notable.


I would create a section titled "Notes" and just put all the notes there. ALL DELETED!! --Gh87 (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

External references

An article either has a reference section or an external links section, not a combination of the two. All references are technically external.
Is the first her official website? Kinda looks like it. If it is, use {{Official website}}. Nope, it is the fansite dedicate to the singer. --Gh87 (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Well in that case, it is not an RS. Michael Jester (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyone could have made a Geocities website. What makes this a RS?
How are the lyrics encyclopedic toward the article? Plus, it's from a Geocities website so it's not an RS.
What makes the 4th reference an RS?
5th reference just looks like lyrics. If that's the case, then this shouldnt have to be here; it doesn't add any encyclopedic value to the article.
6th reference: IMBd is not an RS, fansites are not an RS, and what makes an RS? ALL removed! --Gh87 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Last general stuff

add {{contains Chinese text}} YesY Done --Gh87 (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Has Faye Wong released any singles? If so, create a section for them.
This article needs a lot of references. Any claim, stat, etc. needs a source. For example: the sentence "A favourite for many fans, this artistic album includes several tracks of scat singing. Her last studio album with Cinepoly". How do we know it was a favorite for many fans? How do we know its an artistic album? How do we know its her last studio album with Cinepoly? BTW, the phrase "artistic album" seems a little bit like OR. Removed that from page. --Gh87 (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It should be assessed as a List-class article. ...Maybe later; there are too many banners in the talk page. --Gh87 (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
There were only three banners. Plus only one needed changing. Oh well, I did it anyway for you. Michael Jester (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work on the article so far, but it still needs a lot of work. You may strke-thru my comments if you have properly addressed them. Once most of these are addressed, I might go back and do a second review.
Michael Jester (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

More comments—
  • Around now, I would start adding references/sources. Since there are no sources, how do we even know these albums exist?
  • After reading her article, I found out that some of her albums have charted. This needs to be added.
  • I also saw sales figures, too. This should be added.
    Michael Jester (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Mariology[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I think it would make a good candidate for Feature Article status.

In the interests of full disclosure: I did no editing work on this article whatsoever, I just came across it. I am not a practicing Catholic, but I was raised Catholic and I'm familiar with the doctrine and history discussed in the article. The article does focus on exploring the topic from what I would describe as traditional perspectives, tempered with some limited discussion of liberal views.

What I hope to get from peer review are some comments and questions from reviewers who are not familiar with the topic. I think the 'outsider' perspective would help me to tweak the article to improve an overall NPOV examination of the topic. Any and all suggestions that might help towards FA consideration would be greatly appreciated.

The topic might seem like an obscure one to non-Catholics, but Mariology has a key role in Catholic culture in European history and beyond.

Thanks, OttawaAC (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Adjwilley

  • I had to read the second sentence three times to recognize that it wasn't a fragment. I think it may have some POV issues...perhaps if you moved the "believed" to the beginning of the sentence it would read better (i.e. "Because she is believed to be the Mother of God...").
  • 2nd sentence of section "Mariology and Christology" may have similar POV issue, though I can't say I know what Christology is.
  • Many of the references could use page numbers and templates that show whether the reference is a book, article, speech, etc. #17 is the first one I noticed, but many have the same problem. Some links would also be nice.
  • References 61, 67, 77, appear to be using religious texts (bible in this case) as a primary source. 58 is also a religious text, but not really being used as a source. For example, the sentence before reference 61 says: "In Catholic teachings, Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man. (and the reference given is "1 Tim, 2,5.") The best solution would be to find a secondary source that makes the claim; if you're not an expert there, I would recommend either tagging it for somebody else, or putting some text in the citation itself that makes it obvious that 1 Tim is not a source but an illustration of the point.
  • The terms "Christians" and "Early Christians" are used loosely throughout the article, sometimes implying that Christian equals Catholic. For example:
    • "The Catholic Church teaches that the Virgin Mary is mother of the Church and of all its members, namely all Christians"
    • "Early Christians focused their piety at first more upon the martyrs around them" (how early? Peter and Paul, or post-Constantine Christians? Unfortunately I don't know the history very well.)
I'm not sure exactly how to fix this, but I'm sure there's a Wikipedia project Catholic manual of style somewhere that would address the issue.
  • There are numerous footnotes that look like they should be sources, but end up just further explaining the sentence, without a reference to some reliable source.

Anyway, I am pretty low on time here, and I didn't read the whole article, but these are some of the problems I found in a half hour. As for my background, I am not catholic, but have been editing on some articles related to Mormonism, one of which is listed below. I would greatly appreciate it if you would do a quick review of that one. -- Adjwilley (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Adj. They should be pretty easy to fix, e.g. a one sentence definition of Christology added to clarify it, etc. I think all those "explain it in the footnote" items should just be mostly deleted. I know where they came from: there was a very knowladgeable editor who is no longer on Wikipedia but used to write like that. They are probably correct, but should be trimmed. And of course more WP:Secondary sources should be added. The issue of Christian vs Early Christian is the only one that needs some work. We can probably explain that more, in that it mostly refers to the post Peter/Paul period. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Romsey Town Rollerbillies[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been through a contentious deletion, deletion review, incubation, further editing by an uninvolved editor, and nomination for speedy deletion. I would like other perspectives on whether the sources provide enough depth.

Thanks, Dualus (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The article has evidently been deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles discography[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because last time it failed is FLC. There were too many issues with the article. Please help. If something familiar with singers' discographies could leave a very nice review, i would be very happy.

Thanks, ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am not super knowledgable about discographies, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • First thing I would do is look very carefulley at the failed FLC comments and see if they have all been addressed. Treat that like a very detailed review (which it is) and make sure everything that was objected to before is fixed. Once you are sure all the i's have been dotted and all the t's crossed, I would perhaps ask the editors who opposed before to check the article again and see if their issues had been addressed or not (I would do this one at a time). If not, fix and repeat.
  • There are many FLs which are discographies. I would pick some recent ones and use them as models for this to get ideas and examples to follow.
  • The external link checker tool says that there are 3 dead links
  • As far as I can tell, the list part is OK (with one question - see below). The references also appear to be OK, though again I am not an expert in music articles (so I assume these are reliable sources).
  • The one question I had was the karaoke album - I believe that Beyonce only sings (and does not play intsruments) on her records. If her voice has been removed for the karaoke album, how can it be hers for inclusion here?
  • The rest of my comments will be on the lead. The first sentence does not follow WP:LEAD which says in part The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. The problem is that the article is about the albums and songs Beyonce has done as a solo artist, however the current first sentence is about Beyonce the singer as a member of Destiny's Child, and does not have anything to do with her solo work. The current second sentence would be a much better first sentence (tweaked).
  • Sewcond sentence says Her discography as a solo artist began in 2003... but there are three songs on the discography that pre-date 2003
  • Avoid needless repetition - having said All of her studio albums won the Grammy Award for Best Contemporary R&B Album,[2] and debuted at the number one spot on the United States Billboard 200.[3] there is no need to repeat the number one debut in the lead.
  • Unless I am mistaken, the preceding sentence is in error, as 4 has not earned that particluar Grammy (and since that Grammy was discontinued after 2011, cannot earn it ever).
  • In general, it would help to qualify general statements - so ...Destiny's Child, which has sold around fifty million records worldwide. could be clarified by adding the year (as of 2010). Or above something like ''Her first three studio albums won the Grammy Award for Best Contemporary R&B Album,[2] and all four debuted at the number one spot on the United States Billboard 200.[3] would be clearer.
  • "attained" sounds odd - I do not think an artist attains number ones or certifications - look at model FLs and see what verbs they use
  • My rule of thumb for the lead of an article is to include every section in some way - there is no mention of charity singles that I can see in the lead. I also see that many of the other section headers are mentioned only in the second sentence - this may be a WP:WEIGHT issue.
  • I would make sure the focus is on the albums / singles / songs as much as possible - the article seems to veer a little too much into awards and other extraneous matters.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Old Malvernians[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it may be a potential candidate for featured list. Specific areas to discuss and make suggestions on improvement are:

  • Layout - current form or table
  • Lack of images and whether this in itself is a setback
  • Quality of references
  • Citations per MoS

Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry the PR has taken so long. While this is a good start, it has some serious issues requiring lots of work before it would be anywhere near ready for FLC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many lists of alumni which are FLs at Wikipedia:FL#Education. A few examples that may be useful models are List of Washington & Jefferson College alumni and List of United States Naval Academy alumni
  • To answer your specific questions above, the FLs I checked were all in table form, though the way they were organized varied. I think this has to be a table.
  • The FLs I checked also were not completely illustrated, so that should not be a problem. They all had some images along side the tables and a striking lead image (which this currently lacks). If nothing else an image of the college itself could be used (not FAIR USE though)
  • I think the lack of references is the biggest probelm facing this list (though there are many others). COunting only A, B, and C, I got 28 Malvernians, only 12 of which had references. For FL, this will need to have atl east one ref for each person / entry, and perhaps more than one ref for some entries.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph (or here entry) needs a ref. If there is a brief biography of a person (which most FLs of alumni seem to have), then some facts from these bios may need additional refs.
  • Current refs do not always provide enough information per WP:CITE - current ref 23 is just Profile the For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • The refs that are there need to be to reliable sources - what makes or a RS?
  • One dead external link per the tool on this PR page here
  • The lead does not really follow the MOS. FLs no longer start with "this is a list of..." for one thing.
  • There is great inconsistency in the material given. Some people have birth and death years, but not all do (and of course living persons would only have birth years). Most models have the year the person graduated (their "class year") as a column
  • Inclusion criteria are unclear - there are some people listed who do not have WP articles (red or no links) - do they meet [[WP:NN}}?
  • Article uses & where and should be used
  • Some blurbs are very brief, others quite long - they should probably be of a more uniform length.
  • Are there things unique to Malvern that should be included here? Which house the person was in as a student, for example?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
  • I think this gives you an idea where to start improving - good luck and thanks for your work on this article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Union Square (Hong Kong)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that, for the amount of information on this article and the amount of detail it goes into, it can no longer be considered stub class. The article contains several subsections with descriptions of most individual projects - it's come on a long way since it was last reviewed - this is why I think it should be re-evaluated.

Thanks, Peter (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Goodvac[edit]

I have completed a copyedit of the article. Here are some points of confusion:

  • "The built area includes 5,866 residential units, totalling..." What does "The built area" mean?
  • "All five towers follow the same design however reduced in height consecutively with the tallest being Sorrento 1 and the shortest being Sorrento 6." Not sure what this means.
The Harbourside
  • "Construction of the 74-storey building began in 2001 and was completed in 2004 under the design by P & T Architects & Engineers." Was P & T Architects & Engineers the architect, the constructor, or both? Or something else?
The Cullinan
  • "The North Tower and South Tower ... were completed in 2008 and 2009" Was the North Tower completed in 2008 and the South Tower completed in 2009?

Goodvac (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

1906 Florida Keys hurricane[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it even further, not necessarily to FA status.

Thanks, HurricaneFan25 11:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting hurricane article. The storm took what looks to me like a most unusual path. Here are quite a few suggestions about prose issues and a couple of suggestions for expansion.


  • "135 workers on the Florida East Coast Railway were killed during the storm" - Since this is a complete sentence, it needs a terminal period. In addition, it should not start with digits, per the Manual of Style. You could recast to avoid the problem, perhaps like this: "The storm killed 135 workers on the Florida East Coast Railway."


  • "By October 8, it had intensified into tropical storm... " - Should this be "a tropical storm"? Missing "a"?
  • "At least 240 people were killed as a result of the hurricane,[note 1] and caused at least $4,135,000 in damages." - There's a grammar problem in this sentence, which seems to say that the 240 people caused the damage.
  • The lead repeats the word "hurricane" seven times. A bit more variety would be good.
  • Note 2: "Damages caused by the hurricane totaled to at least $4,135,000... " - Tighten by deleting "to"?
  • Note 2: "Peerless and Sara totaled to $600,000 in damage" - Tighten by deleting "to"?
  • The lead should summarize the whole article. A mention of the railway workers, the pineapple plantations, and the cloud-seeding experiment of 1947 would not be amiss.

Meteorological history

  • "while located in the southwestern Caribbean Sea" - Link Caribbean Sea?
  • "However, the system weakened into a tropical storm by October 14, but restrengthened... " - The "however" and the "but" don't make a very good combination. I'd just delete the "however". You don't need a comma before "but" in this sentence. The verb is compound, "weakened" but "restrengthened".
  • "As the hurricane began to turn northeastward, the storm continued to intensify, becoming a Category 3 hurricane by October 17." - To avoid repeating "hurricane", "storm", "hurricane", you might use "As the hurricane began to turn northeastward, it continued to intensify, reaching Category 3 by October 17."
  • "The hurricane continued to approach Havana during the day... " - Link Havana?

Preparations and impact

  • "The town of Bluefields suffered moderate damage... " - I would add "Nicaragua" to Bluefields since many readers will not know where Bluefields is. Ditto for other towns and cities in this section; I'd identify the country in each case.
  • "to fruit plantations in Costa Rica" - Link Costa Rica?
  • "totaled to $1,000,000" - Delete "to"?


  • "However, none were killed or injured in the city" - "None" is singular, but "were" is plural. Perhaps it would be better to say "However, nobody was killed or injured in the city."
  • "and another 150 tobacco barns" - This is the first mention of tobacco barns, I think. Delete "another"?


  • "where at least 135 people died,[1] of which 104 died on Houseboat No. 4." - Smoother might be "where at least 135 people died,[1] 104 of them on Houseboat No. 4."
  • What is the connection between a houseboat and a railway line? You might add a sentence or two to explain this.
  • "The Campbell and the Sara were destroyed near the Isle of Pines,[5] and the Elmora sank." - Were these steamers too? What about Fessenden? What kind of ship was it?
  • "The railway's losses totaled to about $200,000." - Delete "to".


  • "The hurricane eventually led to the end of the commercial production of pineapples in Florida." - Why? I think you could elaborate here. Did the storm cause the pineapple farmers to go bankrupt? If Florida was a good place to grow pineapples, why didn't anyone else decide to grow them even if the storm put other pineapple plantations out of business?
  • "However, the similar path of this hurricane prevented the success of the lawsuits." - I think this section could be expanded to include more detail about the connection between the two hurricanes. The last sentence says "this hurricane", by which I think you mean the 1906 hurricane. I'm guessing that in the 1940s lawyers argued successfully that it was impossible to tell whether the seeding had changed the path of the 1947 hurricane or not. Another couple of paragraphs of detail might be possible, relevant, and interesting in this section.


  • Citations to books or long PDF files should include the specific page number(s) being cited.
  • Citation 18 shouldn't include the month of publication, just the year. Ditto for citation 11.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! HurricaneFan25 23:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Amundsen's South Pole expedition[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. 14 December 2011 is the centenary of Roald Amundsen's arrival at the South Pole. It would be good to see this important anniversary celebrated on Wikipedia's main page, but first the article has to be featured. Together with User:Apterygial and User:One Ton Depot I have been working to bring it up to standard. I believe it's not far off now, and would welcome some disinterested feedback. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yomangani's comments

I'll try to give it a proper read through next week. A couple of things that stand out on a quick skim:

  • The bolding in the first sentence seems a bit arbitrary (why not be radical and not bold anything or bold everything from "expedition" to "South Pole")
    We will give this further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd try to avoid quoting Amundsen (or any of the Norwegians) as much as possible unless they are in English in the original or you can provide the Norwegian.
    I think it is OK to quote Amundsen direct from his The South Pole, since although the English words are Chater's, Amundsen may reasonably be assumed to have approved the text. I will paraphrase words put into his or any of the Norwegians' mouths by other writers (Langner, Huntford etc). Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    That sounds fair enough. Yomanganitalk 09:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • No source for Shackleton's Daily Mail quote ("perhaps the greatest polar explorer of today")
    added Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Cherry-Garrard's quote isn't quite contemporary and Kathleen Scott's quote seems a bit out of place just before the section on her husband's death. I'd imagine it would be a bit of a nightmare trying to rework that section to either side of the news of Scott's death, but it seems a bit clunky as it is.
    Further work will be done on this Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • What is McPhee's source for Amundsen being relieved to hear that the Terra Nova didn't have a short wave wireless? I'm sure he was, but who said it?
    I didn't write this part, so I'll consult my co-editor Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    McPhee doesn't specifically cite sources, but Langner notes the same thing (I have both of these books in front of me). I don't have access to Huntford's book at the moment, but from memory he mentions it also. I would assume the original source would be Amundsen's diary. Apterygial (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The modern photo of Funchal doesn't do much for me.
    Me neither. Gone. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Despite his eagerness to start out again Amundsen waited until mid-October and the first hint of spring—the sighting of a petrel." The petrels were sighted at the end of September.
    Well, according to Huntford they appeared in "early October". But Amundsen says September, and he was there so he should know. I have removed references to the petrels
  • "On 12 December they were momentarily alarmed by a black object that appeared on the horizon, but this proved to be dogs' droppings magnified by mirage" Amundsen doesn't mention this and it seems a bit odd. Perhaps leave it out as it takes too much explaining to make clear what happened. (unless you are pandering to the dog poo fans).
    Huntford is the source of this story. I assume he got it from Hassel, whose account of the journey is the only one, other than Amundsen's, that Huntford lists in his bibliography. I'm sure the old brute didn't make it up. The story is inconsequential, but Amundsen's polar trek was, shall we say, a little short on variety. It is I suppose a little pathetic to have to resort to dogshit to make things interesting, but I don't see the harm in keeping the story. It's only a few words in the narrative, is sourced, and does spice things up just a little. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • A rather grudging acknowledgement from The Times on March 9 1912 in case it is of any use: From the telegrams now received there is little room for doubt that Captain Amundsen has reached the South Pole. From the English point of view he may not have "played the game"; we can not forget the secrecy under which for months he shrouded his intention to steal a march on the man who had for years been making his preparations to attain the coveted goal. This was all the more unnecessary, for no one would have welcomed co-operation in the work of South Polar exploration more than Captain Scott. Unfortunately Captain Amundsen notified the latter of his intention too late for Captain Scott to get in communication with him. Still, no one who knows Captain Amundsen can have any doubt of his integrity, and since he states he has reached the Pole we are bound to believe him. For the present we have only the bare fact that he has done so; whether during his journey there and back he made any discoveries of importance we can only learn on the publication of his narrative. One thing we know - he had nothing else in view save a "dash for the Pole." He had no intention of carrying out scientific investigations ; he was unhampered with the heavy equipment required for this purpose; he had nothing to think of but his dogs, his sledges, his provisions and clothing.
    Good quote; do you have either an online link, or the page number? Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    "Captain Amundsen's Achievement. Work Of Previous Explorers." The Times Saturday, Mar 09, 1912; pg. 5; Issue 39842; col F. It is available online at the Times Digital Archive but it is by subscription and I suspect my link somehow conceals some details of my login, so I won't post it on the off-chance. Yomanganitalk 09:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    We don't have to have the online link. You've provided enough for me to be able to give a full citation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Huntford points out that Scott was a much better writer than Amundsen: "[Scott's] literary talent was his trump. It was as if he had reached out from his buried tent and taken revenge."" This might be true, but Amundsen was writing in Norwegian and what is being judged is the English translation by Chater. Perhaps drop the apples and oranges comparison for something shorter, on the lines of "Huntsford points out that "[Scott's] literary talent was his trump. It was as if he had reached out from his buried tent and taken revenge.""
    Yes, done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Scott and four comrades, Amundsen learned, had reached the pole on 17 January 1912, but had perished during their return journey, on or around 29 March 1912." Bowers, Wilson and Scott, on or around the 29th March but Oates and Evans had died earlier of course. I can't think of a nice way to reword this, perhaps you could just drop the "on or around 29 March 1912".
    • How about something like "Amundsen learned that Scott and four comrades had reached the pole on 17 January 1912, but had all perished by 29 March, during their return journey?" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      I've adopted that as a sensible solution. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The two sections on the Eastern party and the Fram under "End of the expedition" break the flow and, I would imagine, make it quite confusing for uninitiated, especially as the subsequent paragraph sees Amundsen on board Fram again. Unless you are paying attention to the dates it seems a bit of a mess. Perhaps they can be sectioned off under "Other achievements" or something similar to allow Amundsen to pack up and leave directly after returning from the pole. Or the paragraph on "Informing the world" could be moved into the "Aftermath" section.
    I have moved "Informing the World" so that it immediately follows Amundsen's return to Framheim. I have put the Eastern party and the Fram voyage under "Other expedition achievements". Does that resolve the matter satisfactorily? Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    It does for me. Yomanganitalk 09:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It is a very nice article by the way, in case you think I have nothing but nitpicks. Clear with good mix of overview and illuminating detail and it carries the reader along nicely.

More later... Yomanganitalk 01:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments; I am working on them. I look forward to any further comments you have. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments Looks very good to me - I did some typo and template fixes yesterday and now amd reading more closely. Here are some nitpicks

  • I would link Fram in the lead
  • Should there be a hatnote (see also? Main article?) link to Nansen's Fram expedition at the top of the Nansen and Fram section?
  • It seems odd that Thorvald Nilson has a red link and Frederick Gjertsen has no link at all.
    I added the red link and I would have added one for Gjertsen too if I'd noticed he was unlinked. Yomanganitalk 09:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Since there is a comment that Peary's Farthest North is now in doubt, it seems odd in the Change of plans section that there is no similar comment or note that both Cook and Peary's claims to have reached the North Pole are now doubted.
    The section includes the words: "Although he avoided the controversy over the respective claims of Cook and Peary..." As it happens, at that time (and for at least half a century) Peary's claim was not doubted. Cook's was, and indeed was soon undermined by evidence. It's complicated; I thought it best simply to refer to the "controversy". Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I must confess that I knew the claims were doubted now, but not exactly sure as to when the doubt set in. I think the text is fine as is, but wonder if a brief explanatory note might help for those who are fuzzy on the exact details (basically saying that the claim of Cook was soon doubted and undermined, but Peary's was accepted until YEAR. If I recall correctly, aren't there even some who think Amundsen was also one of the first to undisputedly reach the North Pole as well (albeit by air)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Missing word? his was the southernmost point in the Ross Sea to which a ship could penetrate, a full degree [or] 60 nautical miles (110 km) closer to the Pole than Scott's base at McMurdo Sound.[43]
  • Needs a ref at the end of the sentence as a direct quote The tents—"the strongest and most practical that have ever been used"—had built-in floors and required a single pole.
  • Should some comment be made here that there was much longer daylight at this time than usually experienced in non-polar regions? now felt their pace could be lifted, and the men took to travelling 15 nautical miles (28 km), stopping for six hours, and repeating, regardless of day and night.[139] (I assume night was not dark, or else how would they have traveled)
  • Add a word to this sentence about the Japanese ship for clarity This was the first landing [there?] from the sea; attempts by Discovery, Nimrod and Terra Nova had all failed.[154]

More to come Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this. I've dealt with these points more or less as you suggest, bar the one where I have commented. Looking forward to the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
More comments from Ruhrfisch
  • Would an image of the Fram be out of place? I know there are some free images of the ship...
    I have added an image of the ship. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Would the Initial reactions section be better titled as something like Contempoarary reactions? It seems as if there is at least a several month period covered there
    That is certainly a better title. I have a little more work to do on this section. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not sure the average reader would know which country George V was king of in In Hobart, Amundsen received congratulatory telegrams from, among others, President Theodore Roosevelt, and from George V... (as an Anglophile I knew right away of course)
    Yes, I think I originally identified George V, but it got edited out. I've restored it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    I removed originally it as there was a link to him if anyone was in doubt and it noted his happiness that Amundsen had stopped on British soil. I think the "of England" will be tempting to the nationalists: they love the polar explorer articles for some reason (Tom Crean stayed national identity argument free for a year after I removed his disinfobox though, pity it's come back) Yomanganitalk 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I would link Cambridge Bay or Victoria Island in the Maud caption (I am not sure where that is).
    Both linked now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The lead seems a bit spare for the length of the article - also there is no mention of the other expedition achievements in the lead (my rule of thumb is to somehow include every header in the lead, even if only by a word or phrase).
    I've added a brief mention of the expedition's other achievements. I'm not a fan of long leads, but if you think anything else of significance should be added, please let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I like the lead image of Amundsen, but wonder if it is the best lead image - I am more used to images of ice and snow and sledges and men in parkas with flags as the lead images of such polar exploration articles.
    I've swopped the lead image for a characteristic snow scene, and moved the Amundsen pic into the body of the article. Improvement? Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    Could File:At the South Pole, December 1911.jpg (currently in the body) be even more appropriate? It is, after all, one of the most famous images from the expedition, and they are actually at the South Pole. Apterygial (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    I've done this, and swopped some more images around - see what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The end of the article seems like it could use a few more images - are there any memorials / monuments to Amundsen's expedition that could be pictured here, for example?
    Not sure there are, but I will look around. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    I've not found anything new, but I've shifted one down into the penultimate section. With 15 images and a map, the article is probably sufficiently illustrated - particulary as I suspect, should it be TFA, people will try to add their own favourite pics (there are about 250 in Amundsen's book to choose from) Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Should the legacy section mention, even very briefly, the end of the Heroic Acge with the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition (especially since the beginning is mentioned)?
    The beginning of the Heroic Age is mentioned because, as a member of the Belgica expedition, Amundsen was part of that beginning. After his polar conquest he never went back to Antarctica, so the remaining expeditions of the Heroic Age, and its ending, are outside his and this expedition's story. I have briefly summarised his post-expedition activities, all of which focus on the North. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Overall very nicely done. I feel as if I was able to be more critical in the latter part of the article - will try re-reading it and seeing if anything else comes to mind. Please let me know when it is at FAC and I will be glad to support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, your help is greatly appreciated. I won't be nomming at FAC for a while; I need to be as sure as I can be that it won't be archived, because a 14-day delay would probably scupper any chance of grabbing the centenary date. So I'll try and get more eyes to look at it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Apterygial comments

Quick review based on the sections I didn't draft:

  • "he planned a traversal of the Northwest Passage, the then-undiscovered sea route from the Atlantic to the Pacific". A question that could be raised is how he planned a traversal of something not yet discovered. Perhaps "he planned a traversal of the Northwest Passage, the then-uncharted sea route from the Atlantic to the Pacific".
  • Why Gjoa and not Gjøa?
  • "When Scott, in Norway to test his motor sledges, called at Amundsen's home to discuss cooperation the Norwegian was forced to take evasive action." I can imagine getting a question at FAC about this; what evasive action? If I recall, he simply hid.
  • "At Kristiansand, Amundsen accepted an offer of fuel and other provisions from Peter "Don Pedro" Christopherson, Norway's Minister in Buenos Aires." This reads as if he took on the fuel and other provisions at Kristiansand, while in fact he accepted the offer for Fram to take them on board at Buenos Aires in 1911. The other point worth marking here regards Don Pedro's position: I believe it was his brother who was Norway's Minister in Buenos Aires.
  • "The king expressed particular pleasure that Amundsen's first port of call on his return had been on (what was then) British soil." It's interesting that Hobart in 1912 is here called British soil, but is not now. I wonder: what has changed? Australia was federated (became a separate country, essentially) in 1901, but has not yet gained independence (become a republic). Perhaps "The king expressed particular pleasure that Amundsen's first port of call on his return had been on "British" soil."

Bravo. Apterygial (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

First two points, no problem. Amundsen's evasive action, according to most sources, was to make himself "unavailable" when Scott phoned him for an appointment; I don't think he actually hid, though it would be a better story if he had. I've reworded the Don Pedro bit and clarified that it was indeed his bro that was the minister. On the question of "British soil", that was the king's perception, probably widely shared by most Britons and plenty of Australians too at that time, however inaccurately. I don't think putting "British" in quotes will do; readers and reviewers will ask why. So I've reworded: "The king expressed particular pleasure that Amundsen's first port of call on his return had been on British Empire soil". I think that is historically correct and reasonably paraphrases the king. Please feel free to tweak away at the prose, where you think it can be improved. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2011 (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 article with that in mind. I reviewed the article as I would at FAC.
    • Background: "...aboard Belgica under Adrien de Gerlache." wouldn't that be "the Belgica"? You used "the sealer Magdalena" earlier.
      No; the word "the" in "the sealer Magdalena" refers to the description (sealer) rather than to the ship's name. See, for example, "It was the schooner Hesperus..." (Longfellow) or, more recently , It was the good ship Venus... (anon). Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "Polar expeditions were active in both north and south during this period." Awkward phrasing... suggest "Polar expeditions to both the north and south were active in this period."
    • "...claiming a new Farthest North of 87° 6′—a record disputed by later historians." I think "claiming a new Farthest North record of 87° 6′—a record disputed by later historians." makes it a bit clearer.
      Your suggestion appears to be identical with mine. Can you clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
      Mine has a "record" after "Farthest North" .. not everyone is going to realize that "Farthest North" IS a record. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
      Ah, yes: yet another of my faculties has failed me. So sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Prep: "...Amundsen was summoned to Nansen's home, "Polhøgda", and told he could have the ship." I think the name of Nansen's house is really superflous here, don't you think? We should be concentrating on the information relevant to the actual expedition.
    • "...continuous observations would, Amundsen hoped, help to explain a number of unresoved problems." What were those problems? I'd rather find those out than the name of someone's house.
      The source, quoting Amundsen's address to the Geographical Society, refers only to "hitherto unsolved mysteries". I assume he was referring to the geographical and scientific knowledge that would come from his expedition, but he did not go into details. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Linkie for kroner? Present day equivalent?
      • Blurgh. Please don't give us a "present day equivalent". They never are. Yomanganitalk 13:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
        I agree; these figures always start arguments that go on for ever. Huntford (1985) says (p. 201) that 75,000 kroner was equivalent to £140,000 in 1985, though he quotes no sources. I don't mind putting in an "according to Huntford" footnote if that would help, but please let's not get into theoretical arguments about what present value might be, depending on whose theories one chooses to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "...the Fram party.." but "... Fram voyage..."? Are we italicizing or not? Let's be consistent.
    • First season: "...with eight men, seven sledges, and 42 dogs." that just looks wrong. Doesn't the MOS say to use either all figures or all words in situations like this?
    • "He decided to increase their number for the polar journey, if necessary at the expense of the number of men, as Johansen observed." I'm unclear what the "as Johansen observed" has to do with the first part of the sentence.
    • "...blighted the Belgica expedition's winter in the ice,..." Shouldnt that be "on the ice"?
      Belgica was stuck in the ice, though I supose the other would do as well. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "...and with no possibility of sledging he ensured that the shore party kept busy." I think "and although there was no possibility of sledging he ensured..." works a bit better.
    • "42,000 biscuits, tins of pemmican and about 220 pounds (100 kg) of chocolate)" You're specific on the number of biscuits and the chocolate (talk about chocolate fiend heaven!) but not on the tins of pemmican?
    • "tormented by thoughts of Scott's motor sledges and the fear that these would carry".. this is the first mention of motor sledges... I think given all the discussion about how Amundsen thought the dogs superior, shouldn't we discuss what the British used instead somewhere before so that the reader understands the context a bit better?
      Yes, I've worked in an earlier mention of Scott's motor sledges (see "Framheim" section)
    • "...would carry the Englishmen to success and invalidate his own expedition." Two things here... you've always before said "British" not "English" so that's a bit jarring, and two, "invalidate his own expedition." I think that's unfortunate and odd wording. Suggest "... and beat him to the pole." is much better and certainly much more direct and less liable to misunderstanding.
      Or delete the latter phrase as redundant, which is what I've done. Brianboulton (talk)
    • " for more than two weeks harsh conditions..." this is awkward. Suggest "... as harsh conditions for the next two weeks - temperatures near −58 °C (−72 °F) - prevented ..."
    • "and of the dangers of an obsession with beating the English." Again, only referred to it as a "British" expedition.
      I'm paraphrasing Johansen's diary entry, which specifically refers to "beating the English". Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "...the five men, with four sledges and 52 dogs..." as above, looks odd. Figures or numbers, not mixed.
    • "Of the 45 dogs who had made the ascent (seven had perished during the Barrier stage), only 18 would go forward..." as above, one or the other. And gods, he killed that many dogs??? Blech.
    • "Of the 52 dogs that had started in October, 11 had survived, pulling two sledges." As above, words or figures, not both.
    • Sources: I've added OCLC numbers for the books missing any isbns. The Smith book is categorized as a "juvenile", what makes it reliable?
      Smith book deleted, citation elsewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "New Haven (US)" vs. "Sheridan, Oregon"? Consistency.
    • * "Captain Amundsen's Achievement. Work Of Previous Explorers". The Times. London. 9 March 1912. p. 5.  is listed in the online section, but there is no link to the online version.
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.) 19:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
We've done the fixes. Except where noted to the contrary, we have followed your recommendations. Thank you for this excellent review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

The other images are fine. Jappalang (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Regarding the last one, would it be better uploaded straight to Wikipedia (instead of being hosted on Commons)? Apterygial (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would advise so (note that most of the photographs in the article that came from Amundsen's books are stored here). In the UK, if one is going to try for the "I do not know who took it, so let us claim 70 years post publication for anonymous/corporate works", he or she has to show that they have done a certain amount of reasonable research to arrive at that conclusion (in this case, interviews with family members of the expedition or poring through the records). Unfortunately, I doubt the uploaders of the books' contents to Commons have done that (judging by the US-only tags). However, if all members of the expedition have died more than 70 years ago, we can simply leave it and add {{PD-old}}. If one of them died less than 70 years ago, then he might have been the one that took this photograph... Jappalang (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yomangani has kindly posted a cropped version of the Scott frontispiece image, which I think is fine. I have posted the revised map per your version above. Please delist the "Fram in sail" image from commons; it should have the same caveats as the other images from Amundsen's book. Of Amundsen's four companions, Bjaaland lived until 1961 and Hansen unril 1956. Wising died in 1936, Hassell in 1928. Many thanks for your help over these images questions which, as always, is gretaly appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Jørgen Stubberud lived until 1980, so assuming we can't find out who took the pictures, those taken where he may have been present (i.e. not on the polar journey itself) wouldn't be definitively PD until 2050. Yomanganitalk 13:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No problems. I am going to raise a question (not about copyright) on File:Polar transport (Amundsen).jpg. This image was "reproduced by permission of the Illustrated London News". If it was taken by Amundsen's group, then he should need to take the periodical's copy (he should be able to obtain the negative and use it). Is this photograph of Amundsen's expedition? I suspect it could be of Namsen's or an earlier expedition that uses sled dogs. Did anyone else not of Amundsen's group come in contact with them and went back to England earlier? Jappalang (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No way of knowing; it shouldn't be on Commons. Yomanganitalk 13:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of photos available here which are out of copyright as Anders Beer Wilse died in 1949 and Norwegian copyright isn't as strict as in the UK (50 years after creation or 15 years after the death of the creator, whichever is longer). That URL is a search for Amundsen but there are pictures of other crew members and Fram available too. Yomanganitalk 15:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC) (Though I would be careful as there are some photos attributed to Wilse that he clearly didn't take - [7] for example) Yomanganitalk 15:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    I much appreciate these efforts to locate more images. I personally think that 15 is enough, and if there are no longer licence issues with what we have, I don't think we need search further. I won't object if anyone replaces one of the existing images with something that is qualitatively better, but please make it a replacement rather than an addition. I do have the large map to which Yomangani refers, though I don't think it provides significantly better information than the map we have, and there are practical problems in scanning it (at least on my scanner). Finally, Yomangani's apparent specialist knowledge of old Boney M hits is surely to be widely applauded (see edit history of main article). Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks. It's the only thing I hear. In my head. Singing. Constantly. Make it stop. Make it stop! Make ... it ... stop. Yomanganitalk 16:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    Just a note to using Wilse's photographs: We would still have to consider US side copyrights. If they were published before 1923, all is fine and dandy (I see some are in The South Pole, so they are okay). If they were published between 1923 and 2003, US side copyrights might still exist. Any other of Wilse's works published after 2002 or remaining unpublished would be considered copyrighted in the US till 2020.[8] Jappalang (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    Tidbit: Heh, apparently, Amundsen's publicity photograph (which fronts Volume 2) was taken at Oppegård Bunnefjorden, Norway, not the Antarctic.[9] Jappalang (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    Yeah, a typical bit of Amundsen deception...(wait, though, the caption merely says "in polar kit", not at the pole). It's still a rather too artificially posed photograph for my liking. And my grandmother had a fur coat just like that. Brianboulton (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Tim riley

Very little to add – merely minor matters of phrasing. The content, proportions, referencing and illustration seem impeccable to me. En passant, it says much for your NPOV that when I finished reading the article I had no idea whether you liked Amundsen or not.

  • Background
    • The OED doesn't admit "shipowner" as one word – it requires a hyphen.
    • "Belgica" with no definite article. I note your reply, above, to Ealdgyth on the point, and I bow to your knowledge in this area, but I find "I am the captain of the Pinafore" running through my head. As a matter of contemporary record, The Times refers to "the Belgica" with the article ("Royal Geographical Society. Annual Awards", 6 April 1907, p. 8; "Captain Amundsen's Achievement", 9 March 1912, p. 5; "The Conquest of the South Pole – Captain Amundsen's Success", 9 March 1912, p. 8 etc.) And in our own times, The Independent ("The hero who melted", 15 September 1999) has this: "… in 1897, he had gone south on the Belgica …"
      • Afterthought: on the other hand, it has just struck me, Sub-Lieut Phillips and colleagues always refer to "Troutbridge" with no definite article. Perhaps only landlubbers use the article. Having raised the point I shall now shut up.
  • Initial steps
    • Fulsome? "Of language, style, behaviour, etc.: Offensive to good taste; esp. offending from excess or want of measure or from being 'over-done'. Now chiefly used in reference to gross or excessive flattery, over-demonstrative affection, or the like" (OED)
  • Personnel
    • "All of these bar one" – possibly rather informal phrase for an encylopaedia article?
  • Contemporary reactions
    • "Aside from enthusiastic reports" – unexpected American phrase.

That's all I can find to quibble about. I learned much from this article, and look forward to seeing it at FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Tim, it is always informative and entertaining to have your ex cathedra comments on English usage. I have done the minor fixes. On the question of "the Belgica", the issue with Ealdgyth was one of consistency, not of principle. I imagine it would be OK to use "the" consistently before ship names, if that was one's style; as far as I know there is no rigid rule about this. In this article, by choice, the word "the" is not used, except in the circumstances as explained. Does that clear the matter up? Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
      Wholly! Having contradicted myself in the space of two lines I'm saying no more. And if (per impossibile) it comes up at FAC you can definitely say the matter has been thoroughly gone into! Tim riley (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
      Thanks. And I'll bet this is the only WP peer review ever that has featured both Boney M and "The Navy Lark". I shall close it shortly, before someone mentions Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh. Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the review. Thanks to all who participated. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

St Edern's Church, Bodedern[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's just been assessed as GA and I'd like to see what people think it would need to get it to FA standards. It's one of a series of articles on Anglesey churches that I'm writing, and hopefully I can apply any suggestions raised here to others in the group.

One particular point on which I'd welcome views is this: a couple of editors have suggested removing mention of valuables such as silverware in such articles, as thieves might be tempted to target churches (which are often unoccupied and / or in isolated locations). Although such information may be available elsewhere, Wikipedia is a high-profile site. On the other hand, churches are potential targets whether or not they have an article on Wikipedia and it can be expected that churches already take appropriate precautions to deter forced entry and to safeguard valuables within the church. Where would you draw the line between comprehensiveness and avoiding exposing churches to risk?

Thanks, BencherliteTalk 15:20, 13 October 2011 (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 article with that in mind. I reviewed the as I would at FAC.
    • Lead:
    • "15th century" or "6th-century"? Be consistent throughout the article.
    • Do we REALLY need to link "stained glass"??
    • "one of nine in a combined parish"? A bit more context for this might be helpful. Also "Church in Wales" is not a very helpful link - are we talking a specific denomination here? If so, we should mention it rather than easter egg linking it.
    • History: Shouldn't "Mabinogion" be italicised?
    • Do we know who founded the church? Was it in the patronage of anyone before St Cybi's?
    • Is the 19th century restoration the first?
    • Construction: "...using local stone dressed with sandstone." Huh? Dressed with makes no sense to me here, I'm probably missing some jargon. Also, why is sandstone linked?
    • I know you've linked some of these technical terms, but it might be nice to give a quickie explanation of what these are so folks don't have to leave the page to get an idea of what they mean.
    • Suggest linking and explaining "external buttress"
    • "...and the other has been reused here." Unclear what is meant by this.
    • Windows: "He is depicted as Simeon." Need a bit more context here.
    • "The east and south chancel stained glass is in memory of the wife, son and daughter of Hugh Wynne Jones, who died in 1867, 1856 and 1851 respectively." the dates are a bit too much detail here, suggest "died in the mid 19th century" or possibly leave the dates out entirely. When was this window installed though?
    • Panelwork: Link for communion rail?
    • Are the communion table and chairs and other memorials now missing? It's implied, but not stated.
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.) 15:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very helpful and thorough review. My replies:

  • "15th century" or "6th-century": I think I've got it right throughout, i.e. I say "in the 15th century, this happened" (no hyphen) but "this 15th-century window" (adjective, hyphen)
  • stained glass link removed (someone else added the link, I have no strong feelings
  • "one of nine in a combined parish" - I'm not sure what additional context or explanation you might like here. I've reworded and shuffled the sentences around to bring the bit about no priest for the churches closer to the bit about the nine churches - does this help?
  • The Church in Wales within Wales is the equivalent of the Church of England within England; it's not an Easter egg link, it's what the denomination is called. I've added "(the Anglican church within Wales)" - does that help make it clearer?
  • Mabinogion now in italics
  • History - the sources don't give any more detail than I've already used about the early history / foundation, alas. As for whether anywhere other than St Cybi's used to have the patronage, I doubt it (it's the largest church in the area, and on my to-do list) but the sources don't say.
  • The 19th-century restoration is the first one mentioned in the sources.
  • Reworded the "dressed" phrase
  • Are there any words in particular you think ought to be glossed? Glossing every word can disrupt the flow of the text, so sometimes I've worked on the basis that the reader is likely to know or understand the word
  • Buttress linked
  • "reused" removed - I think I know what the source is trying to say, but I won't insert my guesswork
  • Simeon explained; no date given for the window in the sources
  • Communion rail linked
  • I suspect the other stuff is still there, but the Cadw listing (which is about the building itself) didn't worry as much about the contents as the Royal Commission survey, which was a more general survey. It's quite hard to get rid of things once they've been added to a church!

Thanks, will ask you to revisit in a while, I think. BencherliteTalk 06:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Antoni Gaudí[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Antoni Gaudí is a Spanish Catalan architect and one of the most famous contributors to the Art Nouveau and Modernisme arts and architectural movements of the late 19th and early 20th century. A number of his architectural works, including his magnum opus, the Sagrada Família cathedral in Barcelona, have been identified as World Heritage Sites by UNESCO. This article is currently being considered for GA and I am the reviewer. I want to help it pass. Much of the content was translated from the Featured Articles in Spanish, Catalan etc. and the entire piece could use a second pair of eyes to eliminate wordiness, redundancy, and excessive formality, and to strengthen word choice and flow.

Thank you for helping out with this very important architecture topic. - Lemurbaby (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Doing... I am not sure that I will be able to deliver a full review of this very long (14,000+ words) article, but I hope to post some useful general comments within the next day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks to be an extremely comprehensive account of Gaudi's life and works. With 14,392 words it is one of Wikipedia's longest articles; my personal view is that there are very few subjects that justify an article of this length. In this case there does seem to be a natural subdivision between "life" and "works". I am not suggesting a simple crude split, rather that it might be a good idea to study Wikipedia:Summary style for ways in which this might be done. Some imaginative reorganisation editing and summarising could result in two articles, each of no more than 7,000 words.

For the moment I have been looking mainly at the images. If I have counted correctly there are 48 of them. That is an awful lot, and even in an article of this length there is image overload in numerous places. There are over 30 in the "Works" section alone, leading to frequent squeezing of text between left and right-aligned images, contrary to MOS. As there is a link to an illustrated list of Gaudi's buildings, I am sure that not all of these images are necessary.

Also, there are licencing issues, particularly with the older images. For example, in a number of instances where the author is unknown yet freedom from copyright is claimed on the basis of author's life + 70 years. We cannot assume that these photographers were not alive in 1941 - unless the photographs date from earlier than around 1880, which is not he case for many of these. We cannot claim publication before 1923 unless we provide details of such publication. Even the photograph of Gaudi's 1926 funeral has a licence claiming publication before 1923 - prescience indeed. I am not an images licence expert, but I think you need to talk to one if you propose to keep of the following images:-

I am not saying that these images are still under copyright, but their current licencing is not in accordance with the informaion provided in the file descriptions.

The work that has gone into the article is impressive. I don't have further time at the moment to spend with it, but I believe I have raised issues that require attention and I hope my comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently added a number of sections to this article. I am mainly looking for ideas here. Is there something left out of the article that deserves a new section, or are there things that need to be cut back? Is the article neutral enough?

Thanks for any and all input, -- Adjwilley (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have not carried out a detailed prose check, or copyedited, but have in the main looked at general issues that affect the article:-

  • I am not entirely clear as to the purpose of this article, given that Mormonism exists, along with several articles dealing with the movement's history and beliefs. What information is given here that is not already in, or could easily be included in, existing articles?
  • A gallery of celebrity Mormons is not really the most appropriate way of heading an encyclopedia article. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young can be justified because of their historical significance, but Marie Osmond? Glenn Beck??! This sort of montage would be more suitable for a popular magazine article.
    • I'm not great with templates, but I managed to take out two of the political figures (Huntsman and Beck) and replace them with Jane Manning (an early black convert who lived in Joseph Smith's household and was the first black pioneer to come to Utah) and Dieter Uchtdorf, (a German Aviator and LDS General Authority). Though I'm sure it could be improved more, this increased the number of non-Americans in the montage (from 0 to 1), increases the number of women (from 2 to 3), and increases the number of non-white people (from 0 to 1). -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact that all your celebs are Americans is indicative of a somewhat US-centric bias within the article. Another aspect of this is that there is scarecly any mention of Europe. Individual European countries may not have large Mormon populations (around 200,000 in te UK I believe) but collectively in Europe the total may well be significant.
    • I have added a German to the celebs, but I know this is not enough. I'll try to find ways to improve it further, but I can't think of anything right now. I've read that the spread of Mormonism follows some sort of a contact-diffusion model, so the places closest to the US have the most Mormons. Central America and South America are big, followed by the Pacific Islands. Then you get Western Europe, West Africa, and East Asia (Japan, S. Korea, etc.) If you have ideas of how to work some of these places into the text, I would very much appreciate suggestions. -- Adjwilley (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • From my speed-reading of the prose I think you have generally kept a neutral tone. No glaring POV statements leapt out, though this sentence in the lead: "Mormons have developed a unique culture and a strong sense of communality that stems from their doctrine and history" reads too much like editorial opinion and would benefit from the removal of the words "a unique culture and".
    • I have removed "a unique culture and" from the Lead. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "See also" links should not be incorporated within the text. Best include them as "Further information" hatnotes at the starts of the relevant sections
  • There are lots of uncited statements in the article, e.g, Beginnings, para 1, Pioneer era, para 4, Culture and practices throughout the section. There are a couple of citation tags in place, but there could be many more.
    • I have added many more citations to the article. -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've not looked closely at the text, but contractions in text (aren't, don't) should be avoided.
    • I removed all 3 contractions that appeared in the text, as well as an incorrectly formatted date (August 28th -> August 28) -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You should get an image expert to check out the licencing of the images you are using. I am unconvinced by the licence for File:Mormon Pioneer handcart statue.jpg The copyright status of photographs of 3D works of art is a difficult area
  • I would advise that you list detailed footnotes separarely from short citations. Some citations, e.g. 85, 86, 1 etc are incompletely formatted.
    • I fixed the formatting on a large number of citations, adding the Cite web template to all but links to scriptural verses. I'm not sure how to list detailed footnotes separately from short citations though. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you find these comments useful. If you have anything you wish to raise concerning this review, please feel free to contact my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful review. I did find it very helpful, and I appreciate the time you spent on this. I will work over your recommendations one by one, and if you don't mind, ask your opinion again. -- Adjwilley (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Eve[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need some fresh eyes on the recent editorial efforts.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Brief comment: I did both of the two previous peer reviews, including a very lengthy one before the GA submission, so I don't really qualify as "fresh eyes", and it is probably best if someone else has a go. It would assist the reviewer to know what your intentions are for this article; is it going to FAC?

I am not a good enough writer to take this to FAC by myself. Only two things could happen that would lead this to FAC: 1. a volunteer to co-edit this article; 2. there is a flurry of editing about him due to some current news that moves the article toward a higher quality level.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a few brief points:-

  • I noticed "Pateron" in the last line. Perhaps a typo for "Paterson"?
  • The link in ref 9 {Constance Eve biography) appears to be broken - check it out.
  • It seems a pity to have all the images, and a boxed note, crammed into in one section, thereby squeezing the text here. I know that images are supposed to be in the section tpo which they relate, but it may be possible to be imaginative ansd spread them a little. Think about it, anyway.
    • Maybe the GA reviewer will have some suggestions. I am considering removing the image under the infobox though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope a reviewer will pick this up soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Canberra Roller Derby League[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would eventually like to possibly nominate it for FAC. Not certain what is necessary to get an article on this topic up to FAC in terms of information. Need general FAC related trying to it there feedback.

Thanks, LauraHale (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Poor layout; sections too short, lede is not a fair summary of the whole; refs have various format e.g. date as 14 September 2011 and 10 October 2011; short/choppy sentences which could be combined, e.g. The team's name is a play on the ACT floral emblem, the Canberra Bluebell. The team is known inside the league for its fast skating and hard hits.  Chzz  ►  14:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with every comment made above - this needs a lot of work to stand a chance of passing at FAC. Here are some more suggestions for improvement with FAC in mind.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many sport FAs at [[
  • I am concerned that the article goes into a level of detail that is not encyclopedic. For example every member of the all star team, and apparently every commercial sponosr are listed. This seems like excessive detail, especially when you look at the references for these... This is a WP:NOT issue
  • When I looked at the sources for the all star roster and the team sponsors, they turned out to all be from the web page of the league itself. As much as possible, claims need to be sourced to reliable third-party sources which are independent of the league. I doubt any newspaper articles would give a laundry list of team sponsors, and the Wikipedia article should not either. Similarly, unless you can find independent reliable sources that cover every member of the all star team, there is no real reason to list them all. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Even if the all star roster is notable for inclusion here, if one ref is used for every item in a table column, it can be included in the top header(s) for the table.
  • I was surprised that there were not listings of which teams the all stars were from in the table (American baseball all star team members wear their home teacm uniforms in the all star game)
  • Unless there is a good reason not to, it is usually easist to keep things in chronological order. So The first public bout of the league's history had over 1,000 spectators in attendance and sold out within twenty-four hours of tickets going on sale.[41] could be something like The first public bout of the league's history sold out within twenty-four hours of tickets going on sale and had over 1,000 spectators.[41] (can a more precise attendance figure be found?)
  • Why is there a table of the whole season for the most recent year, but not the other two? See WP:RECENT
  • This is an article crying out for more pictures
  • Part of getting an article through FAC is attention to detail - every i needs to be dotted and every t crossed. Little things like being consistent on the use of quotes on "Fresh Meat" and "Boot Camp" (or is it just Fresh Meat and Boot Camp)?
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE use "double quotes" not 'single quotes' (except for a quote within a quote) so fix things like The name is a play on the fact that Canberra has a legal 'adult' industry.[17]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Aaargh. Only just noticed this. Will get to work on all the issues you have raised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye, Michael[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate it for a featured article

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110


  • The non-free image File:Michael and Pam saying goodbye.png has a weak fair-use rationale ("to illustrate an article on the episode") which will not stand up to scrutiny at FAC.
  • "The episode aired as an extended 50-minute episode, after having originally meant to be a two-part episode combined with the previous episode "Michael's Last Dundies," but was given its own full extended episode instead." Can this sentence be recast to lose a few "episode"s?
  • You should state in the lead that OfficeTally is a fansite.


  • This section is OK but the writing could stand to be tighter. Redundancy crops up in some places (e.g. "The party planning committee [...] try to plan a big party" in the first paragraph) that should be weeded out.
  • Clunky hyper-formal language is used in the section ("requests the help of Deangelo Vickers (Will Ferrell) to retain them", "He initially expresses disdain", "advises him to minimize his Adam's apple using cover-up"). Smoothing this out can help with the flow and can reduce the overall word count (some 650 when the maximum for this article should be 500).
  • The style of writing is overtly sentimental, which parallels the tone of the episode but is ultimately unencyclopedic. Cutting out some minor scene summaries and sticking to the major plot points can help with the this.


  • For some reason there's a lot of words devoted to Andy Buckley's non-broadcast appearance - the bit about the photograph on is bizzare! Can the part in the second paragraph not just be cut down to "Andy Buckley filmed a scene as David Wallace that was cut from the original airing of the episode but reinstated for an edited two-part rerun three weeks later."?
  • "As a goodbye gift, Carell was given a hockey jersey with the #1, his number on the call sheet which was retired." The grammar of this sentence implies that the call sheet was retired, which I don't think was the case. I'm not sure that everyone who reads this article will understand the sports metaphor of retiring numbers. I'm not sure how this could be rewritten - maybe something like "As a goodbye gift, Carell was given a hockey jersey with the #1 — his number on the call sheet. After Carell's departure the number was no longer used."?
  • "Michael Ausiello of TVLine reported that the episode would cause Parks and Recreation to also run for an extended time." I can't see what this has to do with this episode.
  • The third paragraph features short quotes that could easily be merged into the sentence (rule of thumb: only include a quote if paraphrasing would lose the writer/speaker's intended meaning), e.g. "Greg Daniels stated in an interview with Entertainment Weekly that due to Ferrell's performance and Michael's goodbyes, the episode "ended up being real long" could easily be "Greg Daniels attributed the extended length of the episode to Ferrell's performance and Michael's goodbyes." Likewise "He ended up talking to NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt who "was like, “You do whatever is best.” They really wanted to give Steve the proper goodbye."" could just be "NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt allowed Daniels to "do whatever is best [...] to give Steve [Carell] the proper goodbye."

Cultural references

  • This section would be better entitled "Callbacks to previous episodes". If there is any commentary on these callbacks from people connected to the show (e.g. writers, directors) it could be incorporated into the Production section.


  • "The episode was met with critical acclaim with many critics saying Carell deserved an Emmy for his performance." "Two" is not "many". Myles McNutt said Carell deserved an Emmy for his performance in all seven seasons, not just this episode, as the sentence implies, and Hillary Busis states "If Steve Carell doesn't win an Emmy for "Goodbye, Michael," I have a feeling a lot of disgruntled Office fans are going to shoot their TVs full of holes." which is not the same thing as saying he deserves an Emmy. Basically, the assertion that "many critics [said] Carell deserved an Emmy for his performance" is untrue; One critic said Carell deserved an Emmy for his work on the series.
  • As in the Production section, this section features quotes that could easily be paraphrased. "Reception" sections in film, TV and music sections are among the hardest to write because of the temptation to just plonk in various quotes and surround them with "Critic #1 opined this and Critic #2 bemoaned that."

Awards and nomination

  • "Carell has been named a big contender to win in the category, by many publications." The tense needs updating now the results have been declared. Again "many publications" appears with reference to only two. TVLine says "The likely sentimental favorite" which isn't quite the same as "big contender". I think this sentence would better as just something like "11 entertainment website writers polled by Gold Derby agreed that Carell would win the category." and then just lose the TVLine reference altogether.

I hope this has given you some pointers for moving forward. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Freddie Mitchell[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to get more feedback before nominating for FA in the future.

Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jenks24


  • I think it would be better if the lead could be split into three paragraphs. At the moment, the second para is quite lengthy.
  • I'm fairly sure that quotes need to be footnoted, even if they are in the lead.
  • "but declined to have arthroscopic surgery" – did the Chiefs decline the surgery, or did Mitchell?

Early years

  • I'm guessing it must be common for players to get drafted by the MLB, but then never really follow up on it? Still, is there any reason why he chose to focus on football rather than baseball?

College career

  • The quote in the middle of para four needs a footnote. Same for the quote in the next para.

Professional career

  • Is there a reason why he replaced Brown as slot receiver in 2001 (e.g. good form at training or poor form from Brown)?
  • "in the regular season finale" – "finale" seems an odd wording choice to me. Why not "final" or "last" (obviously the sentence would have to be slightly tweaked if either of these are used)?


  • "Mitchell and many other NFL players attended executive education programs at the Harvard Business School in April 2005." – does this need to be in the article at all? Seem irrelevant to me...


  • References like UCLA Athletics,,,,,, Yahoo! Sports,,, Associated Press and should not be italics. Also, it should be The New York Times, not New York Times.


  • The only real issue I had with the article is that it's very repetitive in the career sections (college and professional). Every sentence seemed to be "On date X/week Y Mitchell played against team Z and recorded these statistics". I can't say I am terribly familiar with FAC, but I do know that the prose is required to be engaging and brilliant, and I'm afraid this article is not currently at that standard. Perhaps a look at some of the articles in Wikipedia:Featured articles#Sport and recreation biographies will give some pointers on how to vary the prose up a bit. All the best, Jenks24 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Glossary of association football terms[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This list is getting close to a point where we would be seriously considering an FLC. Admittedly there are still a few unsourced statements, but we are steadily reducing that number. Perhaps the biggest unresolved question is if or how we should be distinguishing between internal and external wikilinks (see here). Other areas worth a look include whether the lead could be improved upon, and whether some of the listed items are so obvious that we needn't bother, but feedback on any aspect of the list would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance, —WFC— 16:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Sorry for the delay. This is an annoyingly addictive list, on which one is tempted to spend a lot of time searching for some of the more arcane football terms - and usually finding them. My comments arise from surfing of this nature, and apart from those relating to the lead, are in no special order:-

  • Avoid repetition "...considerably earlier.[1] A considerable number..."
  • Last paragraph: I'm not convinced about either of the two terms you mention in this paragraph. Descriptions applied to specific match incidents, unless formally adopted into the terminology of the game, should surely not be listed as association football terms? Otherwise, why not list terms such as "Busby Babes", etc?
  • To an extent this ties in with the next point.
  • There is a certain inconsistency in your listing of some of the less formal terms. For instance, why have you listed "squeaky bum time" but not, say."early doors" or "fresh legs", both of which are heard quite often
  • The best way to answer the question is to point out that over a dozen significant contributors took the list from here to here in less than 72 hours. I agree that this is an inconsistency that needs to be dealt with, as does the question you raise about the likes of the Busby Babes. Wikipedia doesn't seem to like me this morning, but as soon as I can I'll point WP:FOOTY in this direction to hopefully achieve consensus on which way to go. —WFC— 07:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There are at least eight citation tags in place, which need to be dealt with
  • There are other entries which do not have citations, e.g. "season"
  • Where you use forms such as "Safety : see survival" I think the second term needs to be specifically listed. In this case, "survival" is not listed (though "survive" is). I have not checked all these out, and there may be others.
  • You list the term "keepie uppie". I have only ever seen this printed as "keepy-uppy", with a hyphen (it is in several non-football dictionaries in that form)
  • On the question of hyphens, are you sure about "last-man"?
  • In the References section, you need to give publisher details for the Glossary pdf.
  • The link in ref 1 to "the original" is dead.
  • For verification purposes, isn't an archived copy of a dead link okay? —WFC— 07:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find other similar queries, but I really must tear myself away. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It can be assumed that I agree with anything I haven't responded to. Connection permitting, I'll work through these one-by-one, as it makes sense to look for other instances of each type of problem while I'm at it. For a few relatively big things I've responded as appropriate. Thanks for your time Brian! —WFC— 07:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC, and would like to clean it up as much as possible before then. It's a relatively high-traffic article (averaging ~1k hits/day) and of high importance to several WikiProjects. Looking forward to any comments you might have. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  • There are a couple sentences in the History that seem a bit vague and make me wonder things: "Rules were introduced to restrict the use of the drug in human research, and scientists who worked with the drug faced reduced funding and being 'professionally marginalized'" and "In recent years, psilocybin and its effects on human consciousness have again become the subject of scientific study". Were the rules specific to certain global regions? Was research completely curtailed for decades, as the article seems to imply? Should it say "In the 2000s" instead of recent years? Why the increase in research? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Jesanj, thanks for your comments (and copyedits to the article). I have now explicitly mentioned that rule changes were in the United States (as a result of psilocybin being listed in the Schedule I category); I haven't seen any data on how this affected psilocybin research in other countries (but I suspect the US was the leading country for psilocybin research thanks to the efforts of Leary and co.) Will try to add info about what happened in other countries if I can find some sourced info. Have changed to "in the 2000s" as suggested. Yes, research was essentially curtailed for 40-odd years. I think the reasons for the increase in research become more apparent later in the article, but would be willing to put in a summary sentence in the history section if you think it would be beneficial. Sasata (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I found some sourced information about this and added a sentence to the history section. Sasata (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments from the Wizard of Words, the President of Punctuation, the Archbishop of Accessibility, Cryptic C62!

This is where you make the "hoo hoo hoo" noise that the audience always did on the Arsenio Hall show

Resolved issues
  • I am of the opinion that the very first sentence should mention the fact that this drug occurs in nature.
  • Done. Sasata (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "R. Gordon Wasson described his experiences ingesting psilocybin-containing mushrooms" Who's this guy? Life author, mycologist, or junkie? I suggest adding "mycologist" before "R. Gordon Wasson".
  • Added "American banker and ethnomycologist" Sasata (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "and developed a synthetic method to produce the drug." Which is synthetic, the method or the result? I suggest swapping this out for "and developed a method to produce the drug synthetically".
  • Good catch, changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "depending on species or cultivar of mushrooms" What is "cultivar"? As a non-shroomster, I have never heard this word and its meaning is not readily apparent.
  • Linked cultivar. The term is most often used for plants, but the same meaning applies here for mushrooms. Sasata (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "and reports of lethal doses from ingestion of the drug are rare" Some of the words here seem a bit redundant. Could this be shortened to "and reports of lethal doses of the drug are rare"? Or perhaps "and reports of fatalities from ingestion of the drug are rare".
  • Changed per your first suggestion. Sasata (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "and ceremonial mushroom use was driven underground" I lolled when I read this. Is this literal in the sense that the mushroom were put underground? Or literal in the sense that the mushroom users went into their caverns? Or figurative in the sense that they simply hid their practices?
  • Have reworded to be less figurative and more literal :) Sasata (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "which even included works such as those by Carlos Castaneda" The use of "even" here implies that this should be surprising or outstanding, but I have no idea who Carlos Castaneda is or why his works might be significant. I suggest dropping "even" or giving a brief explanation of why Castaneda is a baller.
  • Took out "even" and mentioned that he was an anthropologist author. Sasata (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "According to the 1998 review on the worldwide distribution..." You got anything more recent than this? I would imagine that our taxonomy of shrooms may have changed since then, and it also seems reasonable that psilocybin may have been discovered in other species since 1998.
  • You are correct, several new psilocybin-containing species have been described since then, but I am unaware of a more recent review paper like Guzman 1998 that puts it all together on a global scale. To be sure, I checked the literature again, and found that a general review from 2011 also cites Guzman's '98 review, so I don't think I'm missing anything here. I don't think the exact, up-to-date numbers are essential for this article (it would be more important to be exact for the psilocybin mushroom article), I just want to give a general overview of what genera contain shrooms and in what general proportions. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I just had to look harder! I found a 2005 review and added some juicy tidbits about the distribution of psilocybin-containing Psilocybe species. Sasata (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "The total potency varies greatly between species and even between specimens of one species in the same batch" Does the word "batch" have a technical meaning here? If not, it doesn't seem as though it is actually needed in this sentence: "The total potency varies greatly between species and even between specimens of a single species."
  • I think batch is the correct term to use ("A quantity or consignment of goods produced at one time"). The idea is that one can collect a clump of shrooms that are made by the same fungus at the same time, and find that psilocybin content will vary between specimens in the same batch. I'm open to suggestions for rewording. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah. See, when I read "batch", I simply envisioned a pile of shrooms that happened to have been gathered on the same shrooming expedition. Or perhaps shrooms that had been cultivated in the same laboratory. The notion that the potency varies even among outgrowths of the same fungal blob was not clear to me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This has been rewritten to say: "... varies greatly between species and even between specimens of one species collected from the same fungus." Is that better? Sasata (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Younger, smaller mushrooms have a higher concentration of psilocybin than larger, mature mushrooms." Any idea why?
  • Yes; most of the psilocybin is synthesized early in the mushroom's development, so younger, smaller mushrooms will tend to have more of the drug (expressed as a concentration) than older, larger shrooms. I'll dig around and see if I can find a source for this. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sourced and added. Sasata (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Psilocybin is more stable in dried than fresh mushrooms." What does this mean? Is it a chemistry thing?
  • If you pick some shrooms and dry them, the magic will still be in them months or even years later. If you try to keep them fresh in the fridge, most of the drug will have degraded and only traces will be left in a few weeks. I could add this tidbit (sourced to a recent review) if you think it's good for the article. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Aye, I think it's interesting and counterintuitive; it could be appended to the highlighted quote after a semicolon. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Sasata (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Where's the bit about dried mushrooms? I think appending your addition with ", whereas dried mushrooms can retain their potency for months or even years" (or something similar) would be groovy. It's the contrast between the dry and the fresh that makes this interesting. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Gotcha, done. Sasata (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Mature mycelia contains some psilocybin, while young mycelia ... does not contain appreciable amounts of psilocybin." Erm, isn't "mycelia" plural?
  • Correct, fixed. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "alternatively spelled psilocybine" It seems very odd to me that this alternative spelling is introduced in the Chemistry section. What's the meaning o' dis?
  • It needed to go somewhere, and I couldn't think of a better place for it ... any ideas? Sasata (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Why not just stick it in the lead? While it is usually true that facts in the lead must be backed up by the article, exceptions are (and should) be made for alternative spellings and pronunciations. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, did it. Sasata (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Psilocybin is a tryptamine compound having a chemical structure derived from the amino acid tryptophan and containing a ring configuration called an indole linked to an ethylamine substituent" I think it would be nice to either cut this snake in half or expurgate some unnecessary words. One possibility: "Psilocybin is a tryptamine compound having a chemical structure derived from the amino acid tryptophan and containing an indole linked to an ethylamine substituent." Only chemistry nerds are going to be interested anyway, so it's not any clarity will be lost here.
  • I like that solution, done. Sasata (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "A method for the large-scale synthesis of psilocybin without chromatographic purification was reported by Shirota and colleagues in 2003." It is my humble preference that any sentence which explicitly mentions a research publication should be immediately followed by an inline citation. The reader should not have to venture further to find the reference.
  • Rearranged text, and done. Sasata (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "...can be used to detect the presence of psilocybin." This may be a bit over-specific, but curiosity beckons: on what sorts of materials do these tests operate? Do they, for example, detect psilocybin in solutions? Or in the mushrooms themselves? Or, perhaps, smeared all over my peanut butter and "jelly" sandwiches?
  • I'll get back to you on this one after I do some digging. Sasata (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Many modern analytical techniques have been adapted to identify and evaluate the quantity of psilocybin in mushroom material." How are "identify" and "evaluate" different in this context? They seem redundant to me.
  • Changed "identify and evaluate" to "determine" Sasata (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) has been used with ultraviolet, fluorescence, electrochemical, or electrospray mass spectrometric detection methods." The phrase "has been used" suggests that the elements of the list are definitive, but the use of "or" suggests that they are speculative. Which is correct?
  • Changed "has been used" to "is used", and "or" to "and". Sasata (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "can be performed without sample clean-up" What does this mean? Surely if the patient pees all over the toilet seat, someone has to clean it up.
  • I have glossed "sample cleanup". Sasata (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "the subjective and behavioral effects of the drug" What is a "subjective effect"? Is that the same thing as hallucinations?
  • Good question! I couldn't find anything relevant to link to, so I added a definition from a textbook in a footnote. Sasata (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "only two cases attributed to overdosing on hallucinogenic mushrooms have been reported in the literature" Any idea how far back this goes? I think it would be helpful to append with "since 1827" or some such.
  • They don't say so explicitly (so I can't either); they mention the review is based on two earlier reviews in Dutch that were then updated with whatever was in Pubmed. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Merh. Well, at the very least, I think it would be helpful to include an "as of" statement based on when the report was published. It just feels a bit loosy-goosy to not give any time frame whatsoever. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, I added "As of 2011" to set an upper date range. Sasata (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "A 2011 study by Roland R. Griffiths and colleagues suggests that using a single high dosage of psilocybin can change the personality of its users." Is this a permanent change or a temporary change?
  • I've specified "long-term" now, and mention a bit later that for this study that means the effect was present over a year later. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Consider the following two sentences: "After ingesting psilocybin, a typical subject initially feels ... euphoric (but sometimes depressed instead)." and "a 1980 clinical report summarized the distribution of clinical symptoms of psilocybin overdose as follows: ... dysphoria (unpleasant mood) (13) ... and euphoria (elation) (5)." These seem to be somewhat contradictory to me. The first suggests that euphoria is a more common effect than dysphoria, but the second suggests the opposite.
  • I have reworded this sentence for now, but am considering some organizational changes to this section, like separating subjective and somatic effects into subsections so they can be discussed individually. Will probably dump the 1980 clinical report findings and source this info to a review instead. Still have to think about this and read some more, so will get back to you. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This section is now reorganized per my comment above. Whaddya think now? Sasata (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "subjects’ ability to reproduce time intervals longer than 2.5 seconds" Err, what does it mean to "reproduce" a time interval? Is this the same thing as gauging how long it is...?
  • "impaired their ability to synchronize to inter-beat intervals longer than 2 seconds" I don't know what this one is either.
  • I have added a couple of sentences leading up to these statements that gives it more context, and hopefully makes it easier to understand the meaning. Did it work? Sasata (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Consumption of psilocybin by schizophrenia patients can induce acute psychotic states requiring hospitalization." Two things: First, I recommend moving this to the end of the paragraph to avoid leading readers to believe that the sentences which follow this one are about schizophrenics. Second, I suggest swapping out "schizophrenia patients" to "schizophrenics" or "those with schizophrenia". One need not be a patient to have the disorder.
  • Done and done. Sasata (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "A 2005 survey found that almost a quarter of users in the past year had experienced a panic attack." Minor ambiguity: Does this mean a quarter of all users had experienced a panic attack in the past year? Or a quarter of those who had used at least once in the past year had at some point experienced a panic attack?
  • Clarified. Sasata (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "changes in stretch reflex (80%), including increases (80%) and decreases (6%)" Err, this doesn't seem to add up. Should the second 80% be 74% instead?
  • My bad, should have been 86%. Sasata (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Some researchers have proposed that many of the qualities of a drug-induced mystical experience are indistinguishable from genuine mystical experiences." How exactly does an experience being drug-induced make it non-genuine? And for that matter, how can a mystical experience be genuine at all? That's analogous to "genuine cold fusion."
  • I've clarified and removed the new age mysticism. Sasata (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "an experiment to assess the degree of mystical experience [...] of the psilocybin experience" Err... what? Are you sure they wanted to assess the degree of mystical experience of the experience? Seems a bit silly to me.
  • These parts have been rephrased, hopefully for the better. Sasata (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The tests were double-blind." Is it necessary to present this fact in its own sentence? It is mentioned just a few lines earlier: "a modified version of the mystical experience questionnaire and a more rigorous double-blind procedure."
  • Agreed, redundant--removed. Sasata (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "On the other hand, one-third of the subjects reported extreme anxiety." I assume this is means that they reported anxiety and no mystical experience? Otherwise, I don't see why this is relevant.
  • Me neither, I think it's a remnant from long ago... I couldn't even find this in the cited paper. Gone. Sasata (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Authorized research relating to the therapeutic applications of psychedelic drugs was subsequently repressed." Help, help! I'm being repressed! Seriously though, what does "repressed" mean here? Reduced funding? It's a bit unclear since the research is described as "authorized".
  • Changed to "Human research relating to the therapeutic applications of psychedelic drugs was subsequently curbed, and funding for such projects became difficult to obtain." Sasata (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The study found that in a controlled clinical environment, the use of psilocybin was associated with substantial reductions in OCD symptoms in several of the patients. This effect may be caused by psilocybin's ability to reduce the levels of the serotonin-2A receptor, resulting in decreased responsiveness to serotonin and reduction of OCD symptoms." I think it would be appropriate to axe the last "and reduction of OCD symptoms". It's already made clear that this is the result in the previous sentence.
  • Done. Sasata (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "a law that is commonly referred to as "the Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965"" Why is a single referred to as plural amendments? Perhaps this should read "a series of laws that are..." or some such.
  • I'm not quite sure why, but this is the way the sources I used refer to it, as well as some other sources I've just checked. I've reworded this part a bit though. Will try and find someone who can verify if the legal jargon/grammar is correct. Sasata (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Instead the term "hallucinogenic drugs" was meant to refer to those substances that supposedly have a "hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system"" The use of "supposedly" smells like denialism or conspiracy theory. How about "were believed to" instead?
  • Better, changed. Sasata (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "after a long moratorium on the use of these drugs," As much as I love obscure words, I think "moratorium" may actually be too obscure for the lay audience to have any clue what it means. But on the other hand, the only reason the $2 is rarely seen in circulation is because people believe that it is is unusual, and hoard it thusly. Moral of the story? I dunno. Your call on this one.
  • I've changed "moratorium on" to "interruption in", but I'm not completely satisified with this, either. Will ponder. Sasata (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

More to come, you delicious little horseshoe crab. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up! I will start working on these tonight. Sasata (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Review complete! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much for your review C62! You helped clean up some of my sloppiness, and the article has been much improved. I still need to sort some loose ends, and I keep finding interesting tidbits to add as I re-review the literature... Sasata (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to make it a Featured Article candidate. It has been updated to GA status after a careful check of sources and neutrality. The history section, which was the most problematic due to its vast size, was reworked and only the most essential information was left. I've been working for a while on improving this article and I would really like to see it with a star in the upper right corner.

Thanks, - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis[edit]
Doing... I'll make a long inspection of the article soon, ping me if I take a bit long. From a run through,
  • There are some citations in the lead which only apply to the lead. Theoretically the lead shouldn't need any sources at all because everything there should be in the article. Remove sourced information from lead to article.
  • That table of contents is longer than my screen length, in violation of the MOS. This surprises me especially because a long TOC usually implies a grossly long article (a common and persistent problem with country articles), but this article is good in that it is only just over 100,000bytes with just under 40kb of prose, which is a good length for the total article. So it's very oversubsectioned.
  • There are tons of tiny paragraphs, some about half a sentence long. These definitely shouldn't be there.
  • A few paragraphs have no sources, and many have extraneous unsourced information at the end. Some also seem to have fewer than the information would suppose, but I haven't closely analysed it yet. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tourbillon for acting on the above! That makes my job easier and I appreciate it. Sorry this took a week.

Infobox and Lead
  • The coat of arms in front of Sofia falls afoul of WP:FLAGCRUFT and should be removed.
  • Bulgarians should not be bolded in the ethnic groups section, and make the 1.5% just "others" as that includes undefined.
  • I'd remove the first and second Bulgaria from the infobox. I appreciate that they are seen as historical predecessors, but they have nothing to do with the direct establishment of the modern state, especially as the national awakening only occurred in the 18th/19th century. This means the third could simply be changed to "Independence". The cultural links etc. are better explained in the text (and which is done well in the lead).
  • All five of the infobox notes seem unnecessary. The first looks like it should be referenced. The second is unnecessary as almost all currencies are different in plural in english. The .eu wouldn't apply specifically to Bulgaria. Cellphone and power supply seem tangential, and don't seem to footnote anything in particular.
  • The area should be sourced, either in the infobox or by adding it to the geography section.
  • In the lead, as you're listing countries Republic of Macedonia can just use Macedonia, as it can be taken as assumed it means the country eliminating the need for disambiguation.
  • A link to Ottoman Bulgaria, perhaps by pipelinking "Bulgarian territories", would be useful.
  • "Third" shouldn't be capitalised in "third Bulgarian state".
  • The link of principality to "constitutional monarchy" is incorrect and should be removed.
  • Replace "Eastern Block" with "Warsaw Pact". It's a less abstract and more meaningful grouping, and Eastern Block is quite redundant to communist state anyway (as that's what defined the eastern block).
  • Remove the text "political changes in Eastern Europe" and include the relevant wikilink involved in the year 1989 or 1990. Pick either 1989 or 1990 to be here, whichever applies to Bulgaria best.
  • "Bulgarian politics undertook a transition" --> "Bulgaria transitioned to"
  • The first Bulgarian in the fourth paragraph is unnecessary, it can be assumed the government is the Bulgarian one.
  • Remove the note of Sofia being a Global City. It sounds puffery, especially as it isn't in the text. It doesn't really add anything to understanding of Bulgaria.
  • Don't say Sofia is "one of the largest cities in Europe". It's vague. Give a value or remove it. I'd suggest simply removing it, detracts from the rest of the paragraph.
  • I don't think that La Francophonie and Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization are quite in the same league as the other organisations you have listed. I'd suggest removing them. WTO could also be removed, it's not that special.
  • Prehistory and antiquity is almost completely uncited. Cut it if it's not that relevant, cite it if it is.
  • Is the first paragraph of First Bulgarian Empire well cited? There's one cite and it at least doesn't cover the last sentence.
  • If information is put in brackets, that's a good sign it's not that important. Translations especially aren't that important, and can be left to the main articles of each subject. The bracketed dates in the second paragraph are confusing, I initially thought they were birth and death dates, but obviously they're dates of rule. Duh. Anyway, if they're important integrate them into prose (which apparently has to be more than perfect to get through FAC), if they're not they can go for breaking up the aforementioned prose.
  • "After Simeon's death, Bulgaria declined during the mid-10th century" has two timeframes, the death and the mid-10th century. Pick one.
  • Cite the 1018 date.
  • The "Uprising of Asen and Peter" isn't a main article for the Second Bulgarian Empire, and should be shifted into the text. Preferably pipelinked through "major uprising".
  • "Basil II managed to prevent rebellions by retaining the local rule of the Bulgarian nobility (incorporated into Byzantine aristocracy as archons or strategoi), guaranteeing the indivisibility of Bulgaria in its former geographic borders and recognising the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid." I'm afraid I don't understand what that is trying to say at all. It may be because I'm particularly dumb, but even so, a rewording would help. Also, clarify Basil II was the Byzantine emperor.
  • Replace "Skopie" with "Skopje". It's more recognisable to english readers, and it's often best to stick with the article title when linking. If not, the door to POV is easily opened.
  • When did Bulgaria become Christian? It startled me that suddenly the king recognised the Pope.
  • "The achievements of the Tarnovo artistic school as well as the first coins to be minted by a Bulgarian ruler were only a few signs of the empire's welfare at that time." What is this sentence trying to say? It doesn't seem to be in the source cited.
  • The third paragraph of the Second Bulgarian Empire section seems to have a lack of citations. If the one at the end covers it all, that's fine, but best to check. The bracketed bolyari is another example of a pointless bracket, just pipelink it through "Bulgarian feudal landlords". More wikilinks in this section seems appropriate, especially to the tsardoms and semi-independent principalities.
  • Perhaps shorten the Ottoman Rule and National awakening section title to just Ottoman Rule, as the national awakening was a part of (and probably a product of) that. Also remove the awakening main article link. It is already appropriately placed in the text.
  • Are the Vidin Tsardom and the Vidin Tzardom different? Wikilinks again, would be useful!
  • "subjugated and occupied" is a bit redundant. Just use subjugated.
  • "During their rule, the Bulgarian population south of the Danube suffered greatly from oppression, intolerance and misgovernment." The source for this is quoted in the reference, which is a prudent touch, as the sentence raises obvious alarm bells. I note that while in the article text suffered is applied directly to the people, the source seems to be discussing it more abstractly, saying the Bulgarian national consciousness suffered rather than the individual population. It's probably best to rewrite the sentence entirely, along the lines of "Oppression, misgovernment, and intolerance under Ottoman rule submerged the Bulgarian national consciousness." This would be slightly more in line with the source, ring slightly fewer alarm bells, and also contrast better with the subsequent sentences discussing the maintenance of Bulgarian culture north of the danube. On a more boring note the current "south of the Danube" is redundant to the same phrase in the previous sentence anyway.
  • Shift the information about nobility and peasants south of the danube to this point, as it's confusing to go back to north afterwards. It also helps add more context and explain the aforementioned oppression and intolerance.
  • "The nobility in the Christian principalities north of the Danube, continued to be known by their Bulgarian titles of Boyars and regularly helped Bulgarian population to continue to migrate north, as part of their military campaigns south of the Danube." Split this sentence somehow. It's length has made it read weirdly.
  • "Bulgarian culture became isolated from Europe, its achievements destroyed, and the educated clergy fled to other countries." Rather than discussing isolation from Europe and destroyed achievements, it would be better to just say that it became suppressed by Ottoman rule. There's no particular reason to pick out Europe, and the assertion that cultural achievements were destroyed rings alarm bells as well. Also, if this is the southern population again, move it to where the southern population is discussed earlier. It fits well with the suppression of the national identity.
  • "responded to the oppression" --> "responded to their oppression"
  • "Though crushed by the Ottoman authorities—in reprisal, the Turks massacred some 15,000 Bulgarians[7]—the uprising prompted the Great Powers to take action." The massacring would seem to be part of the crushing rather than a reprisal. I'd change it to "Some 15,000 Bulgarians were killed as the Ottoman authorities put down the rebellion." I'd shift the Great Powers information to another sentence. All information after this point is uncited, so cite it.
  • "The Great Powers immediately rejected the treaty" --> "The other Great Powers immediately rejected the treaty"
  • The text implies the Serbo-Bulgarian war happened in 1908. Place it in chronological order, before the declaration of independence.
  • "Modern era" is a very undescriptive title. Something more meaningful, such as "From Independence" would be better.
  • That's a ridiculous number of mains and See Alsos (although definitely not the worse I've seen). There doesn't seem to be a particularly good one though. The best I can think of at the moment would be History of Bulgaria (1878–1946), People's Republic of Bulgaria, and History of Bulgaria since 1989 as mains, and no See Alsos. Could be worth shifting the 1878-1908 information from the previous section to this section; it is after all not Ottoman at this point anymore.
  • Check the sourcing details of File:Tzar Ferdinand at proclamation of Bulgarian-independence.jpg, they don't seem complete. I haven't looked at the other images, but make sure they're all in tiptop shape. Infobox maps have had to be taken out to pass some FARs because they weren't properly licensed. I dread to think what would happen in a FAC.
  • "the achievement of complete independence" is a very peacocky phrase. Just "independence" would replace that nicely.
  • The comma in this first sentence before the and should be removed.
  • It's weird that the Balkan Wars are placed on the same level as the First World War.
  • What is a "royal authoritarian dictatorship"? Is that simply an absolute monarchy?
  • The changing alliances in the Second World War needs a source.
  • 1989 sentence needs source.
  • Shift the Zhelev/Bush photo to the beginning of the fourth paragraph, I'm getting slight text sandwiching on my monitor.
  • Does reference 20 cover the whole fourth paragraph?
  • Everything after the joining of NATO and the EU (which should be sourced) doesn't belong in the history section. I'd shift the info to Politics and Demographics.

I'm taking a short break here. That was a surprisingly compact and informative history section, and I feel slightly overloaded after reading through all of that. It's definitely toeing/slightly crossing the length line, but I definitely commend the bringing it down to where it is now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  • The coordinates need sources, and shouldn't stand as a standalone paragraph. The second paragraph needs to be removed or completely rewritten. It reads as pretty travel book information rather than encyclopaedic information.
  • What's the significance of mount Musala? If it's notable, make it a separate sentence. The last half of the second large paragraph needs sources.
  • There's a lack of sources again in the remaining paragraphs of the main Geography section.
  • Is there any further details on the amount of illegal logging in Bulgaria?
  • Remove the "in addition", it's pointless text.
  • Population numbers for the animals would be useful, as well as a note on general biodiversity trends if that's available.
  • "Bulgaria functions as a parliamentary democracy within the framework of a republican system." A republican system isn't really a "framework". The note of it being a republic should be separated from the note of its democratic system.
  • It the majority veto a simple majority? (ie 51%)
  • This whole paragraph needs sourcing.
  • Is the judiciary separate from the legislative and the executive? How exactly are the branches divided?
  • A section on how elections function would be useful. Are Presidents directly elected? Is there a vote for a party or for a specific leader?
  • Nowhere does it mention that Bulgaria is a unitary state.
  • The detail on the Antarctic treaty seems very unnecessary and Undue. I'm surprised the antarctic treaty even warranted a mention.
  • How exactly has it "proven" itself a a "constructive force"? That's a very peacocky sentence.
  • The details on how the US military base came about are unsourced.
  • "As a NATO member, the country maintains a total of 913 troops deployed abroad." Does that mean deployed on NATO missions? More details would be useful, such as where they are deployed.
  • Remove "highly capable", that's just meaningless fluff.
  • What happened in 1999 to change the divisions? Combine the note that subdivisions are divided into municipalities with the rest of the text in the section so it doesn't just hand around after everything else.
  • The administrative division section needs sourced.
  • The table is actually probably fairly useless. All the names are on the map and the arms don't add much. I suggest removing it.
  • Information on how much power the administrations of these subdivisions have would be a good idea, and how they relate to the national assembly.

That's it for a few more days, sorry, but I hope I've given you enough to keep busy for then. Feel free to ask questions here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is a thorough examination, I really appreciate it ! I will start working on it right away, I'm actually quite free the last couple of days and it wouldn't take much time for me to finish it. I would already like to note a few things:
      • The Christianisation of Bulgaria is mentioned in the succeeding khans sentence in the First Bulgarian Empire section;
      • Vidin Tsardom and Tzardom are the same thing - it's just a question of spelling;
      • The Balkan wars had roughly the same impact as the First World War. As it is mentioned, it is a string of conflicts and Bulgaria's participation and actions in WW I pretty much stem from what happened in the Balkan Wars.
      • The "royal dictatorship" question is a bit complicated. The form of government was not an absolute monarchy in any case; the tsar simply concentrated most of the power in his hands in order to reduce political instability, something like extraordinary privileges in a time of crisis. I could explain how this developed, but the events are rather complicated (quasi-civil war state, several coups and a short conflict with Greece) and would require at least one additional paragraph.
      • You mean reference 50 - no, it only covers the failure of the new economic system. I am currently gathering various sources which are to be incorporated into the article.
      • I've struggled to find accurate or up-to-date figures on animal populations; as you can see, the jackal population cites an almost 20-year old source. I'll see what I can do on this issue.
      • The administrative divisions section needs a complete reworking anyway, I consider restructuring it to something similar to the same section in Ireland.
I'll start working on the other issues soon, it probably won't take more than a week to fix them. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Right, saw the Christianisation part. Interesting that the pope was declared supreme by an orthodox country.
        • If it's the same thing, how did it fall twice in a row?
        • Balkan war thing makes sense then. Second one was a bit unfortunate for Bulgaria.
        • I think if you just state something along the lines of The Tsar concentrated power under the monarchy, or something similar (I'm not familiar with this at all), there'd be no need to explain how it reached that point.
        • If you mean Ireland#Governance than that would be an improvement on what's there now.
Anyway, as I said, I won't be able to do further review for a few days (not much time), which I apologise for. In regards to references make sure they're all formatted the same way, and all have at least the basic info. Url, title, publisher, and accessdate for online sources, title, author(s), publishers, year, page numbers for books. Of course, fill in more information if it's there! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Quick point on referencing, I see you're adding Bulgarian sources. If you do, make sure the reference notes the language. It should have brackets saying (in bulgarian) after the link. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you give the specifics of what "upper middle income range" means?
  • Industrialised free market needs a source.
  • "strategic state-owned enterprises" needs a source.
  • "country's national currency" is redundant. It can just be described as currency, rewrite that sentence.
  • The weak judiciary needs a source
  • Why the comparison to other Easter European states? Why the comparison to the Netherlands and South Korea?
  • The Economic Freedom of the World statement needs a source.
  • All the information about GDP from different sectors and industries needs a source.
  • GDP contractions during financial crisis needs a source. Positive growth note needs a source.
  • I'm going to stop going through this section so thoroughly here. I just went through the first three paragraphs and a significant amount is unsourced. A quick glance over the rest and I notice the demographics of tourists is hanging around unsourced and probably unduely too. There's a listcruft of tourist destinations that has no place on a decent summary article. I'm not an economist, so I don't know whether the information there is key or not. It looks fine to me, but just make sure it's sourced.
  • Infrastructure, 2 sources in Bulgarian (which you should note in the reference, add manually or add a "|language=Bulgarian" parameter in the citeweb format). Make sure they cover what they claim to, and source everything else. The CIA has some good basic statistics for transport on its world factbook. The first two sentences of this section are fluff and should be removed. If this section doesn't expand to a length of two or more decent paragraphs (keeping weight in mind), just integrate it into the main section.
  • "Bulgaria has traditions in astronomy, physics, nuclear technology, medical and pharmaceutical research" Puffery, remove it.
  • Then cite Antarctic info (Antarctica has popped up a surprising amount in this article)
  • "Bulgarian scientists have made several notable discoveries and inventions" Puffery again. Just state the inventions with a date. Besides the astronaut fact, which was interesting, I can't see a reason the others were listed. If it's just random Bulgarian inventions, they should be moved to the subarticle.
  • Interesting info on Silicon Valley of Eastern Europe, that's the sort of notability I'd look for in other inventions/discoveries. Otherwise they just look forced.
  • As with Infrastructure, if these don't form a significant part of the Economy (ie if there's no real reason to have them as separate subsections), integrate the information within the main body of text. Also, if you have time, place this information in the main Economy article, which lacks science and technology and infrastructure sections. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The middle income range is defined by the World Bank as a GNI per capita between $4,000 and 12,275, I left it that way because there will be too many digits and explanations.
  • I found a source for "industrialized". Searched for precise information on the structure of Bulgaria's economy, but didn't find much. I guess "free market economy" is considered common sense given that 80% of Bulgaria's activities are in the private sector...
  • Sourced judiciary and corruption as obstacles to growth.
  • Removed two images, the section looked like a gallery.
  • The comparison with Netherlands, South Korea and Eastern Europe meant to show that despite its relatively low economic performance Bulgaria ranks higher than developed countries in some aspects, though I've removed it as it is indeed somewhat inappropriate.
  • Sourced all information - on sectors, growth and decline, unemployment, figures on production and export.
  • I've moved the information concerning the energy sector under "Infrastructure", as discussed below in Gligan's comments. I also moved the Internet statistics from the Culture section here.
  • Removed the list of inventions and improved integration of Science and technology with other economic activities by providing sources and info on competitiveness, innovation and R&D. I've copied all omitted statements to the Economy main article.
  • Last, but not least, formatted all sources with the {{cite news/web/journal template}}. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The source you have for industrialised notes that Bulgaria is a market economy, which is what free market economy redirects to. Just use it and call Bulgaria a market economy. Easy!
  • The images here are better than most. WP:MOSIMAGES needs to be followed for the article to be FA, and the bit about no text sandiwiching seems to be the most commonly failed. As a general guideline I've developed through my experience on various country articles, one or two pictures will fit in a major section on most screens, while subsections can take one at most (sometimes they're so small they can't fit a single picture without sandwiching with a picture in the below subsection, but that's an indication it probably shouldn't be a subsection!). Only immediate issues I see on this page at the moment are geography and culture, which will be easy fixes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Religion in Bulgaria, Education in Bulgaria, and Health in Bulgaria aren't really mains. It would probably be better for readers if they were integrated into the prose, presumably at the beginning of the relevant paragraphs.
  • Information in the caption should be in the prose, as the article should stand alone without pictures.
  • "data of the" is redundant prose. Saying just "the 2011 census" conveys the same information.
  • Remove "is in a state of demographic crisis", it's an opinion and it conveys absolutely no information. Just stating the population growth is negative conveys exactly the same thing with more conciseness.
  • Similarly, remove "Despite some progress", opinion with no addition of information. In this case there is no context at all (What is progress?).
  • The source for the 800,000 figure says that number is for 1989-2004, not just for the 1990s.
  • Just as a personal thing, I wouldn't use "sovereign nation" when I could simply use "country". Probably easier for the reader.
  • "Roma minority" should be "Roma minorities" as minorities is plural for both the Turkish and the Roma.
  • Change "Some 6,700,000" to "About 6,700,00" or to a more specific figure if the census gives it.
  • Change "It is" to "Bulgarian is", as the subject of the previous sentence could have been the people. Change "although" to "with" (as there is no contradiction) and add a comma in front of it.
  • Remove the "with" before other religions.
  • Why is "a" included in the quotation marks around "traditional"?
  • The "," after 98.6% should be a semicolon I think.
  • I was checking "Bulgaria has traditionally had high educational standards" and while sourced, the wording is extremely close to that of the source, "Bulgaria traditionally has had high educational standards." In fact, just one word has moved. That's Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which is considered plagiarism. I recently saw another editor have to stop adding any text to articles for a period while others sorted out any close paraphrasing. If this is found in FAC, that will be a pretty bad situation, to say the least. Make sure there is none to the best of your ability.
  • "colleges and universities" is redundant to "higher education establishments"
  • A source is needed for the free education and for the subject areas. If possible, get a source that describes the Ministry of Education etc.'s role (setting curriculum, providing the free education etc.) rather than just saying it oversees everything. The subject areas probably aren't notable enough for this article anyway, so I'd just remove them.
  • For both "which is above/below the European union average", remove the "which is".
  • Any more information than "mostly state-funded"? Percentages or roles would be good.
  • Remove the largest medical facilities sentence, extremely unremarkable.
  • You seem to have two sources for the largest cities, one after the sentence and one on the table. Remove the sentence (table is self-explanatory) and pick the best source.
  • Try to update information where possible to the 2011 census!

Very good concise section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  • YesY All done. Information has been updated to 2011 figures, I've added household figures too. The educational standards sentence is sourced by the Country study, which is a Public Domain material, therefore there is no copyright infringement. It's actually one of the principal sources for most sections in the article. I've also checked a couple of sources on the healthcare system. It does appear to be funded by the State on more than 50% of occasions, but there are various clinical pathways, insurance policies and taxes whose functions I don't really understand, so I dropped the funding part. There is one thing that is bothering me - the table takes a lot of space and there isn't much consensus on the images used in it; many of the cities listed aren't really economically or culturally significant, so I would like to hear an opinion on removing it and eventually replacing it with an image of a university or a cathedral. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Bah, you're editing faster than I'm reviewing. That's good but at the same time I'm embarrassed. If there is public domain work, in addition to citing it you should place a note in the references section of the public domain information copied, see Wikipedia:Public domain resources#Caveats and notes for that instruction and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Public domain for a list of templates (although you could just make your own). The table does take up space, but it doesn't take up prose or conflict with prose in any way (such as text sandwiching). It's up to you (and other editors) whether to include it or not, you most likely know Bulgaria better than others (eg. me). If I had to make an opinion, I'd say it's a fairly useless template as the difference in population between the first two cities is bigger than the difference between the 2nd and 20th cities. Clearly (to me) there's only one really important city in Bulgaria, demogaphic-wise. Even if you don't remove this template, as it's horizontal and the current demographics picture is small I think another picture placed above "Government estimates from 20..." on the left would be perfectly in line with MOS. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Happens so that I am free of studies and work for the last month and I have a lot of time to edit, so that should be expected ! I've placed a {{Loc}} template at the bottom of the reference list, I hope that will be sufficient. I'll wait for some responses about the table on the talk page before taking any action, although I share the same reasoning - all the cities after Varna basically have no significance for the article and some of them are not economically or demographically significant even countrywise. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You edit conflicted me! Yes, that template is sufficient (so far as I know). Even if other cities were economically or culturally significant, it's not like the table shows that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The See Alsos listed here probably don't have that much value. World heritage sites aren't a great introduction to culture (which is more about the actions of people rather than big buildings they've made), famous Bulgarians are not all famous for cultural things, and I don't even know what that third link is meant to be.
  • The source for Plovdiv in the caption is dead, and at any rate that caption would need some pretty serious backing to be included.
  • The first sentence omits Persians which is in the source, but includes Celtic which I can't find? (If I'm blind and it's there, so be it.)
  • "Thracian artifacts include numerous tombs and golden treasures." Um, okay. So? That's fairly expected. Pointless sentence.
  • Information on Ancient Bulgars and Romans needs sourcing, and I'd suggest putting ancient bulgars first for chronological order.
  • "A vast number of archaeological sites from all eras are scattered around the country's territory." This sentence is probably true of anywhere in Europe, again pointless. The sentence after this is a much better start to a paragraph.
  • "and many of them are Thracian in origin." What is this sentence fragment trying to say? I'm sure some are Thracian, I'm sure others aren't.
  • "A historical artifact of major importance is the oldest golden treasure in the world, coming from the site of the Varna Necropolis and dating back to 5,000 BC." Sources are dead, and if included just say "The oldest golden treasure in the world..." rather than go on about it being a historical artifact (obviously) and it having major importance (rather debatable). Replace "treasure" with a description of what the item(s) actually is/are. The centcom source used elsewhere says it's the oldest gold, but better detail would be good.
  • If you want a list of UNESCO sites (which although listy is supportable as it has a clear origin), source it. Also unclear what "these sites" are.
  • I suggest making the map for Cyrillic usage far more zoomed in so identification of different countries there is possible from a glance.
  • Was Bulgaria really "the hub" of Slavic culture? Empires usually aren't hubs (far too large), cities are. At any rate, it may have been a hub, or the hub of south slavic culture. Is this all in the "The Slavic Alphabet" source? If so, add the page numbers to the source, otherwise noone can tell.
  • "Bulgaria's impetus in the arts ended with the Ottoman occupation in the 14th century when many early masterpieces were destroyed" cuts very close to the source. Very close. Also, since there are two successive sentences of the same source, the cite isn't needed after both (especially since it's online, meaning no need for page numbers). Also, in my experience the word occupation is best avoided anywhere, as it seems to be one of the greatest causes of edit wars on the wiki. Conquest, takeover, or something similar would be better.
  • "One of the earliest pieces of Slavic literature were created in Medieval Bulgaria, such as The Didactic Gospel by Constantine of Preslav and An Account of Letters by Chernorizets Hrabar, both written c. 893." The grammar of this sentence is weird, what is it trying to say? Needs a source too.
  • Did Bulgarian music really only start in the middle ages? Remove phrases like "long-standing" as they're meaningless and other context is given. Source.
  • You've got two sequential sentences from the same source, the cite only needs to be after the second one.
  • The classical opera etc. list is made from multiple sources. That's not as bad as an unsourced list, but still opens the possibility to tons of additions. Are these the best example of Bulgarian classical artists?
  • "rich religious visual arts heritage" is fluffy wording, mostly in the word rich. If you have access to the source, may be worth a look. If not, I recommend rewriting the start of the sentence something like "Bulgaria's religious visual arts heritage includes frescoes, murals..."
  • Cuisine is massively undersourced. Also, no need to include translations such as (kiselo mlyako). I'll note here that in the lead Balkan Mountains is replaced with its Bulgarian (I assume?) name rather than the english one and the english one is in brackets. Why?
  • Don't need four mains (netball?), just the sport one.
  • List of sports at the start should be given a base or removed.
  • "Football has become by far" --> "Football is". And source!
  • And unsourced tiny paragraphs. You know the drill.

As for portals, I don't think the Bulgarian Empire portal should be there, as modern Bulgaria was not part of the Bulgarian empire. A couple of sources need dates or date standardisation, but mostly good. However, references that say "See List of countries by copper mine production" or something similar are totally unacceptable (and in fact using wiki as a source is the top conversation in AN/I right now). Directly cite all information. I've still got this watchlisted, as if you need anything or want me to look at anything in particular again. If you do go to FAC, I'll see you there (and give it another evaluation of course :) ). Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

YesY All done. I've merged all subsections in Culture, it looks more tidy that way. Thanks a lot for your comments, this review is a vital step in the FA promotion process ! I'm currently polishing all sources and the prose per MoS. It will probably take a day or two more, but it would be nice if you could make a general assessment on the article as a whole after I'm finished. :) - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It does look better, and the picture spacing is nice. It's interesting to note that although the prose size is still below 40kb, the whole article is now about 130kb, so obviously you have put a lot of work into sourcing. I'd be happy to make a general assessment again (although I was personally dissapointed by the American English template ;) ), especially if you're going to push through a FAC. There needs to be a new benchmark for an FA country promotion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
If I wasn't clear, my english comment was in jest. American English or British English or...Cypriot English is purely a choice for the authors, similar to date style and the use of CE or AD. It doesn't at all affect article quality (so long as it's consistent). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm waiting for permissions for three images with great quality and quite rare as well (an IBM supercomputer, a squadron of MiG-29s in combat formation and the volleyball team on a game against Brazil), I think they would immensely improve the general outlook. I placed the American English template because this variation has been used in the article for quite a while, though your remark reminded me that there is some text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (British) and the American variation isn't universally standartised yet. As an addition, my English, even though at a native level, is a horrible mess of British (from school), African (from experience) and American (from cultural influence) variations and I will have difficulties putting up the text into one standard anyway...- ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I assume IBM would take the empty space in Economy, the squadron photo would replace the current singular photo, and the volleyball game would replace something in Culture? Your date formatting isn't american, although I don't know if that falls under ENGVAR or is separate. If it's an arbitrary decision, perhaps see if there's any preference in Bulgaria? The EU seems to use British English, if that makes any difference. An African English article would be pretty cool though. As another point before you finish this round of editing, I noticed the lead said the black sea coast was 378 kms. This doesn't appear anywhere in the article, which is against WP:LEAD. I've seen advice given that the lead should mention something from every section in the article, even if only a few words. Currently most is History, with a bit of geography and a tiny bit of politics/international relations. Perhaps add a slight something else from culture besides the gold, I would think the note of major heritage (slavic, bulgar, thracian), a slight note on economy (largest sector is industrial perhaps), and a bit of demographics (mostly orthodox?). As important as history is, this article is on the modern Bulgaria, and a more balanced lead would give a much better introduction to the country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The IBM will replace the observatory, correct on the fighter squadron, and the volleyball team will replace the bottle of rakiya in Culture. I'll see what I can do for the English variation, I remember I was adviced to put up either American or British when it was checked for GA status. Also, India's talk page has a reasonable FAQ, and a similar one is in the works on my testrange. While browsing through past archives I've noticed several issues popping up continuously over time, mostly concerning the Ottoman period and the origin of the Bulgarians. People changing images and adding insigificant information in the last couple of months has also been an issue, and I decided to facilitate things by producing one such template for the talk page. Apart from all that, I'm halfway done with improving the text according to the MoS and I'll go to FAC as soon as I rewrite the History and Economy mains. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Gligan[edit]

Images I have a few suggestions concerning the images. Since you have done hard work making Bulgaria a GA and are now working on promoting it to a FA, I will not insist or argue on any of my suggestions but only list them. Below I only state my POV:

  • The image of Krum's feast can be substituted with a crop of the same miniature which looks better.
  • The map of Bulgaria under Ivan Asen II can also be substituted. After all, I don't think we have reliable date about the control over Moldavia. It can be substituted with Bulgaria under Kaloyan.
  • In the geography section you can place the images that way so that four pictures can be shown and I think that this would present our nature better. For example incerting that image or that one can enrich the article.
  • In the table of the largest cities Sofia looks like a grey, dirty and unwelcoming city.
  • It would be good to have a picture of the Rila Monastery or the frescoes of the Boyana Church in the culture section because religion played a major role in medieval and Ottoman Bulgaria. --Gligan (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I have considered your points, however, I can only agree on one of them.
    • Krum's feast in its current version is a well-illuminated image, while the original is dim and unclear, even though in full scale.
    • The map shows the extent of the Second empire in its zenith. It is not meant to be accurate, simply to display the relative size of the empire at its apogee.
    • I was actually considering leaving only one image. Adding images eventually makes the section a gallery and creates ground for many users to place whatever images they like according to their taste. Consider using other FA-status articles, such as Canada, Indonesia and Germany as a reference on the image layout.
    • I am currently searching on a good panoramic image of Sofia on Flickr. The other city images are really poor as well, unfortunately there aren't enough good skylines. I am working on the issue.
    • Religion has played a major role in every single European country until the 19th century, so that is not really relevant. The section should elaborate on what is unique for Bulgaria - and the Orthodox religion is not one of these things, unlike Plovdiv or the Cyrillic alphabet. The article is generally good as it is, and the points above should be addressed instead of making further changes. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


  • I have seen that the CIA factbook claims Bulgaria has bauxite reserves but that is not true as far as I know. At least not "large deposits", as it is written.
  • There are two sentences that list the most developped industrial sector "Major industries include iron, ...." in the second paragraph and the beginning of the fourth.
  • Why is the information about the energy sector in the infrastructure section? Gas and oil pipelines are part of the infrastructire but electricity production belongs to the economy section and as a whole that sector is considered part of the industry. --Gligan (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have removed the info on natural resources, it sticks somewhat awkward in the Economy section and the sources are contradicting as to what are the main deposits. I'll probably include it at some point later, but for now it isn't that significant.
  • I reworked completely the industry section and included two other sectors - electronics and defense - which have marked a significant amount of exports. I think the wording is fine now.
  • Energy can be categorised both as "industry" and "infrastructure". Electricity generation and its related grids are basically what keeps a country and its economy running, and since the Infrastructure section was somewhat short while the paragraph on industry was too inflated, I decided to move the energy info under Infrastructure. The arrangement is similar in Japan and Germany, so I thought that it wouldn't be a problem to make such a move.
  • As some additional information, I have arranged to provide images of the Bulgarian Blue Gene supercomputer, however I cannot be certain whether I will receive either the first images or a permission to take a photo of it soon enough. I think it will be a nice illustration for the Science and Technology section, all the images of the observatory are sort of bland and from a bad angle...-☣Tourbillon A ? 10:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Summary of edits[edit]

I have made all the necessary edits concerning the points above. In short, section by section:

Leading section and infobox
Removed all sources from the intro and trimmed it;
Only left the date of nationhood - 681, the date of Liberation and the date of Independence; I think this is the optimal amount of dates to get a general idea of the history;
Notes in infobox also omitted.
Added necessary sources on Prehistory and antiquity;
Added all necessary sources on First Bulgarian Empire; omitted years of rule except the 893 for Simeon the Great;
Added all necessary sources on Second Bulgarian Empire; clarified several sentences and added Wikilinks to Vidin, Tarnovo and Karvuna states;
Rearranged and trimmed sentences in the Ottoman period; added all necessary sources, removed a source for which no text quotation could be provided and reworded some sentences to make them an easier read;
Added all necessary sources on Third Bulgarian State (last subsection in History); incorporated HDI information as prose and in line with previous sentences;
Added sources for most statements;
Rewrote some sentences;
Added sources on species and included flora;
Added all necessary sources;
Clarified political structure, elections, type of suffrage, functions of each branch and clarified the type of veto;
Almost complete rewriting of the Administrative structure; added sources, new map and arrangement of provinces; I also moved it before Foreign relations and military as the text follows on to describe the correlation between the functions of the State and how the government funds the administrative units;
Peacock words from Military section removed;
Added sources, omitted relatively detailed information and removed images;

Removed "Media" section as it stands too much as a trivia section and is relatively unimportant;

- ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Diary of a Wimpy Kid[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This is the Wikiproject's main concern.

Thanks, Greg Heffley 00:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


  • The lede is too short. Remember that a lede is to generate interest into the article and to summarise its content. I have put a maintenance tag on it.


  • "The book opens with Greg Heffley saying how bad his life is with his family, and his best friend Rowley Jefferson, whom Greg worries about, and the moldy cheese on the playground, telling how once a kid named Darren Walsh touched it, and it started a link called the "Cheese Touch."". As if you were trying to summarise everything into a few sentences. Please decompress it. I have the book at home and it is described in a much, much, MUCH longer fashion.
  • A="Greg faces many hardships, including Halloween."
B="Greg faces many hardships, for example Halloween."
According to you, which sentence looks best?
  • "As Greg and Rowley go Trick-or-Treating, they anger some teenagers who chase them. They barely escape but manage to get to Greg's grandma's house, the teenagers see them inside and so Greg and Rowley taunt them. Not all goes to plan though and when they get home and Greg's dad, who was hassled by kids, throws water at them and the water soaks their candy." Please compress this sentence.
  • You know you can cite books too?
  • "The Wizard of Oz play[3] is also a hardship for Greg, Patty Farell, who plays Dorothy, is coming on stage, and since Greg is a Tree, he thinks he can throw apples at her, but the director takes it out for health and safety. Mrs. Norton, the music director, tries to make the Trees sing an embarrassing song, but on the night nobody sings out of fear and the play is ruined.[4]" This could be joined up with the above Halloween paragraph.


  • Rename the section 'Franchise' and remove the 3rd level sub-section OR add more content to it.

Major themes:

  • Again, rename the section 'Jealousy' and remove the 3rd level sub-section OR add more content to it.

Development and reception:

  • It is not cited adequately.
  • I can see no major problem with this bar the referencing, but some more content could be added.


  • The section requires more referencing and a bit of an expansion about the movie.


  • Overall, the article lacks adequate referencing.
  • Reference 1 links to the second book, Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules, instead of Diary of a Wimpy Kid.
  • For most of the part, every paragraph has one reference. I am not saying that every sentence needs to have a citation, but every statement needs to have a citation.

OVERALL: The following points need to be improved:

  • Referencing
  • Expansion to some of the above sections.
  • Comprssing and decompressing some of the above sections.

Can you also review my article 2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 09:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Christian number-one singles of 2004 (U.S.)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see the opinion of the community in regards to what needs to be improved in this list before a FL review. I believe the only section needing attention is the lede.

Thanks, Toa Nidhiki05 00:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary note: The title of the article at peer review needs to change to the actual title, which was moved to "List of number-one Christian singles of 2004 (U.S.)" on 27 October. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A few more comments

  • What is a "Christian single" – or, more specifically, what are the criteria that determine whether a song is eligible for this list?
    • According to Billboard, the chart is all-format and is airplay-based. Further articles note that it is calculated from radio airplay audience impressions from about 150 Christian stations.
  • What does "audience impression" mean, and how is this measurement determined?
    • 'Audience impression' means the chart is judged based on the approximate number of audience plays a song received over the weekend.
  • Rather than the half-apologetic sentence "Although "You Are My King (Amazing Love)" began its stint at No. 1 in 2003, it is included here for full statistical benefit" I would simply say; ""You Are My King (Amazing Love)" was also No. 1 for x weeks in 2003"
    • Alright, I will correct this.
  • "Two other singles, "More" by Matthew West and "Who Am I" by Casting Crowns, spent six weeks atop the chart." "Here with Me", as a song title, needs to be in quotes. Not sure about "other"; there is no unifying relationship between these two songs and "Here with Me". Is there any special significance about a run of six weeks, as against, say, five? Also, "atop", though not incorrect, sounds slightly quaint.
    • I tried to note the longest-running song of the year as well as the second longest. I evidently did not do a good job. :P
  • The information in the chart seems somewhat limited (date, title, artist). Using the link, I discovered that the songwriters of "Word of God Speak" are Bart Millard and Pete Kipely. Why not credit the writers of each song?
    • Good idea, I'll see if I can implement that. However, I did not find the credit you list anywhere on Billboard.
  • Images: Possible problems:-

Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for GA status and I want to know how to improve it before I do this.

Thanks, Puffin Let's talk! 14:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • Lead could be longer to better summarize the article
    I think I have expanded it enough, if you disagree, please tell me. Puffin Let's talk! 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "They inhabit the forests, steppes and semi-deserts of Mongolia and Siberia and also in adjacent areas" - grammar
    I don't really understand what's wrong with that, but I've changed it and hopefully the issue is resolved. Puffin Let's talk! 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    "They also inhabit the adjacent areas of Mongolia such as China and Kazakhstan" - since China and Kazakhstan aren't areas of Mongolia, suggest "They also inhabit areas adjacent to Mongolia such as China and Kazakhstan>"
  • "They have a short tail, which is approximately 4 millimetres (0.16 in) in length" - suggest replacing ", which is" with "of"
    Done Puffin Let's talk! 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • On what source were those hamster drawings based?
    I believe they are someones own work. Puffin Let's talk! 09:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, but presumably he/she didn't invent them? Are they based on a source description of the differences between the hamsters? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Campbell's dwarf hamster (Phodopus campbelli), the Roborovski hamster (Phodopus roborovskii) and the Djungarian hamster (Phodopus sungorus)." - this is not a complete sentence. Suggest replacing preceding period with colon
    Done Puffin Let's talk! 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "the length of the tail ranges from 4 millimetres (0.16 in) to 14 millimetres (0.55 in)" - but in the previous section you said they all had a 4-millimetre tail
    Done Puffin Let's talk! 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggest submitting this article for copy-editing by the WP:GOCE, as there are a number of grammatical problems
    Done Puffin Let's talk! 08:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "The neck is relatively weak and short and the ears are thin and hairy" - you say this twice in the single Biology paragraph
    Done Puffin Let's talk! 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggest wikilinking potentially unfamiliar terms like "ilium" and "tubercle"
    Done Puffin Let's talk! 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    More could be done - for example "ulna" or "tibia". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In the wild, what predators or ecological threats (if any) do they face? Do humans try to trap them?
    Done Puffin Let's talk! 08:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Any data on sales, numbers in captivity versus wild, etc?
  • Sadly not, only on chromosomes which I think is going into too much detail, but I have extended the article with new sections. Puffin Let's talk! 08:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Biodiversity: your captions establish the Campbell's and Djungarian almost entirely in terms of how they are different from each other, and give little information on the Roborovski (which should be capitalized)
    Done ? Puffin Let's talk! 08:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Book citations: all titles should be italicized, should include page number(s) and publishers (and authors where available)
    All of the book citations have the maximum amount of information I can get at this time from my local library. Puffin Let's talk! 08:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 6 needs to be translated, and you seem to be missing the full bibliography info for Ross 1998. Same for FN 10
  • FN 15: this is a book source and should be formatted as such
  • FN 19 needs to be formatted and completed
    These books are in German, I speak a little German but I am un able to complete any more of the source, I think the Ross implies that it is quoted in a Walkers Mammals of the world/Miller book. Puffin Let's talk! 09:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You can't include books under External links because they're not links. If you want to include it, make a Further reading section.
    Done Puffin Let's talk! 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This link doesn't go where you want it to.
    Done Puffin Let's talk! 08:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Stfg
  • I'm doing the copy edit requested of GOCE, and also addressing several errors in the article. Please could you pause for a day or so while I do this? TIA. --Stfg (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    Yes. Thank you. Puffin Let's talk! 14:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've finished copy editing now, at least for the moment. Thanks for giving me the space. Some comments on the article follow.
  • General: the article rather falls between two stools as to whether it's trying to be about dwarf hamsters as pets or a scientific one about a genus in the Linnaean hierarchy. The Chinese hamster is a dwarf hamster, and is talked about in dwarf hamster pet owners' manuals, but it isn't a Phodopus, so it had to go. Before doing much more, you need to decide whether you want to take the article in one direction or the other.
  • References: are in a very poor state. I have become convinced - you will shortly see why - that you must have copied several from the equivalent section in the German Wikipedia and not checked them. This led to failed verifications, and I believe there will be more.
  • As and when you revise the references, remember the following details from the Manual of Style: book titles are given in italics and not in quotes; article titles are given in quotes and not in italics; page ranges are given using ndash, not hyphen.
  • In general, scientific articles and books tend to be about species rather than genera. It's only OK to use German ones for things you can't source from English-language ones. Some really superb scientific articles about Phodopus species species follow. I don't see how one can justify sourcing statements about anatomy and physiology from pet manuals when there are these:
    1. Ross, Patricia D. (2 June 1994). "Phodopus roborovskii" (PDF). Mammalian Species. The American Society of Mammalogists (459). Retrieved 28 October 2011.  - (already included as ref 14).
    2. Ross, Patricia D. (23 June 1995). "Phodopus campbelli" (PDF). Mammalian Species. The American Society of Mammalogists (459). Retrieved 28 October 2011. 
    3. Ross, Patricia D. (4 December 1998). "Phodopus sungorus" (PDF). Mammalian Species. The American Society of Mammalogists (595). Retrieved 28 October 2011. 
  • The article on subfamily Cricetinae in MSW3 (one level up from our ref 1) has very interesting comments about uncertainty of the taxonomy. It's difficult to read, but you could use it to source a statement to the effect that the authors of MSW3 consider that the relationships among the genera in Cricetinae need reviewing. (If you want to use this, you can use the {{MSW3}} template - see ref 1 in this article.)
  • There is a lot of overlap, and some inconsistency, between the descriptions in the "Species" and "Biology" sections, and then there is more description of how to recognise the different species in "Biodiversity". More usual section headings in Mammal articles are "Taxonomy" for the family/genus/species stuff and "Physical description" for the ... well, physical description. It might be good to use that division.
  • Breeding: the "clarification needed" I put in that section refers to the words "all dwarf hamster breeds ...", which is a problem because you are citing the statement here to a book about pet breeds that covers only these three species and the Chinese hamster. Cricetulus species other than the Chinese are dwarf hamsters, but not covered in that book (and I don't think they are kept as pets, are they?). It might be best just to remove the statement about average gestation time, since what is really interesting is the gestation of each individual species, rather than the average.
  • Ref 2 is a book, with an author, publisher, etc. Best to use {{cite book}} with all the right fields, as the template will format it properly.
    done Puffin Let's talk! 14:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    For future reference, you can get more details like publisher, date and place of publication, from sites like Google books, Amazon in your country, or whatever. You need to do this kind of thing if you want GA. I've done it for this reference. --Stfg (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 3: the title you give is a translation into English of the title of Sandra Honigs's book (our ref 5). I can find no mention of Krylzow und Schubin. In the German WP article, "Ross 1998" is the 3rd listed above, but none of those papers refer to Krylzow und Schubin. Where did this reference come from?
    Sorry, I put the translation in there and forgot about the German one, I will remove that reference and replace it. Puffin Let's talk! 15:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 4: is a book. Needs {{cite book}} again.
    done Puffin Let's talk! 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    No, you haven't. What you've done is to refer it to what is now ref 5 (was ref 9), which is still incorrectly using {{cite web}}, even though it's a book, and is merging the title, the series and the ISBN all together in the title field. --Stfg (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    done Puffin Let's talk! 21:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 6: duplicates ref 3 and has the same problem.
    I don't understnad. Puffin Let's talk! 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    OK. Your citation (now ref 4) reads "Krylzow und Schubin 1964. Zitiert in: Ross 1998 (S. 1, „General Characters“)." That is German for "Krylzow und Schubin 1964. Cited in: Ross 1998 (p. 1, "General Characters")." But you haven't identified what "Ross 1998" refers to, so this is not a useful citation. However, I think you copied the citation from the German WP article Kurzschwanz-Zwerghamster (= "short-tailed dwarf hamster", their everyday term for Phodopus). This German article article does identify "Ross 1998", as the same paper I listed for you above (number 3 in the list). Now, if you open the Ross PDF and search in it for "Krylzow" and for "Schubin", you'll find that neither of them is mentioned at all. In fact, both your reference to Krylzow und Schubin 1964 and the reference in the German article are invalid. You need to find their actual paper or find some other source for what you claim they say. --Stfg (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    Ah! I think I've found them. They are/were Russian and the names were transliterated wrongly. Leave it with me and I'll see what I can do later. --Stfg (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    OK, got it. The authors names are given by Ross as Kryltsov and Shuber. Their paper (in Russian) is unfortunately only about the Djungarian and Eversmann’s hamsters, so you can't use it for generalised statements about all the Phodopus species. Also, Ross only cites it for details of body size and weight. I've checked, and I'm afraid it doesn't support any of the five statements you cite it for. I've left them in for now so you can spot them easily, but you do unfortunately need to find new references for those five statements and to get rid of this one. --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 7: do you have this? The German WP article cites the same pages of it, but for information about the Karyotype - nothing to do with age.
    Sorry, mixed that ref up from the Djungarian hamster article. Puffin Let's talk! 15:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    Not supported by Krylzow und Schubin, unfortunately --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 8: needs full citation.
    removed Puffin Let's talk! 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    Not supported by Krylzow und Schubin, unfortunately --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 9: duplicates ref 4. ( is not the publisher, by the way).
    done Puffin Let's talk! 15:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    Sort of. But see under Ref 4 above. --Stfg (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 12: You haven't looked at this, have you? "Mitarbeiter" is not a name, but the German for collaborators. "Die Angaben beziehen sich auf unter natürlichen Bedingungen gehaltene Hamster" is not a title, but the German for "The data refer to hamsters kept under natural conditions". It's a comment about information cited from an article identified in the "Verwendete Literatur" section of the German article on the Djungarian hamster. That article is about seasonal body changes in the Djungarian - nothing about teeth and nothing about the other species.
    I'm sorry again, I mixed this one up with the Djungarian hamster article again, I've changed the reference. Puffin Let's talk! 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC). Puffin Let's talk! 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    Not supported by Krylzow und Schubin, unfortunately --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Stfg (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Ref 16: Grzimeks is also published in English, so we shouldn't be citing the German version.
    Where? I only found the German version at my library. Puffin Let's talk! 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    See Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia or search for "grzimek's animal life encyclopedia Mammals" in Google books. Unfortunately it's multi-volume and horribly expensive and only snippet views on Google. Perhaps someone at Wikiproject Rodents or Wikiproject Mammals might be able to give you the citation details for what you say about their diet. --Stfg (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    I was able to get hold of a copy to support that statement. Puffin Let's talk! 21:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 17: I've flagged this with failed-verification, because this article is only about two of the three species. That may mean doing without it, but if you decide to use it for anything, it needs proper citation using {{cite journal}}, not a bare URL.
    Gone, I've removed the gallery, there is no proper source for it. Puffin Let's talk! 15:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    OK, and the new section title "Habitat" is an improvement too.
  • Ref 18: dead link (403) both yesterday and today. Is there an archive?
    I don't know why that is written in Russian? I've removed that reference because I found the claims in the other one that I put at the end of the section. Puffin Let's talk! 15:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    Fine. (For what it's worth, the paper was originally in Russian. The German WP article Langschwanz-Zwerghamster has a more complete reference.) --Stfg (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Has any of the article been created by translating parts of the German Wikipedia article? If so, a {{Translated page}} template should be placed on our talk page.

--Stfg (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Great Simpsina[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would want it to be a good article a time. I would like to get this article at the best shape it could be.

Thanks, ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
 • 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The article lacks production and reception information. You probably should have added that to the article before listing it for peer review. Theleftorium (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, IMDb and Simpsons park are not reliable sources. Theleftorium (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, EBE just wants to know how to do a proper episode GA. I see no harm in listing it for peer review.
Anyway, you need to find a lot more content for the article. Look for reviews and interviews. There is a great deal of guest stars in this episode - what do they have to say about it. Likewise, look for interviews with the writer and director as well as Al Jean. Also, I would recommend that you read Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources. --Maitch (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
A good article on an episode of a popular television series should have plot, conception/production, and reception information to satisfy the "broad coverage" criterion. While we have Plot here, Conception/Production is absent and Reception is not substantial enough. Conception/Production should have the ideas for the episode (how the themes and such came about, what problems cropped up, any particular interesting developments, etc). Aside from viewing figures, the Reception should have several (I would say a minimum of 3) opinions on why the show is good or bad from respectable reviewers. Look for information from reliable sources, such as magazines, notable media sites (e.g. Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, etc). The sole image File:Simpsons The Great Simpsina promo.jpg is a prime candidate for deletion in its current state. As a non-free image, its use here has to be qualified on all 10 points of WP:NFCC. It pretty much violates all 10 points at the moment. Jappalang (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Namma Metro[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article is sufficiently comprehensive. Need suggestions for improvement, the immediate goal is a GA of course.

Thanks, Lynch7 18:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I always find mass transit systems interesting. What follows is a short list of suggestions for further improvement, but it's not a complete line-by-line review. When you're done with other changes, you might consider seeking a complete copyedit from the people at WP:GOCE.

  • The lead should be expanded to be a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to try to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has details.
  • Some of the paragraphs in the article lack inline citations to reliable sources. Examples include the first two paragraphs of the History section, most of the Safety section, and so on. My rule of thumb is to include an inline citation for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every unusual claim, and every paragraph. If one source supports a whole paragraph, the citation should go at the very end of the paragraph.
  • As with the conversions to US$ when dealing with money, I think you should give conversions for expressions like "more than 1 Crore people" and "about 2 lakhs passengers". Otherwise readers from outside India may not understand without clicking to other articles to see what these terms mean.
  • Should the second table in the Phase I section be centered since the other three tables are centered?
  • The metric measurements (km) in the first table of Phase I should include imperial conversions (mi) as well. Ditto for the table in Phase II and for constructions like "a span of 70 km" in the main text. Ditto for other places in other sections where either of these two situations arise.
  • Extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections make an article look and feel choppy. It's usually better to expand or merge some of these to make larger paragraphs or sections. The Safety section, for example, consists of four extremely short subsections, but there are lots of other examples in this article.
  • Galleries are generally deprecated, although there are exceptions. In this case, I think you'd be better off trying to find room in the main text for the two images in the Gallery.
  • Merging some of the short subsections will have the desirable side effect of making sections big enough to accommodate images. It's best to avoid inserting images that overlap section boundaries or displace edit buttons. MOS:IMAGES has details.
  • Some of the citations, such as 3 and 27, are incomplete. Citations to web sources should include author, title, publisher, URL, publication date, and date of most recent access if all of those are known or can be found.
  • The link checker tool finds two dead URLs in the citations, here.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Secrets That I Never Want to Know[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it can reach GA status with a few adjustments.

Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I have never seen this series, so not sure if that makes me a good reviewer or not. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - see Category:FA-Class television articles for 97 FAs on television, some of which seem like they would be useful models for this article.
  • One dab link here
  • If the killing was truly accidental, then it is not murder (by definition). It is still homicide and is probably manslaughter since it is accidental. I would change the lead sentence to something like The episode focuses on the aftermath and cover-up of an accidental killing. I would avoid the word murder throughout - killing or homicide or manslaughter might be useful alternatives
  • I would read WP:IN-U carefully to make sure this is written from an out-of-universe perspective.
  • In the Background section, it might help to say that the narrator's death was in the pilot episode. Or instead of "In recent episodes" could the actual episodes be linked / specified? I assume the killing was in the previous season's finale, for example.
  • I would look at some recent model FA articles to see how they handle tense. Since some of the events described happened prior to this episode, it seems to me that they should be written in past tense (not present)
  • Awkwardly written and odd tense (see above): Carlos Solis (Ricardo Antonio Chavira) accidentally kills his wife Gabrielle's (Eva Longoria) stepfather, Alejandro (Tony Plana), who raped her in her childhood and returns to inflict more harm. Would something like this be better In the season seven finale, Carlos Solis (Ricardo Antonio Chavira) accidentally killed his wife Gabrielle's (Eva Longoria) stepfather, Alejandro (Tony Plana). Alejandro, who raped Gabrielle in her childhood, had returned to inflict more harm.
  • Shouldn't it be plural "actresses" in Lead actress Marcia Cross, Teri Hatcher, Felicity Huffman, and Eva Longoria signed on for an eighth season...
  • Kind of a blah sentence The episode also continues the relationship between Bree and Chuck, which is complicated by her involvement in the cover-up. perhaps "further develops" or "develops" instead of continues?
  • This seemed odd - The episode received generally positive reviews. followed immediately by a whole paragraph of Stanhope's mixed review from TV Guide.
  • If this were up at FAC I would say it relies a little too much on direct quotes - try to paraphrase a bit more and save quotes for the really good stuff. At GAN, this would probably be OK.
  • The one image has a fair use rationale. Might be there are some free images of the creators (writer / director / actors) that could be added.
  • Refs seems OK, though I am not up on my TV refs.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Ruhrfisch talk page

Thank you for your comments on "Secrets That I Never Want to Know". I'm in the process of making the adjustments you suggested. I did have one question regarding the tense in the Background sentence. My initial instinct was to write that information in past tense, but I was advised in the PR for another episode article to write the Background information in the present tense since it is fiction. I cannot seem to find a clear consensus or rule as to what tense this kind of information should be written in. I guess I'm asking which you think is more appropriate. Thanks again -- Akcvtt (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to question about use of past tense in the Background section.

  • First off, I am not an expert on writing articles about fiction here. That said, to me it just seems odd to write about events which are clearly prior to this episode in the present too (I understand writing about the episode itself in the present tense).
  • I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction and it talks a bit about time - not sure I understand it, but it may help you.
  • I would look at some recent FAs on TV episodes and see if you can find some that have a background section and see what tense they use.
  • I think it would also help to ask on either the WikiProject Television talk page, or the talk page for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction and see what the good folk there think.

Sorry not to be of more help with this issue, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Helmut Wick[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just expanded the article. Please let me know how to further improve the article.

Thanks, MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thank you for your work on this article, which reads well and is interesting. If you plan to seek promotion for the article, the heavy reliance on Ringlstetter (22 of 37 citations) could be a problem. Reading everything you can find about Wick and making sure you haven't left out anything important or interesting is what I recommend, but you may have already done so. Sometimes a few sources are all that exist. Here are a few other thoughts and suggestions:


  • "He was shot down in combat in the vicinity of the Isle of Wight on 28 November 1940 and is missing in action since. At this time... " - I assume that "missing in action" is technically correct, but it seems odd to still think of him as missing in action in 2011. Could something like "presumed dead" be added? Or perhaps "was listed as missing in action"?
  • "credited with 56 aerial victories" - I think it would be helpful to briefly explain what exactly is meant by "aerial victory". This might best fit in a note giving an extended definition. It seems to me that an individual pilot could be credited with an aerial victory even if other planes in the same group were "aerial losses", but I'm not sure. I'm also not sure what counts as an aerial victory. For example, if an enemy plane breaks off an engagement and runs for home, is that counted as an aerial victory? Or does the enemy plane have to crash?
  • "He claimed all of his aerial victories against the Western Allies flying the Messerschmitt Bf 109." - This might at first glance be misunderstood to mean that the Western Allies were flying the Messerschmitt. Maybe, "Flying the Messerschmitt Bf 109, he... "?

Early life and pre-war service

  • "Due to the demand for his father's skills and expertise building roads and bridges, he spent most of his childhood traveling throughout the German Reich." - Just to be utterly clear, I'd use "Wick" rather than "he". Otherwise "he" might be misunderstood to refer to "his father".
  • "Wick had failed to pass the third course... " - Could this be made more specific? What did the third course consist of?

Battle of Britain

  • "was entered in the Orders and Decorations' section of one's Service Record Book" - Wikipedia articles generally avoid using the pronoun "one". An acceptable substitute would be "was entered in the Orders and Decorations' section of a pilot's Service Record Book" or something similar.
  • "two closest rivals Major Adolf Galland and Oberstleutnant Werner Mölders" - "Oberstleutnant" and "Werner Mölders" do not have to be linked again since they were linked in earlier sections. In general, I would link terms no more than once in the lead plus no more than once in the main text unless there is some special reason to do so.
  • "After giving this topic some thought he asked Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring... " - "Reichsmarschall" and "Herman Göring" should not be linked twice in this section.


  • File:Bf109E4 Wick Gr.Ko.gelb kl.96.jpg flies out of the page. It would look better if positioned on the right so that the plane flies into the page. The text box could then move to the left side for balance, if you like.
  • Herbert Ringlstetter's name, copyright symbol, and web address should be removed from the Bf 109 E-4 image.
  • "Spotting a flight of Spitfires climbed to intercept from a more favorable attack position." - Word missing? The sentence doesn't make sense as it stands.
  • "In a diving to attack Wick shot down and killed Pilot Officer Paul A. Baillon... " - This sentence doesn't make sense either. Delete "a" and add a comma maybe: "In diving to attack, Wick shot down..."?
  • Link "Isle of Wight" only once, on first use.
  • "for Helmut Wick in vain.[25] Helmut Wick," - Maybe just "Wick" in both places rather than "Helmut Wick" since there is no confusion about who you mean.


  • Since the awards are all mentioned in other sections, I don't think you need this section.


  • The first entry is a bit mysterious. It appears that "Helmut Wick - das Leben eines Fliegerhelden - Scherl, Berlin" is an article title. If so, it should appear in quotation marks, and it would be helpful to include the page numbers, if possible.
  • The second entry is also mysterious. Is "Horrido" a book title?
  • If books and articles are important enough to include in the bibliography, perhaps they are important enough to cite directly.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

One Tree Hill (song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello, here is "One Tree Hill" for your perusal. I've turned it from a fairly 'meh' article into a much more detailed one that is now a GA. I don't think it is too far away from FAC, but I would love to see some reviews on it first. The prose is my number one concern (while I love building articles, I usually screw up the writing part of it somehow), with a secondary concern being the quality of the lead (the part I always have the most difficulty with). I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is well written. I have two gripes. In some parts, it feels like a quote farm ("X says .... Y says .... Z says .... A says .... B says ...."). I feel one can have three successive quotes before the "quote-farm" feeling sets in. This happens about three times (in the first three sections), although the first (U2's emotions over the roadie's death) seem reasonable. The second gripe is sort of minor; I think the first paragraph of Composition and theme is a bit over detailed with the timings. Other than that, it is a fine article (and quite easy to follow). I think the fair use rationales for the non-free media are adequate (although the cover image should be reduced in size). Jappalang (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the review! I see what you mean about the quote-farming. Definitely something for me to work on before heading to FAC. If there's anything else that you see, please don't hesitate to mention it! Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert Abbott (game designer)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to get this article to FA sometime soon, and a result, I am wanting feedback to see how close it is, what needs to be done with it, etc.

Thanks, ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 16:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think two main concerns make this article's journey to FA to be a long one still. First, the way this is written, this is not a biography about Abbott. It comes across more as his list of games. A biography should tell the reader who is the man at heart, what does he like or dislike, how does he think. How is his social circle? How is he regarded by his peers, his enemies, and by the populace at large. The second main concern is the overabundance of primary sources (Abbott himself) and the near absence of secondary sources (WP:PSTS). An article almost totally based on primary sources is not even likely to have a smooth sail at FAC. That said, there are other concerns. "According to Abbott, 'being much too bright, I never graduated.'" is a sentence that violates WP:NPOV; he did not graduate, that is that. One should not let the subject make himself look good without secondary backing; any praise should come from secondary sources. Furthermore, where is the evidence that File:Traffic Maze.png was published without copyright notice? The original text says it comes from Scientific American and the US Copyright Office shows records of renewals for this magazine. The image page does not state which page of which issue the image appeared in, nor does it consider that copyright notices/credits might have been recorded/listed at the beginning of the periodical. Jappalang (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
With regards to the image, Fetchcomms (talk · contribs) looked that up; I've asked him to comment here about it. With the rest, I've been working on having more about his life, and less about his games; I agree with you that it is still off-balance. However, there isn't much out there about him not in relation to his games; there are a number of things that I know, but cannot do anything with, because no reliable sources state them. Do you have any suggestions on how I could deal with that? And the POV sentence... Yeah. Don't know why I put that in. Thank you for pointing it out. :) I would like to say that I think he meant it as humor, as opposed to trying to make himself sound better, but I do see your point. I have removed it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid I do not know the answer on how to rectify the imbalance here. It is quite likely that there are certain articles that might never attain Featured Article status because the lack of information from reliable sources meant less than the desired comprehensiveness. Jappalang (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I looked up the Scientific American copyright renewals and I could not find any records during the expected period of time. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place. Where did you verify that its copyright was renewed? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
If you search for "Scientific American" and "1962", all 12 issues (1962) of volumes 206 and 207 (6 each) have been renewed under RE0000462848 to RE0000462858. Scientific American. Vol. 207, no. 4, Oct. 1962. is specifically RE0000462856. Jappalang (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Ohhhh, I was searching for pre-1978 records. That explains why I never found anything. Yeah, that file needs to be taken off Commons and uploaded locally, then. Thanks for noticing that, Jappalang—I learned something new today! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
First of all, Jappalang, I hope that somebody writes a biography of him soon, then. :) Second, would it be possible for one of you to deal with the transferring the image to here? I hate to ask that, but I would really have no idea what I was doing. Thanks in advance. Also, Jappalang, are there any specific problems with parts of the article other than what you have said, or is it all fine? ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid the image cannot be transferred to here as well. If you want to use it here, it has to be used as a non-free image, which means satisfying all ten criteria of WP:NFCC. That said, in the absence of biographical data, this article at the current moment might be better set up as "Games by Robert Abott". Jappalang (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I'll remove the image, then; luckily, it won't really hurt the article any. With regards to a name change, I would rather not do that; I intend to add biographical information to it, as soon as more appears, so I would rather just keep the article here. Anyhoo, thank you for looking at this! ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I need to be sure that this article is good enough to become a featured article candidate; I've done a lot of work on it by addressing issues raised in the last FAC; I just want to know if there are still some issues in the article, like prose issues

Thanks, SCB '92 (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

RJH Comments—Good work on the article. Here's a few suggestions:

  • The lead doesn't really seem to do much to describe the actual game. It might help if the lead had a sentence or two about character development from the Gameplay section, plus another sentence or so regarding the environment and the players perspective. To me the gorgeous graphics, expansive game world and the schedule-driven NPCs are three of the highlights of the game play, and it's good to portray the strong points to the reader.
  • In the 'Gameplay' section, some words about the NPC interaction mechanic would be good, as well as a mention of the schedule-driven behavior of the NPC population. If possible, a total count of the unique, interactive NPCs in the game would be informative.
  • In the 'Plot' section, I think it would be better to first say that the game begins with the player's character having been locked up for an unnamed crime, then proceed into the arrival of the Emperor. Otherwise, the mention of the player being in a cell is unclear.
  • "...broken an old covenant—the barrier to the realm of Oblivion": here I think it is necessary here to briefly explain that this dangerous realm is in another dimension, rather than elsewhere in Cyrodiil.
  • "...the player must venture inside...": inside the gate or inside the city?
  • "Upon returning": returning where? It never mentions that the player had travelled from Weynon Priory.
  • "The player takes the book which opened the portal to Martin": this is ambiguous. Please rephrase so it is clear that the book wasn't used to create a portal to Martin.
  • There are places where the additive term "also" is used. In most cases this is unnecessary because the "also" follows from the sequence of the text.
    See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy
  • "The game also levels the player's enemies...": I think the word "scales up" may be useful here and less jargon-like than "levels". As in: "The game scales up the difficulty of opponents based on the player's level". Likewise with the following: "The enemies' weapons are also leveled along with the treasure the player can find in chests and on enemies' bodies."
  • There are a lot of countries that have currency in "dollars". For clarity, I'd suggest writing dollar marks as US$ or USD. (Example: $1–3 => US$1–3.)
  • The following quotation is missing closing double quote marks: "less flexible, less apt for...
  • In the "Reception" section, the quote from the A.V. Club should use emdashes rather than hyphens. The later makes the text confusing because they look like hyphenated words.
  • Please fix the ambiguity/confusion here: "...criticized the disjunction between enemies that leveled according to the player's level and not their combat abilities or NPC allies..."
  • "...response to the new content, the ESRB conducted a new review...": the second "new" is unnecessary; it follows from the context. Or you could say "second review".
  • The "David Hughes (2010-12-12)." reference uses a different author format than the other citations.
  • These two cites could use a little better formatting:
    • GSoundtracks - Review: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
    • Game Music :: The Elder Scrolls IV -Oblivion- Special Edition Soundtrack :: Review by Simon Elchlepp

Regards, RJH (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Peer review, I will get right on it to address these issues-SCB '92 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with the article. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2002 FA Women's Cup Final[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to GA status and need some pointers.

Thanks, Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks decent to me - thanks for your work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Yes, I have shamelessly borrowed from 1923 FA Cup Final and 1956 FA Cup Final!
  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. As such, nothing should be in the lead only, but the 32nd final and BBC ratings are apparently only in the lead, for example.
Added these points to the background and post match sections, respectively.
  • Be careful about language describing a past event. "so far" here sounds as if could be talking about the current team, not the 2002 version Fulham made its second final appearance, after losing the 2001 final. Doncaster Belles entered a 13th final having won the trophy six times so far. Perhaps use "to that time" or something similar instead?
Done. Although sadly they've never won anything since: "so far" would still be accurate!
  • Per WP:See also, see also should not be used for red links (it is OK to have red links in the article itself). So I would remove See also: 2001–02 FA Women's Cup
I hadn't realised that. Removed for now and will re-instate if I ever get round to making the article.
  • In the Route to the final section, I would give some more background. I would at the very least include something about the records of the two teams in the final that season - how did they do? What were their overall win-loss records?
Fulham's record (that they thrashed everyone they played) is, I think, covered pretty comprehensively in the second para of background. I've added a bit more on Donny's season.
I still think it would help to have one or two sentences for each team that said: a) what their overall win-loss record in the regular season was; b) what place they finished in their league / division (whatever); c) what other post-season appearances they had had. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It might also help to give a few sentences of background on the FA Women's Cup and its history here (beyond the 32nd edition of the final comment in the lead).
  • The language is a bit slang-y and reads more like a newspaper sports page than an encyclopedia article. One example But Carly Hunt tapped in an equaliser, then Tranmere were reduced to ten players when Faye Dunn was sent off. This is doubtless clear to all football fans, but not to those who do not know as much about the game.
A problem which afflicts many football articles. I agree with you and have corrected this example and some other areas where it lurches into sports hack territory.
  • Seems very odd that there are no dates of games at all in the Route to the final section
Lifted from the 1923 and 1956 Cup Final route-to-the final sections. Now you mention it, it does seem peculiar. I suppose taking postponements into account there is a danger that the section could become dominated by a mass of dates?
I think the first date in a section / paragraph can be the full date (say April 1, 2002 or even just 1 April). Then the article can have lots of shorthand - three days later, on the fifth, that sort of thing - in the rest of the paragraph. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Link terms on their first use - so National Division appears twice in the article before it is finally linked as FA Women's Premier League National Division
Good spot, fixed.
I've tried to do this. If you notice a specific example which doesn't adhere, let me know.
  • Names of newspapers showuld be in italics. I would also identify the more obscure ones by country at least, so "Norway's Dagbladet reported that Doncaster Belles favoured a typically English style...
Amended, thanks.
  • Be careful that language avoids POV issues as well - so industrious and robust may be seen as POV here: The industrious Hunt twins, signed earlier in the season from Charlton Athletic, gave the team a robust edge. Note that such words are fine if they are direct quotes from a relaible source
On consideration these terms were euphemisms (the twins were nicknamed "the rottweilers") - I agree we can probably do without them.
Mentionming "the rottweilers" as a direct quote might give the article a bit of color. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why The Telegraph and not The Daily Telegraph? (italics needed here too)
  • MOS says to introduce someone with their full name, then use just their last name from then on, unless there are two people with the same last name or someone known by just one name. Most editors are OK with using the full name on first mention in the lead and again in the body of the article, but five uses of "Carly Hunt" when most should just be "Hunt" do not follow the MOS
Just to distinguish her from Gemma, I take your point but not sure how to get around this really.
I missed the twin - this is OK, but check for others who do not share a last name with anyone else in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not understand who won in this sentence Fulham met Doncaster Belles again on the opening day of the 2002–03 season; winning 4–0 on their top–flight debut.[29] Also the semicolon is used incorrectly
Agree is a bit garbled. Re-written that part.
  • I owuld say more about this game being live on BBC1 for the first time - sounds like a big deal, but it is not really described in the article.
Added to background.
Obviously I've had a good look already and I think we might be struggling. But I've contacted the Belles to see if they have one they'd donate. Fulham are now defunct.
I wonder if a newspaper or sporting magazine from that time would have an image that could be scanned? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why are the "Doncaster Belles" always referred to using their full name, but the Fulham Ladies are almost always just "Fulham"?
Good question. Well it's Doncaster Belles L.F.C. so I guess their full name would be Doncaster Belles Ladies. I just didn't want every second word to be Ladies. If you think it more appropriate, I could shorten it to 'Doncaster', but to my mind 'the Belles' sounds a bit familiar and may come across as POV.
I would use whatever name they are most often called by as the usual name. Still it helps to vary names a bit, and it is probably useful to use the full name of each team somewhere early in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Refs look good to me
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Augmentative and alternative communication[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we would like to polish up any potential problems before returning to FAC. Our previous nomination at FAC was closed for lack of reviews, rather than any particular problems (let alone any opposes!) [10]. Since then we have been working through the continuing useful comments of User:Cryptic C62, and I would like to get some more feedback too. This is rather obscure topic, perhaps, an interesting one we like to think, with a sprinkling of technology and medical information; and AAC is a vital for many people with disabilities. Thank you in advance. Thanks, Poule (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

Please accept my apologies for the time it has taken to do this review. I had planned to have it done at the weekend but it fell by the wayside.

  • This is a very well written article that has exactly the right amount of detail needed for a Wikipedia page without over-complicating things for lay readers. The sources are of a high quality and the cited material is all in the right place. I do however see an instance of weasel words in para 3 of Assessment and system implementation: you have "[...]some cultural groups[...]". Does the source give an example of these cultural groups? If not, you should attribute the "some" to the authors within the sentence. Could you check through the article for any other instances of this?
  • I feel a little unfulfilled from reading the Specific groups of AAC users section as it doesn't cover AAC for people with multiple and profound disabilities. Can something be included for this?
  • Is there information out there about future developments in AAC? The History section appears to end in the 1990s with a brief mention at the end of the internet.

Again, a really, really good article. This is the sort of topic that needs to be an FA! Bradley0110 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much for your kind comments and also for taking the time to get involved :) it means a lot to all the editors involved. There's some interesting bits to respond to here - but as a quick question - there is some content on future developments at Speech_generating_device#Automatic_content_maintenance is that a bit more along the lines you were thinking? Failedwizard (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you very much Bradley0110 for your encouragement and great suggestions. We will be sure to work through them. I have another question to add to Failedwizard's: can you explain a bit more what does multiple and profound disabilities means to you? Do you mean profound physical or intellectual challenges? Or both? Or perhaps you mean with sensory problems like blindness/deafness? It will be easier to address the issue if we understand exactly what you feel is missing.
I think the idea of looking to the future would be a great way of ending the article, and I think that some of the ideas in that section you pointed to, Failedwizard, would be great. However, we should stick to the highest quality sources : conference proceedings, for example, are not the great sources, since despite the title they are often written months before the conference and sometimes before the research has even been done. Poule (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
To avoid duplicating conversation (and because I think it's useful on the article talk) have replied to the conference thing at Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies. I've popped a very short summary of some of the 'current and future' content across, but I don't think it's the history section is ready for it yet so it's waiting for it's time in the vocab section... tbh what we really need is something in the history about the effects of the ipad on the industry... but unfortunately that's not a settled question yet, yet along one with secondary sources... Failedwizard (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi again to you both. Poule, I was focusing more on the multiple part - individuals with more than one particular disability; the "Specific groups" is currently separated into those just with cerebal palsy or just with autism, etc. I was wondering if there is any information about how AAC can help those who have, say, both of these conditions. If the information isn't out there, then obviously it can't be added but it was just a line of thought I had on the topic. Failedwizard, the links you have provided are kind of what I was referring to. As you've said though, the article should stick to the highest quality sources and, realistically, journals won't be publishing articles on "future" developments until after they've come into use. It just seemed a shame to end the article on "Oh, and there's the internet of course." Bradley0110 (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks once more Bradley, you've been a star. Just one last question - we've got a overall goal to get this to FA - would you support a renomination? or do you think more work? Failedwizard (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Washington quarter[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It's going to FAC at some point, and I would be grateful for feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Doing... - one final push. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No need to hurry, I'm on a boat and I'm doing little online editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: by agreement with nominator I won't post this review until around 15 November. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Now you are safely back on dry land, here are the first stages of my review:-

  • "The original coin began to be struck in 1932..." → "The original coin was first struck in 1932..."
  • "members of the committee established by Congress for the bicentennial" → "members of the bicentennial committee established by Congress..."
  • " replace the regular issue Walking Liberty half dollar for that year only" → " replace for that year only the regular issue Walking Liberty half dollar
  • "Instead Congress replaced the Standing Liberty quarter, permanently". Comma after "Instead", and the rest would read more naturally as "Congress decided to replace..."
  • I would suggest that Mellon "selected a design by John Flanagan" rather than "selected Flanagan's design"
  • "Since 1999, the reverse of the quarter has been used to commemorate the 50 states, the nation's other jurisdictions, and National Park Service sites" - I imagine that, for clarification, the words "at various times" (or similar) need to be inserted after "has been used".
  • The name "Washington" occurs three times in the final sentence.
  • The lead refers to plans for a commemorative medal and a coin. This section scarcely mentions the medal, until we read about the competition to design the medal and the coin. I know the article is about the coin, but a little more information on the medal would improve the context.
  • "gotten": I know this is accepted US demotic usage, but is it accepted formal usage, bearing in mind FAC criterion 1a? To my tender transatlantic ears, "received" reads better.
When in Rome, shoot Roman candles.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The selection of artist was to be made after consultation with the Commission of Fine Arts and was subject to congressional approval and the final decision as to the design by the Secretary of the Treasury, at that time Andrew W. Mellon, a noted art collector and connoisseur." Two sentences here, really (full stop after "approval"). And the selection of the artist was to be made by whom?
  • The last sentence of this paragraph "The Depression had caused..." seems out of place at this point and could perhaps be fitted more appropriately elsewhere.
  • Can we avoid "designer ... designer ... designed" closely together in the last paragraph?
  • Doesn't the first paragraph of this section more properly belong to "Inception" rather than "Competitions"?
  • "Moore replied, stating that as Fraser had won the competition, she should design the quarter as well." Add the words "for the half dollar" after "won the competition"
for the medal, actually. The half dollar never happened (well, there was a 250th in 1982, it happened then.
  • "the design agreement" - suggest "the earlier design agreement"
  • I don't think the notations "#56" or "#84" are necessary. The hash sign is not normally used in prose, and the numbers are meaningless outside the context of the overall list.
  • "The designs were then submitted to Secretary Mellon on November 2, 1931, who selected #84, designed by John Flanagan, and on the 4th Mellon sent Moore images of the selected designs". Again designs/designed/designs. Are the exact dates (2nd and 4th November) really necessary? If not, can we simplify to something like "In November the designs were submitted to Secretary Mellon, who selected those by John Flanagan and sent images of these on to Moore"?
  • "Mellon ... has been accused of discriminating against Fraser as a woman". The phrase "as a woman" is awkwardly tacked on to the end of the sentence. Would it be tidier to say "accused of gender discrimination against Fraser"?
I think it is a more effective sentence the first way, though I am open to possibilities. "as a woman" gets right to the heart of the matter. Almost certainly a myth, though a long lasting one.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

More to come. Brianboulton (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am safely off the ship of fools, I am happy to say. Thank you for waiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the rest

Flanagan's design
  • "he head" should be either "the head" or "his head"
That was the typo I saw on the cruise but did not get around to correcting it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "General Assembly" - can you be more specific?
  • There is rather a tendency towards overuse of quotations in the article, and I wonder if it is necessary to make a direct quote of Bowers's mundane comment? Sometimes the quoted texts are not well expressed; for example I am sure that by "an ideal portrait" Cornelius Vermeule means "an idealized portrait".
  • A small point, but presentationally, a displaced (on my display) section heading followed by two subsection headings, doesn't look good. Is there any way this could be tidied?
Silver strikings (1932–1964)
  • Perhaps begin the second paragraph "The coin..." or "The quarter..." We know it's the Washington quarter
  • "The scarcity of the Denver piece meant that few were hoarded in rolls by coin dealers..." Not sure I understand. I would have thought that scarcity would mean more, not less, hoarding.
  • "They are generally called after the appearance of "In God We Trust", to the left of Washington's head: the Light Motto, Medium Motto, and Heavy Motto." Difficult to fathom what that means at first, or even second, reading. I've worked it out, but it needs some attention. At the very least the comma after "In God We Trust" should be moved to after "generally called".
  • "about as worn on either side" - does this mean "equally worn on either side"?
  • "The fine-tuning of the design continued through the remainder of silver production with pieces dated 1964." Doesn't make sense to me as it stands. Should there be a comma after "silver production", and "up to" instead of "with"? Similar wording later in the paragraph gives me the same problem, though "the end of silver circulation production with pieces dated 1964" makes slighly more sense.
  • "it closed after that year, not striking mintmarked quarters again until 1968." So it reopened?
Yes, during the coin shortage it was all hands on deck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Clad composition (1965–1998)
  • I've not met the term "clad sandwich" before. Is it an official technical term? Should it be in quotes to indicate its unofficial nature?
This is always a tricky discussion. I will see what the official specifications say.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "(the new reverse design is known on some 1964-dated silver quarters" - should this be "shown"?
Perhaps "exists"? It is not common, although too specialized to be really expensive. I don't think it gets a separate listing in most catalogs. --Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • In the fourth paragraph I rather lose sight of the Washington quarter because the text seems to be essentially about something else. Do we need all this bicentenial detail, the only really relevant issue as far as the quarter is concerned being, it seems that none were struck bearing the 1975 date.
I will cut it bacl. After all, the Bicentennial coin article exists and may some day return to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Commemorative (1999–present)
  • "Although the act had given Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to carry out the report..." Word missing. (power after "Rubin"?)
  • "Under the act, the fifty states would be honored with fifty new quarters" - I take this to mean that each of the fifty states would be honored with a state-specific quarter.
Yes,.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The word "placement" is used twice in the same line, with different meanings (placement in the timeline/positioning on the coin)
  • "The designs were selected by then-Treasury Secretary" - do we nead the formulation "then-"? It stands to reason. You do need to say "the Treasury Secretary", though.
  • Some of the information in the latter paragraphs of this section seems to go beyond the scope of the Washington quarter, e.g. "The Mint also sold a large number of numismatic items..." etc
I will look at it, but am inclined to keep at least some. The State quarters were a definite effort to involve the public, and I think that should be recognized.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • References would look better in columns
  • Some formatting of external links advised

That's it. I couldn't find any deaths that we could pin on this coin, not even Saint-Goudens. Coolidge died in 1933, perhaps a delayed response to the issue, typical of the dynamic 30th president. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably explains why it has hung on so long, the other coins were jinxed. Obviously I did not devote as much time to polish as in other articles but it will shine by the time it gets to FAC (right now second or third in line, but that will change as the McKinley project starts shooting out articles). Thank you for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hook Me Up (song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded it and I would like to nominate this article for "Good Article" status. What else needs to be done?

Thanks in advance, DonEd (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

This is article is a good start - it covers all the major aspects of the subject without leaving too much out. As it stands, the weakest part of the article is the writing and grammar. In a lot of places you could cut down the amount of words and still achieve the same understanding.

  • Background and composition
    • "The single was influenced by the synth-driven songs of underground bands in Los Angeles, with The Veronicas telling PerthNow that they wanted to take that sound and make it their own." Firstly, "with" is a ferociously ugly word in this context and the sentence should be recast to something more free-flowing. Secondly, even though the Wikipedia article is titled "synthpop", you should still go with the original source and call it "electropop" (which is used in the lead anyway). Thirdly, "make it their own" is just... urgh. I have images of Louis Walsh... A better construction would be something like "The single was influenced the electropop songs of underground bands in Los Angeles, whose sound The Veronica's were keen to incorporate into their own music."
    • "In an interview with Music Remedy The Veronicas explained the inspiration for the song." They are talking about the album in the interview rather than the song. As they have the same title, you could extend their interpretation to the song title, but that would be synthesis.
    • "In an interview with OK! Magazine Jessica explained further about the song. She said," This can easily be condensed down to "Jessica explained the meaning behind the song as,"
  • Reception
    • This section has a good cross-section of critical opinion and is nicely grouped into areas such as sound, lyrics and chart performance.
    • There are a lot of square brackets in this section. If the quotes need adapting that much to fit in the article then they should just be paraphrased instead.
    • Can further reviews from more publications be added?
  • Music video
    • "The Veronicas pushed for a school revolt storyline to Speer" Who?
    • "The music video was directed by Scott Speer". Oh. He should be linked in the first instance.
  • References
    • Copyright status needs to be looked at with some of the links; there are non-official Youtube channels and magazine cuttings hosted on fansites in there.
  • The article is clearly modelled on other GA- and FA-class song articles, which is good. In its current state this article probably would pass through GA. To take it further you will need to work on the prose. Take my examples above as a starting point and look for other overly wordy areas that can be cut down. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Louisiana state parks[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is of high quality and covers the entire domain very well. It is well cited and has supplemental media that engage the user. The founding years' citations are on the individual state park pages. However, I'd like to make sure that it meets quality standards and it needs external review. Thanks, Michael miceli (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jafeluv

Lead / History:

  • The introduction sentence of a list article does not have to contain the exact title of the article in boldface. A better way to start the introduction would be something like: "The state of Louisiana has 22 state parks, which are governed by the...".
  • As of 2010? The source is dated 2011. In any case it may be better to remove this altogether to avoid having to change it every year.
  • Since the lead is only one sentence long, it could be a better solution to just merge the history section into the lead (ie. remove the heading). It would also be a good idea to add some summary information into the lead (see List of Michigan state parks, for example).


  • Consider using {{nowrap}} to keep values and unit symbols on the same row. Eg. {{nowrap|676 acres}} ({{nowrap|274 ha}}).
  • Some remarks are complete sentences, while some are sentence fragments. It would be more pleasant to read if all remarks were complete sentences ending in a period.
  • Sources for the area and founding date of each part should be presented in the list, not just in the linked park articles. The reader does not necessarily want to navigate into another article to verify information presented in this one.
Thanks for letting me know about this. I realized going through that I don't have citations for every one. I know they are true because I called the Department, but I need real citations for all of them. This will take some work.
  • Two of the alternate names are missing a date for the name change. These should also be sourced, either in the year column or in the remarks.
  • The illustration looks nice, although a couple of the pictures are a little too high for the purposes of the table. I wouldn't necessarily start cropping images simply to make them fit into a table better, though.
Yeah, I agree that cropping isn't really necessary. I'll leave the tall images until I can find a good replacement. It was very hard to get all the images.

Hope this helps, Jafeluv (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You've really helped and now I have some more goals to add to the article in terms of references especially.Michael miceli (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments

I just saw this when it was closed by the bot. Nice start, but needs some work before a run at FLC - thanks for you work on it and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - List of Pennsylvania state parks is a fully illustrated FL and may be a useful model.
  • MOS says to provide metric conversions for English units like miles. The {{convert}} template works well for this
  • Capitalization is odd in paces and needs to be consistent throughout the article - so why is it "The Office of State Parks" but "the Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism" in the lead? (I would go with "the" generally)
  • Similarly state park is capitalized in the Park Name column (Segnette State Park) but is not capitalized in the Remarks column (Segnette state park features a wavepool with a capacity of 100 people.)
  • Language is a bit rough in spots - two examples
    • Due to an active bear habitat, bear-proof containers are provided for waste disposal throughout the park. Can a habitat be active? Doesn't this just mean there are a lot of bears in the park? Perhaps Due to an active bear population, ... or even Due to a large number of bears, ...
    • The Otis house, a National Register of Historic Place, is located the park. Missing word (in). This is not how places on the National Register are referred to - How about something like The Otis house, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is located in the park. or The park includes the Otis house, which is on the National Register of Historic Places
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A user suggested to take this article to PR. I asked the nominator to fail it. According to him, it currently fails in "Major aspects:" "Prose quality:" and "MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:", this should be addressed before I put this to GAN. Any comments are welcomed. Thank you.♫GoP♫TCN 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's had a lot of work done to try and fix the problems, and I think it's time to figure out how much is left. Presume the goal is GA for now; any comments on how to reach that would be appreciated. Thanks, 86.** IP (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I think this needs a lot more work before it would pass WP:GAN, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several GAs at Category:GA-Class Alternative medicine articles that may be useful models
  • There are three disambiuguation links here that need to be fixed.
  • There are two dead external links and some others that may be problematic here
  • The lead has a major cleanup banner {{lead}}, which is enough by itself to disqualify it for peer review (I will still make some comments)
  • The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD and be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. The limit is four paragraphs in the lead, but this has five now
  • 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. Unless they are for direct quotes or extraodinary claims, the lead does not have to have refs either, since the refs should presumably all be in the body of the article.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they are choppy and interrupt the narrative flow. WHere possible combine them with others, or perhaps expand them
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKING - just in the lead AYUSH and Government of India are linked at least twice each.
  • WP:MOS says to spell out per cent (not use %)
  • Needs a ref The Charaka Samhita text is arguably the principal classic reference. It gives emphasis to the triune nature of each person: body care, mental regulation, and spiritual/consciousness refinement.
  • Nothing notable in History since about 1815???
  • I would avoid bullet point lists as much as possible. Straight prose is usually better
  • Spell out abbreviations on first use (like ENT). Once something is spelled out, probably do not need to repeat it
  • Parts of Approach seem more like History
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Now You Know (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to GA status, but I believe it needs significant improvement. Also, I am having trouble finding additional sources, particularly for the production and critical reception sections. I can't believe they don't exist, so help in that area would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Having reviewed another Desperate Housewives article recently, I see some of the same issues here. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Secrets That I Never Want to Know/archive1 and I will make more comments here. Thanks again for your work on an interesting article; here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • See the other PR for the model article suggestion. This article has no dead links and no dab links - good work!
  • I would include the Filipino controversey in the lead since it has its own section in the article.
  • Be consistent on little things - it is "least watched" in the lead, but "least-watched" in the Viewership and ratings section - does it have a hyphen or not?
  • "Twelve years of absence" sounds odd to my ear - I can see "an absence of twelve years" or "after being absent for twelve years" or "after being away for 12 years" - see The episode also introduces Katherine Mayfair (Dana Delany), Susan's old friend who returns to the neighborhood after twelve years of absence.
  • Also the MOS says to spell out numbers if they are 10 or less, so I think it should be 12 years above
  • I nthe Background section I would refer to the third season (and not "In recent episodes") in In recent episodes, Bree Hodge (Marcia Cross) sends her pregnant teenage daughter...
  • Presumably some of the events also took place in the season 3 finale, if so I would link that.
  • Separating Edie's break up and suicide attempt seemed confusing to me. I realize there is also the whole breaking up with Carlos and Carlos with his ex-wife thing. Perhaps just ending the section with something like "The third season finale ended with Edie hanging herself in a suicide attempt." might help (Elsewhere is not clear)
  • Could use a light copyedit. Two examples - she seeks comfort in [with] Carlos, her ex-husband or "in time" seems as if it would be better in when Carlos does not show up on time to rescue her, she almost dies
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Spanish coup of July 1936[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA, but just before that there was a stage I wasn't happy with it, but pulled it up to GA. I would therefore like some indication of whether I should pursue ACR, and iron out the faults in the article as it stands, as well as any scope/summary issues.

Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments With just a brief look, here's three things:

  • The lead is too long
  • I'm not happy with the type of visual aid you have in the lead, I would see if you can add a picture with an infobox and expand the existing template.
  • You've relied on too few source - I'm sure you can find more to make sure you don't have all the citations from one source.

Good luck! Kirk (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've cut down the lead, my best shot at an image is the map, and no more than half (after a little tweaking) are from a single source. The latter is only really an issue if you believe it leads to a constrained narrative, which I do not think it does. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

  • The lead map is a visual improvement, but is it the right map? Its information goes way beyond the events of the attempted 1936 coup. The map in the "Beginning of the coup" section looks more appropriate.
  • Since, as you say, the coup failed in its purpose of unseating the government, shouldn't the title be "Attempted Spanish coup of July 1936"?
  • Some of the language has a distinctly POV feel. For example, "...General Juan Yagüe, who was rightly accused of masterminding the growing conspiracy in North Africa" (suggest delete "rightly"). Also, in the lead José Castillo is "murdered", while Calvo Soleto is merely "shot". These tems recur in the main text though, confusingly, the relevant section is entitled "Murder of Calvo Soleto". Personally, in the interests of a neutral POV I would avoid altogether the use of "murder" to describe the killings which are inevitable in any internecine conflict.
  • More POV: "The right began to conspire..." You need to re-edit all such dubious phrasing
  • The lead is short of date information enabling readers to follow the narrative of the coup. The last specific date mentioned is 18 July; none of the events in the last lead paragraph are dated> When did Cadiz and Seville fall to the rebels? When did Godard surrender?
  • Talking of Cadiz, I see in the text "The rebels failed to take any major cities with the critical exception of Seville.." so is Cadiz not considered a major city?
  • I am a little concerned about some of the prose which is on occasion rather clumsy. For example, in the lead: "Both left-wing parties like the Socialist Party and right-wing groups like Carlists, Alfonsist monarchists, and the Fascist Falange Española became more extreme..." What is "both" doing here? And "like" sounds weak and vague. I think you mean: "The left-wing Socialist Party, and right-wing groups including Carlists, Alfonsist monarchists, and the Fascist Falange Española, all became more extreme..."
  • Also note some random prose issues:-
    • "Prieto did his best to avoid revolution..." Who was Prieto? No earlier mention in the article.
    • "The Socialists and Communists (lead by Prieto)..."
    • "Franco's plane landed in Gran Canaria on July 14, but, based in Tenerife, he would have been unable to make the plane without the death of General Amado Balmes, military commander in Gran Canaria, who was killed in a shooting accident on July 16." What does "make the plane" mean, and why was Franco's ability to "make" it dependent on the military commander's death?
  • Be consistent as between "Gil-Robles" and "Gil Robles"
  • Citations and sources
    • Citation 24 is to "Payne", not defined in the sources
    • Citation 25 is to "Preston 1999", again not defined in the sources
    • Why is citation 39 to "Thomas 1987", when all the other Thomas citations are to 1961?
    • The bolded 15 in the Westwell book entry needs explaining. I believe it refers to the "Spearhead" series, but this is not apparent.
  • Image query: What is the basis for assuming that File:Franco0001.PNG is PD in the United States?

I hope these comments will help you to improve the article. As I can't watch individual peer reviews (too many), please contact me via my talkpage if you wish to raise any issues with me arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

PS There are two links to disambiguation pages which need fixing. Identify from the toolbox top right of this review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Everton F.C.[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was formerly a featured article and lost its status therefore it needs improving

Thanks, SenorKristobbal (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber[edit]

I'm copyediting as I go. I'll place [citation needed] tags where they are needed as a pointer. I'll jot questions below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

  • In the Everton F.C. article, there's very little about the club's most notable players other than mentions with transfer fees (and a little about Dixie Dean)
  • e.g. are Tommy Lawton and Joe Mercer worth a mention in the parent article, and then embellished more in the daughter/history article. i.e. what did Lawton, Mercer and Jones do that was so successful....


Is club singular or plural? It can't be both-- (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)[edit]

Seriously, these comments are just on the lead. I'm happy to help further, but this needs more work.

  • Yes, club/team singular plural thing. Clearly much more of an issue for our US readers than us, we have something like a discretionary plural which allows this kind of bad-ass grammatical behaviour. But for me, a general rule would be refer to the "club" as a singular and the "team" etc as a plural. Not going to please all the people all the time, particular the US readers, but better than nothing.
  • Link association football.
  • No need for "the city of".
  • Should be able to find a link for English football.
  • "immediate post World War Two period" probably a bunch of hyphens missing here!
  • Is League Championship capitalised or not?
  • "The club's most recent major trophy was the 1995 FA Cup. The club's .." The club's... boring repeat.
  • "averaging over 36,000 people per game" no need for "people"
  • "and a few players. " - vague, not encyclopaedic.
  • What's an "expandable stadium"?
  • "50,000 seater " hyphen.
  • Link Kirby in the lead.
  • "The club's home colours have traditionally been royal blue and white, since the 1901–02 season." either traditionally or since a season. Not both.
  • "Their most famous player is Dixie Dean," that's pure original research or opinion. I would rephrase it to be neutral.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

One Wonderful Day[edit]

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

Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110
  • File:DH One Wonderful Day.png has a weak fair-use rationale and does not have a proper purpose of use listed. All it shows is Brenda Strong looking like Brenda Strong. I would just remove it and add the free-use File:BrendaStrong.jpg to the article.
  • The lead should have an indication of critical opinion.
  • "The desert scenes with Mike and Paul were filmed at a gravel pit composed of old sea bed in Simi Valley." It's not clear to me what "a gravel pit composed of old sea bed" is.
  • Can you incorporate more critical reviews into the Reception section? As it was the season finale, I'm sure it was covered by more publications than just Entertainment Weekly.
  • Why is there a retrieval date on reference 4, an audio commentary?

Bradley0110 (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


Previous peer review

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

Thanks, LittleJerry (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria
  • Per WP:ENGVAR, use one variety of English throughout - for example, you currently have both "behavior" and "behaviour".
  • Spell out "%" in article text
  • See here for potentially problematic links
  • Check for disambiguation links - for example extant
  • Don't space emdashes. Check for other WP:MOS issues
  • Recommend submitting the article to WP:GOCE for copyediting, as prose will be a problem at FAC
  • Reference formatting needs attention. All print sources need page numbers, all web sources need publishers and access dates. Make sure all sources used are high-quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Response to Nikkimaria
  • 1. I could only find "behaviour" in the title of a cited article. I suppose thats how the authors spell it.
  • 2. Done.
  • 3. Done.
  • 4. Done, the AWF source is no longer dead.
  • 5. Already done I believe. I don't know is you look at this article recently since I did some converting since the failed FA nomination.
  • 6. Done, thanks for the suggestion.
  • 7. Same as 5. LittleJerry (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the article immediately before posting here - I think maybe you're overlooking some issues. For example, for the first point, you currently have "behaviour" in "one in twenty males were engaged in non-combative necking behaviour with another male". The paragraph before that, there is a spaced emdash. Looking at references, FN 28 for example lacks page numbers. Still some work to be done here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
For that, I didn't list the pages because I used the whole book and not a certain section. Some of the other books had sections/chapter dedicated to the giraffe while this whole book is on the giraffe. The page numbers for the specific claim are given intext. LittleJerry (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Cryptic C62
  • "In addition to these features, the giraffe is notable for its extremely long neck and legs and prominent horns." I'm not sure that "notable" is the right word here. Perhaps you mean "recognizable"?
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Eight subspecies of giraffe exist and they all differ by size, color and pattern variations and range." Try to avoid using "and" twice within the same list to avoid confusion. Perhaps "size, coloration, pattern variations, and range" would work?
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Overall, the range of the giraffe extends from Chad in Central Africa to South Africa." While this is true for the North-South direction, it doesn't give the reader any idea of the East-West distribution. I suggest something like "Overall, the range of the giraffe extends from Chad in the north to South Africa in the South, and from [insert country here] in the west and [insert country here] in the east" or perhaps "Overall, the range of the giraffe extends from Chad in Central Africa to South Africa, and as far east as [insert country here].
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "They prefer areas with plenty of acacia growth." The tone of this sentence feels like we're describing a pet rather than a wild animal. Also, it's somewhat ambiguous as to why acacias are important. Food source? Shade?
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Male giraffes engage in necking contests" What are necking contests?
    "Male giraffes may use their necks for combat or even homosexual courtships." Err, what? This is even more confusing. How does the neck play a role in homosexual courtships?
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The giraffe has been prized by the various cultures for its exotic appearance" The "the" before "various cultures" is unnecessary unless there is a qualifier afterwards. Either "by various cultures" or "by the various cultures of [whatever]" would work.
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "While the progressive elongation of the neck and limbs can be traced to the early giraffids, it gained momentum in later genera such as Palaeotragus" Momentum is a physics term that does not apply here. Perhaps "it became more pronounced" would work better?
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "There are 9 subspecies which are recognized by the most recent authorities:" As of when? See WP:ASOF.
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Along the animal's neck is a brown mane which is about 12 centimeters (4.7 in) in adults" Slight ambiguity: does 12 centimeters refer to the lengths of the individual hairs, or the length of the mane from top to bottom?
The length from top to bottom. If it was the hairs I would have said. Is putting in "stretches" enough? LittleJerry (talk)
Err, are you sure it's top to bottom? Looking at some the images, the mane appears to run along the entire length of the neck. Unless I'm mistaken as to what "mane" is referring to, 12 cm must be the length of the individual hairs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The tail has a black terminal tuft at the end" This seems somewhat redundant. Doesn't "terminal" mean the same thing as "at the end"...?
Done LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Giraffes also have good color vision" This may sound like a stupid question, but what does "good" mean in this context? A wide range of colors that they can detect? Or perhaps the ability to accurately differentiate between similar colors?
I removed "good" from the sentence. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The radius and the ulna of the front legs are articulated by the carpus which, while the equivalent of the human wrist, functions as a knee" In what way is it equivalent to the human wrist? I suggest swapping out "the equivalent of" with a more descriptive phrase, such as "structurally equivalent to" or "functionally equivalent to".
Changed. The carpus is the bone of the human wrist so thats what makes them the equivalent of it. LittleJerry (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Although no definitive study has been publicly conducted" In my experience, the phrase "publicly conducted" doesn't have any real meaning in the context of academia. I suggest replacing it with "published".
I simply removed the first part. LittleJerry (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to nominate it to FAC. Astynax and Clarityfiend (from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) have both reviewed the article and made major improvements. However, I want to be sure that it is ready to become a FA.

Thanks, Lecen (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm only peer reviewing sourcing quality and citation quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Bibliography
      • Azevedo; Pinho; Rodrigues; Siber: spacing; this arises from the use of cite journal without a title parameter. Journal articles need to be cited by their title, fill in the |title= parameter with the name of the journal article. Often (almost always) it is considered courteous to provide the page range that the journal article occupies in the journal.
      • Bento: year
      • Morais: alphabetise
      • Needell: in Portuguese? It has an English title and and English speaking University publisher?
      • Cited but not used: Rodrigues, José Wasth; Magalhães, J. B.; Maul, Carlos (1953). (in Portuguese)Revista Militar Brasileira (Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Militar) 59.
      • Doratioto December 2003, dubious title for a Portuguese journal article?
      • Haring: Cambridge, Massachusetts; yet not Porto Alegre, Brazil? If you're going to cite states for Obscure US cities, we need to cite countries for other obscure (in the publishing sense) cities. I have no idea where Belo Horizonte is; but I'm likely to know Lisboa (but given this is for English readers, Lisbon might be more courteous).
    • Citations
      • Calmon 1975, pp. 660=661. => Calmon 1975, pp. 660–661.
      • Lyra 1977a, p.229-235. and Lyra 1977a, p. 235-238. Replace p. with pp. replace hyphen (–) with n-dash (–)
      • Carvalho 1976, p.250-266. Carvalho 1976, p. 288-290. the same as above
      • Broken citeref links (if one link from a source is broken, the rest usually are too): ^ Bento 2003, p. xi. ; ^ Doratioto December 2003, p. 62. ; Pinho 1936, p. 133. ; Sodré 2004, p. 137. ; Kraay and Whigham 2004, p. 18.

Fifelfoo, everything was fixed as you requested. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It could be an early request but I would appreciate guidance to a good article promotion. We tried to cover every criteria and aspects for such an article to reach the standards since no article of this kind is promoted (yet). Any feedback is welcome on it as a whole or just on a part of it.

Thanks, Lajbi Holla @ me CP 14:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that on first read I was very impressed. I had fixed a few ambiguous words but it's thorough, it's readable, and easy on my eyes. There is not an overflow of photos as some articles like to do and I don't see any blatant errors like tiebreaks in prose. We are actually supposed to try and keep all scores in prose to a minimum and this article is one of the few to do so. I like it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have not been able to find out from your userpage whether English is your first language. I am inclined to think that it is not, because although the tables of information look first class, the prose is full of errors. I have only been able to go through the lead in detail, though a quick glance indicates that the rest of the prose is similarly suspect:

  • Dodgy title: There is no such thing as a "2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season", any more than there is, say, a "2011 Tiger Woods Golf Season". "Novak Djokovic's 2011 tennis season" would be an acceptable form.
    This can't be helped, since if I recall properly, it's part of our guidelines to list all individual seasons this way...year first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Dodgy first sentence: This is an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine, and the tone needs to be neutral and generally restrained. I suggest you combine the first two sentences as follows: "In the 2011 tennis season, Novak Djokovic won ten tournaments".
  • Clarify what you mean by "biggest victories". Do you mean most important, or are you referring to winning margins?
  • Terms such as "Grand Slam" and the names of tournaments need to be wikilinked in the lead. They should also be linked on first mention in the article, which generally you appear to have done. Note that "Masters series 1000" links to ATP World Tour Masters 1000.
  • "He has beaten..." → "He beat..."
  • "The Australian Open was won in the final over Andy Murray..." - aren't all tournaments won in the final? Reword, e.g. "In the Australian Open final Djokovic defeated Andy Murray..."
  • What is a "500 level event"? And a "250 level event"?
  • This sentence: "Also, Djokovic won a 500 level event on the hard courts in Dubai over Roger Federer and another win at the 250 level clay court tournament the Serbia Open over Feliciano Lopez" needs attention for grammar and punctuation. Comma after "Federer", and insert the word achieved" before "another win"
  • Link "Davis Cup" in lead
  • Comma after "Davis Cup tie with Argentina", and "by a retirement" rather than "in".
  • Per MOS, "4 July" (or July 4 if American dating convention used), not "the fourth of July"
  • "ranked number one" → "ranked World number 1"
  • World No. 1 is a ranking, not a title. I find the second part of this sentence confusing: "and he has held that title for the rest of the season, which he clinched year-end World No. 1." I believe you mean, simply, "and held this ranking for the rest of the season".
    No it's two different things, but I will clarify that. Lajbi Holla @ me CP 19:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "yearly unbeaten streak"? Why are we talking about the "year", rather than the "season"? "Yearly" isn't the right sense anyway; in English, yearly means "once a year", e.g. a yearly visit to the dentist.
  • More rewording required here: "...ended at the French Open to Federer in the semifinal round, which was the first final of the year that he missed in a tournament he played". The prose is presently in knots here.
  • "He has currently won..." As the season has ended, why "currently"? Reword along the lines "His $10.6 million prize money for the season is a record", or some such.
Other issues
  • Why is no date information given in the text for any of the tournaments? I know the information is there in the tables, but readers should not have to move around the article to get this information
  • There are confusing or clumsy sentences in nearly every section, e.g. "Novak Djokovic faced in the first Round Robin tie in Group A with Andrey Golubev of Kazakhstan in the second rubber." Or "Djokovic took on the four-time and reigning champion at the event in Swiss Roger Federer." I could go on... May I suggest that, if you are serious about taking this article to GAN, you try to work with a fellow-editor with a thorough working knowledge of the English language. In that way, the text could be made to match the undoubted quality of the statistical information.

As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, please call me on my talkpage if you wish to discuss further any issues arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts I will contact you as soon as we get these things straight. I will try and get more editors involved. Lajbi Holla @ me CP 19:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hobart Area Transportation Study[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as I've created this article with great uncertainty. I believe it has potential to be a good article, describing the Transport network Hobart could of had. However the only 2 articles I could find to inspire my creation of this article was the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan and the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (both of which appear different in layout).

I have been studying the complete Transport plan at the local library, but am unsure what to include as a lot of the information is raw numbers and data. I'm also wondering if someone can tell me how realistic it would be for me to upload a picture of the front cover of the plan under fair use????

Basically, have I got enough info? is the info provided relevant, does the article make sense and do I need to wikify the article further? Any constructive comments would be much appreciated.

I also have info on later studies, but am unsure whether to include them in this article or create seperate articles. My instinct tells me to create new articles to prevent this article becoming fragmented and too big, however all later plans are evolved from this one and there would not be as much info to place in these articles.

Rating the article a stub, start, c or b class would also be much appreciated, as this has yet to occur :)

Cheers, Wiki ian 07:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by AJona1992

WP:DAB: found one

  • 01. This section is rather small, anyway of finding WP:RS to help expand it?
  • 02. "In 1963, the Department of Public Works, the Transport Commission and Hobart City Council initiated the first urban transportation study conducted in Australia." why?
  • 03. "during the years 1963 and 1964" reads sloppy, maybe saying it like this... "from 1963 to 1964" or something like that.
  • 04. "and the findings and suggestions were published in 1965." publication?
  • 01. "1985 - 20 years from the time of publication" WP:Endash seems appropriate for this.
Final thoughts

The sections on the article are wikilinked but would be better off by using {{main}} or {{see also}} below the headings. Also, there are only six sources that are used in the article. Have you searched or google.books for WP:RS to possibly expand the article to its potential? Also the images used needs a better caption then just stating which highway is which. I'm not a WP:PR reviewer but they needed more users to help out the backlog and since they have tolerated mines, I wanted to help out. I'll have an experienced reviewer review this article to point out other layout and WP:MOS issues the article may have. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Here are a few more suggestions.

  • The first sentence should probably include something like "Hobart, capital of the Australian state of Tasmania" for readers who might not know anything about Hobart or where it is.
  • Extremely short sections make an article look choppy and cause layout problems with illustrations. The Kingston Bypass image overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button because no section is big enough to accommodate it nicely. WP:MOS#IMAGES has advice about layout. You can either expand or merge short sections to overcome this problem.
  • Avoid overlinking per WP:OVERLINK. My rule of thumb is to link terms no more than once in the lead and perhaps once again in the main text. Brooker Highway, for example, is linked once in the lead and six more times below that. That's way too many.
  • Avoid double bolding per WP:MOSBOLD. Unlink the double-bolded heads. Instead, link those terms on first use in the lead or in the main text.
  • Parts of the article lack inline citations to reliable sources. For example, the Davey/Macquarie Couplet section is unsourced. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every unusual claim. If a paragraph has an inline citation in its middle somewhere, the claims that appear after the citation may need their own source(s).
  • Check the capitalization. Words like "target", "study" and "freeway" do not normally take caps unless they appear as part of a formal name or title.
  • Avoid repeating the main words of the article title in the section heads. "Publication of the Study" would be better as "Publication".
  • Newspaper names like The Mercury take italics.
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, citation 1 has left out the author's name, Charles Waterhouse, and the date of publication. Web citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access if all of those are known or can be found.
  • Citations to long works such as the Hobart Transport Plan should include specific page numbers for each citation. In other words, on which page should a reader look to find support for a claim? If the plan is short, less than 10 pages or so, the page numbers are probably not necessary.
  • I doubt that you can claim fair use for a copyrighted map of the freeway system in Hobart because it would be possible to make a free-use map, perhaps by adding data from copyrighted sources to a public-domain base map. Open Street Map looks like a good possibility. See Hobart.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently expanded the article significantly and I would like to get it promoted to a GA class article.

Thanks, Zuggernaut (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Sorry. I got in over my head on this one, as noted below. I think this has more to do with my ignorance about the subject matter than the article itself. I hope the few comments below are useful in some way.


  • "Most of the Mawalas serving in Shivaji's military came from the community." - Rather than forcing the reader to click through to find out who Shivaji was, it might be better to include a brief description such as "founder of the Maratha empire".
  • "Of the four or five most important leaders of the Maratha Empire, the Shindes and the Gaekwads were originally of Kunbi origin." - Is this meant to modify Shivaji? Was he a Shinde or a Gaekwad?
  • "caste-lines" - Probably "caste lines" with no hyphen.
  • "the Maratha-Kunbi" - This looks like a term that needs an en dash for disjuncture rather than a hyphen; i.e., Maratha–Kunbi.


  • The comma separators in the population table make no sense to me. For example, should the Kumbi population be expressed as 2,116,500, or is that not the correct number?


  • I realized when I started reading this section that I was in over my head. I know virtually nothing about the caste system in India, and the article uses too many terms with which I am unfamiliar for me to follow it very well. There's a great deal of detail in this section, but much of it is strange and new to me, and I can't decide what to say about it. I must beg off at this point in commenting on this and the later sections (a few footnotes excepted). I hope the few comments I've posted here are of some use to you. Sorry I can't be of more help.


  • In footnote a, 'Caste Hindu' should appear in regular quotation marks, like this: "Caste Hindu". The single quotation marks are generally reserved for nested quotes (quotes inside of quotes).
  • In footnote a, a sentence says: "Large kingdoms could not be ruled effectively in the absence railways, post and telegraph, paper and printing, good roads, and modern arms and techniques of warfare.".[8] - I think the word "of" is missing between "absence" and "railways", and the sentence needs only one terminal period, the inside one if it's part of the quoted material.
  • In note c the word "sudra" appears. Is this the same as Shudra? If so, maybe you could add a sentence to the note that makes this clear.
  • Note d seems to need a colon after the first use of "Kunbis".


  • The dab checker at the top of this review page finds seven dabs here.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixes per peer review[edit]

I've made the changes you've recommended in the review in 2 sets of edits(1st set, 2nd set). The review was helpful in fixing several problems that we had overlooked. Thanks! (talk) Zuggernaut (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

RMS Titanic[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it up to the standard that such a well known topic needs and deserves to be. In my opinion there are sections and sub-sections of inadequate length that need to be condensed, expanded or removed entirely. I think as well that there is too much emphasis on intimate and trivial details. I think that the article ought to be more incisive but still very informative to the reader. I'd just like your opinions for how I should go about doing that.

Also, I'm not just going to blank the page and do a complete rewrite or not consult anybody because that would be idiotic. I plan to create a subpage on my user profile

Thanks, Hadseys 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

  • Regarding removing "trivial" material - Yes that is an okay path, perhaps for material like "... sunlit veranda fitted with trellis decorations". One option is to move some of the minor data into an explanatory footnote: that way it is still available to the reader, but not in the body. See WP:EXPLNOTE for options on how to present explanatory footnotes vis-a-vis citation footnotes.
  • How to remove - First, I'd recommend getting some buy-in from the article Talk page, before you start removing any material. Explain your goals and the WP policies.
  • Summary style - To review the guidelines on splitting-off pieces of an article (to make it smaller and tighter), first review WP:SUBARTICLE, WP:SPLIT, WP:Content fork and WP:Summary style.
  • Bibliography: some refs not in alphabetical order, e.g. Browne, Father; O'Donnell
  • Footnote formatting: not uniform: some end in periods, some do not.
  • Organization: Consider combining "Construction" with "Features" sections ... topics are very close & Construction looks like an orphan
  • Non-professional prose: "....has provoked more outrage..." not too encyclopedic. Although many were outraged, that sort of emotional word should be attributed to specific sources that were attributed, not put in the encyclopedia's voice. Ditto for "heroically" ... needs more specific attribution.
  • Verifiability: Virtually every sentence should have a footnote, but many are missing. Perhaps the footnotes at the end of each paragraph apply to the entire paragraph? Regardless, the standard now for top-quality WP articles is at least one for each (non-trivial) sentence.
  • Organization: Consider combining "Legends" & "Anniversary" & "Discovery of wreck" & "Insufficient lifeboats" sections into one section (but keep them as subsections) that covers all after-sinking events, perhaps called "Legacy" or "Aftermath"? (If use "Aftermath", must rename existing "aftermath" section).
  • Picture layout: The picture with caption "The first class dining room aboard Olympic" is not laid out well in my Chrome browser: it is overlapping the text above it.
  • Table layout: The table in section "Survivors, victims and statistics" is conflicting with the two images from the section above it: perhaps that section above ("Arrival of Carpathia in New York") could have one of its pictures removed?
  • Better flow - Sentences like "Californian eventually responded." are a bit short & choppy. Ideally the flow should be more fluid and narrative.
That's all for now ... I'll try to do a more in-depth look later. --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Spotted eagle ray[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get some suggestions and ideas. I am hoping to eventually get this article to GA status. Any suggestions you have to help me reach this goal are greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Marissa927 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The following suggesstions come to mind.
  • All contents to be referenced. Have marked up a bit(mainly moved from lead).
  • Add more content, maybe use the Tee-Van reference and/or IUCN, these two refs have lots of content.
  • Alt text on images per WP:ALT.
  • Many sentences in body of article require reorganisation.
  • Write lead per WP:LEAD (best after body of article complete and stable).
  • Requires a copy edit and redundancy check.
  • Check references information and where applicable filli in. i.e publisher, year, isbn, pages
  • Use cite template i.e elasmodiver ref convert to {{cite web}}
  • Refs like <ref name="FAO"></ref> simplify to <ref name="FAO"/>
  • The range is difficult to explain in an easy to understand fashion with words. A range map would be welcome, like this.
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Do I need any copyright forms for that range map? I have been looking for a way to get one on, but I'm stuck. I can go simplify the references right away. Marissa927 (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum

  • Lead
  • The lead obviously needs to be expanded, as SunCreator has already pointed out; the best approach is to look at each section of the finished article in turn and summarise the important points in a sentence or two. But as SunCreator also says, easier to do when the article is otherwise finished.
  • "... found in shallow waters of depths down to 80 meters (260 ft)." I've never really been sure what this is trying to say, as it seems incompatible with the rays travelling great distances in the open ocean. Is it as simple as "found at depths down to 80 meters (260 ft)"? If so, why "found in shallow waters", or do they never swim in water deeper than 80 meters?
  • Description and behavior
  • I think you need to bring stuff together here. For instance, we're told about the ray's tail in the first paragraph, then we move on to the gills and the stingers. But then right at the end of the second paragraph we come back to the tail again, but this time with a venomous spines are mentioned. Are these the barbed stingers talked about earlier?
  • We seem to skim over these stingers rather too quickly for my taste: do we not know what venom they deliver? Are they on the dorsal or ventral side of the tail? Are they used only for defence? How does the ray use its tail to make use of these barbs? How long are they?
  • "The spotted eagle ray can be identified by the numerous white spots or rings on its blue dorsal surface, white ventral surface, long, whip-like tail, and distinctive head that somewhat resembles a bill." Haven't we been told all of this in the first paragraph?
  • "The front half of the long and wing-like pectoral disk has five small gills in its underside". Maybe I'm missing something here, but the pictures appear to show five gills on each side of the pectoral disk.
  • Reproduction
  • "One male, or sometimes several, will pursue a female. When the male approaches the female ...". Which male of the several that may have been pursuing her? Does she swim away until she's caught by one of them?
  • What's the gestation period?
  • "... he uses his upper tooth plate to grab her dorsum". I think this might be a bit impenetrable for a non-biologist: he holds on to her back with his teeth? Upper teeth? I'm really struggling to visualise this. In general I think we have to do a bit more to explain some of these biological terms.
  • The male will then roll the female over by grabbing her pectoral fin". Which is her pectoral fin? The previous section was talking about a pectoral disk.
  • How many young does the female give birth to? What size are they? How long does it take for a ray to mature? When is the breeding season?

Thank you! I will work on fixing all these before I put it up for GA! As for the lead, I will just keep fixing it as the article grows and changes. Great advice! Marissa927 (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So for the Description, I'm going to move the parts about the tail and stingers all together back at the beginning. I'll see how that looks and see if it works better. Marissa927 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Feeding and diet
  • Some repetition: "Spotted eagle ray preys mainly upon bivalves ... The rays eat bivalves ...".
  • "The jaws of these rays have been adapted to help them eat hard shells such as mollusks". Mollusks aren't hard shells.
  • Behavior
  • "The movement of these rays is influenced by the tides. One tracking study showed that spotted eagle ray was more active during high tides". Movement and activity aren't quite as synonymous as is being implied here.
  • "These rays have several distinctive behaviors, including digging with their snouts in the sand of the ocean." Why do they do that? Looking for food? If so, shouldn't it be in the Feeding and diet section?
  • Has nobody speculated on a possible explanation for the rays' pelvic thrusts or jumping?
  • "This jump is often repeated multiple times in a row at high speeds." Does that look OK to you? What does "in a row" bring to the party?
  • Human interaction
  • You probably ought to add something about game fishing for the rays, and that their rarely eaten because their flesh is not considered so palatable. Therefore they're more often used for fishmeal and oil.[11]
  • Habitat and distribution
  • Spotted eagle rays are found globally in tropical regions, including the Gulf of Mexico, Hawaii, Atlantic Africa, the Indian Ocean, Oceania, and the Pacific west coast." This all seems to be repeated in the following paragraph.
  • Conservation
  • "They are also common in commercial marine life trade". Why "also"? Where else are they common?
  • "In South Africa, a reduction in the number of protective shark nets has reduced the number of deaths". That might need a little explanation, as it seems counter intuitive that as the rays are preyed on by sharks reducing the number of shark nets makes the rays less vulnerable.
  • References
  • Is elasmodiver a reliable source?
  • There's one dead link.[12]
  • Ref #16 needs full details (publisher, last accessdate), but I'm not sure that Seaworld would be considered a reliable source anyway.

Thank you! The elsasmodiver, I didn't know about it either, but that was one of the few references that came with the article so I left it. I'll go work on the other issues. I apologize for not making as many edits, but I have been quite busy with other homework! I'll try and pick up the pace a little bit again!Marissa927 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… because I have nominated this article for FL-status which was not promoted and I would like a complete review of what needs to be done so I can renominate it again.

Thanks, – Plarem (User talk contribs) 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Dana Boomer

At this point, I would say that the biggest issue is still the lack of referencing mentioned in both the banner at the top of the page and multiple times in the FLC. Per The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) at the FLC, "I would expect to see references for each of the events in this timeline." This referencing has not happened, and so you still have many spots where opinion, facts, speculation and other material is not referenced. Other issues:

  • I am also wondering about comprehensiveness. Right now, everything through April 2010 deals with Greece. Was there nothing going on in the rest of Europe during 2009/1st qtr 2010?
  • No spaces in between punctuation and references.  Done
  • Three dead links and five dab links that need to be fixed, see this tool.  Done
  • References need cleaning up. For example, ref #89 (Greek referendum) has the author in the work field, resulting in a very odd italicization. Also, while most references use templates, some don't, resulting in a mix of styles.
  • Prose needs a run through. For example, "Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi said that he will resign of his office" in Nov 2011, "An international alarm over a Eurozone crisis grows." in September 2011 (plus, why did the alarm pick Sept 13 to grow?), Eurozone capitalized or not?, etc.

Overall, I think it's a good start, but I think that the referencing needs to be taken care of before another FLC is even considered. Once references are found and the potential comprehensiveness issues are addressed, the rest of the issues should be fairly easy to iron out. Dana boomer (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for reviewing it. I know that the article is very poor citation-wise and I would like to have a review apart from the referencing problem. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 21:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue with that approach (reviewing apart from referencing) is that as significant referencing work is done, it is common for the article (especially prose, but also style, layout, images, etc) to change quite drastically. So, I could review for prose now, but then if you found a bunch of spots where the sources focused on X, while the article said Y, then you would need to change the article to say X, and that would make a prose review moot. So, references first, then prose. In the meantime, working on poor grammar, ref formatting and comprehensiveness would be a good first step, if you're not currently focusing on the referencing itself. Dana boomer (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

History of Everton F.C.[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Everton F.C. is currently being peer reviewed and by improving this page as well it should help the process

Thanks, SenorKristobbal (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

  • Overall - Overall, the article is very good, but there are some issues.
  • Disambig - Link NTL has disambig tag that must be fixed.
  • Section titles - Normally, should not start with the word "The ..".
  • Italic phrase? - In section "The David Moyes Era (2002-present)" at the top, there is an odd italic phrase "Runner-Up : FA Cup (2009)" ... not sure what it is there for.
  • Dashes - ndashes should be used instead of hyphens for years as in 1922–1930. See WP:NDASH
  • External links - Should have ext link to FC's official web site.
  • See also - Not required, but consider adding some links here, if not in the footer navboxes already.
  • Infobox - Many top-notch articles have an infoBox in the upper right corner ... consider using the one from the Everton F.C. article, but that is optional.
  • Lead wording - Very first sentence is "Everton Football Club have a long and detailed history" which is not as professional or encyclopedic as it should be. It should state facts about the team & its history, not make meta-comments about the history.
  • Bullet list - in "Club Honours" section, consider bulletizing the list with * bullets.
  • Reference works - The footnote list is good, but there is no "References" section ... are there no history books on this club? If not okay, but if there are (even a team pamphlet or something) it should be in a References section.
  • Emphasis quotes - The "Dogs of War" and "Great Escape" are section titles that are in quotes. Generally, quotes like that should be avoided ... perhaps use italics, but even that is not ideal. If there is a key person that made those statements, and they are genuine quotes, then that person needs to be named in those sections, and the quote explained, and cited.

...I hope that helps. --Noleander (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide[edit]

Previous peer review

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

Thanks, Greg Heffley 20:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: It looks to me like some of the suggestions made in the first peer review have not been addressed. For example, the article still has blank sections, still needs proofreading, and still has sourcing problems. I would suggest looking over that first peer review again for more ideas for improvement.

  • It's often helpful to look at articles rated GA or higher to see how other editors have handled similar topics. You can find a list of GA articles on computing and technology at WP:GA/ET.
  • Many claims in the article are not supported by inline citations to reliable sources. Please see WP:V and WP:RS for guidelines.
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. Citations to web pages should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access if all of those are known or can be found.
  • When you have made all of the improvements to the article that you can, you might ask for copyediting help from WP:GOCE.

Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping for a peer review on this article so I can get some good constructive feedback on the article with an aim to eventually take the article to FAC. The subject is a bit dry, and there aren't a huge number of sources on this - in fact open any textbook on Soviet History and it's likely that you will not find anything about these wage reforms. However, I've found a few high quality resources and I hope I've used them well. I've tried to summarise things more than give every single little detail to the n'th degree as I really think the reader would be bored to tears if there was *too* much detail. I've also tried to write things in a way that someone who knows very little about soviet history would still find understandable, with lots of explanations and so on. I would appreciate any help with this and I am willing to put the work in based upon your suggestions. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

  • References - Bottom 3 items need to be alphabetized amongst the other works. First by author; if no author, then by publishing organization; if no organization, then by the title of the item.
  • Citations - (optional): if the author has only one work, the year is optional in the Citations section. But that is just a matter of preference.
  • Dashes - Footnote #14 .. use ndash not hyphen.
  • Disambig - link Fontana is disambig. Use tool,_1956%E2%80%931962 to find them
  • quote marks - "crash programs" probably does not need quotes. If you really want emphasis, use italics instead.
  • Orphan - There don't appear to be too many articles linking to this. Okay, it is a bit obscure :-) but still, maybe you could add it into "See also" sections of some related articles?
  • Prose - Phrase "...and incentivise Soviet workers much more efficiently..." reads awkwardly: what exactly is more efficient?
  • Cite - Sentence "Overall the wage reform failed to create a stable and predictable incentives system" is pretty important and probably should have its own footnote.
  • Pics - A couple more illustrations would be nice. It may be impossible to get more on the exact topic of "wage reform", but I think incidental photos of Soviet workers from that era (1956 through 1962) would be acceptable to FA. Make sure they have good credentials (proving free-ness).
  • Links - Probably could use some more links, e.g. kopek. On the other hand, dont overdo it, see WP:OVERLINKING.
  • First link - Double check these. E.g. ruble is linked at 2nd use, not first.
  • Navigation boxes in footer - most great articles have 1 or 2 navboxes at the bottom. Consider these:
{{Eastern Bloc economies}}
{{Soviet Union topics}}
That's all for now. --Noleander (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for these comments! I shall get to work on them as soon as I get a chance. Any other comments from other editors would be very much appreciated. cya! Coolug (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a number of changes based upon these excellent ideas. Unfortunately I've been unable (so far) to find any decent pictures with appropriate licences of soviet workers from the period. It's a shame really because there simply must be some great (although no doubt propagandist) images out there in the world, but I can't find them. Anyone out there who has any ideas please let me know, it would be really appreciated. cya! Coolug (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oswaldtwistle Rovers F.C.[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'd like to get this article up to GA standard. However, I'm not sure there are enough old sources achieve this, so would appreciate pointers in the right direction. Thanks! U+003F? 01:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ionian Islands under Venetian rule[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get more suggestions on how to make it better as I would like it to reach GA status.

Thanks, Marcofran (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I see this is currently a Good Article candidate. Although there is nothing to prevent a GA nominee from being peer reviewed, be careful that you don't get confused by conflicting advice from the GA reviewer and the peer reviewer. Anyhow, the following points may help you in the GA process:

  • Lead: I have removed the "too short" maintenace tag as inappropriate, but that doesn't mean the lead is OK; it does need further work. Ideally, the lead should present, in no more than four succinct paragraphs, a concise summary of the article. It should mention, if only through a word or two, every significant area covered in the article. See WP:LEAD for further guidance.
  • Infobox:
    • Is there any value in using an old map? It's hard to make out the islands, hard to read the details, hard to see the green. Something like File:Ionian Islands.svg gives a lot clearer picture of the individual islands and their locations.
    • The information at the top of the map, including the unexplained flags, is very confusing to the general reader. I strongly advise that you remove this stuff. If the information is significant, then include it in the text, but try and keep the infobox as simple as possible.
  • Prose issues: The prose is weak. I have only been through the first section in detail, and have made a few fixes, but as you can see there are many, many faults in this short extract. Prose standards at GA are, I understand, fairly low, but if the article is ever to return to FAC it will need a lot more attention, which I regret I can't give:-
    • "some years" (in lead) needs to be more specific.
    • "which Venice was a part of" → "of which Venice was a part"
    • "only about 697 were the lagoons" reads confusingly. "only in about AD 697..." would clarify
    • "separated" → "separate"
    • The word "vassilic" is unnecessary to the meaning of the sentence and should be omitted. Also, "such us"?
    • "Despite the Pax Nicephori (803), whereby Venice was a Byzantine territory..." The word "whereby" is wrong here. I assume the intended meaning is "Despite the Pax Nicephori (803), which recognised Venice as Byzantine territory..."
    • The words "Even so" serve no purpose.
    • This paragraph concludes with the uncited short sentence: "Such treaties include the Byzantine–Venetian Treaty of 1082". This should be merged into the previous sentence, thus: "Venice became a partner of the Empire, and trading privileges were granted to it by the Emperors via treaties,[12] such as the Byzantine–Venetian Treaty of 1082". Move citation to sentence end.
    • "Muslim-controlled areas" is too vague. Be more specific. The punctuation after "areas" needs to be stronger than a comma. Suggest a semicolon, with the comma moved to after "instead".
    • "went for" sounds a bit informal Suggest "attacked"
    • "Given the fact that" is verbose. Either "As" or "Since" will do
    • "to the Crusade" → "in the Crusade"
    • "...were strained this exact period" Suggest "during this period"
    • "Moreover, styling himself..." → "Moreover, by styling himself..."
    • "There were some efforts for the betterment of the relations by the Empire of Nicaea (Nicaean–Venetian Treaty of 1219) but they later proved unsuccessful". Very clumsy. The words "Empire of Nicea" are redundant; "the relations" should be "relations", and the sentence needs to be turned to avoid the passive voice. Thus "Efforts to improve relations, for example through the Nicaean–Venetian Treaty of 1219, proved unsuccessful".
    • Another clumsy formulation: "...foreseeing the fall of Charles' power—the French King of Sicily at that time—started forming..." Perhaps "foreseeing the fall of Charles, the French King of Sicily, began forming..."
  • MOS issues
    • Ndashes, not hyphens, required in page ranges (27 is correct)
    • All foreign language sources need to be labelled as such
    • Some refs lack publisher information, e.g. 67
  • Images: several of the image pages require attention inrespect of inappropraite licencing, or lack of appropriate source information. If possible, seek help from one of WP's image reviewers (if you look at reviews on the FAC page you'll see who these people are).
  • Couple of aditional issues:
    • One disambiguation link needs fixing. Use the toolbox top right of this review to identify, then correct.
    • One thing I spotted by chance, from late in the article: The population table requires a more formal intro than: "These are some figures concerning the population of each island during the Venetian period". But that table is so incomplete that I am dubious about whether it's worth keeping.

That is as far as I can take this review. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you wish to raise any issues arising from the review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Update:
    • I see you have made most (though not all) of the prose fixes I suggested. My prose review only ran to the first of the article's main sections, and there are no doubt other issues of this kind requiring attention in the rest of the article.
    • Disambiguation link: this is where your intended link does not go directly to the intended link page. In this case the link in question is Ionian School. Which of the four Ionian schools do you wish to link to?
    • MOS, refs etc: There are still hyphens in some page ranges, ref 67 still needs a publisher, and foreign sources are not all identified.
    • Images: the images you have chosen are probably all OK, though some of the licencing looks incorrect, and File:Corfu town 08.JPG lacks source details. That's why I suggested you talk to an image reviewer, who would help you get these things right. Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
llywrch comments
  • "After the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, of which Venice was a part, Justinian I reconquered Venice and incorporated it into the Eastern Roman Empire's Exarchate of Ravenna" -- Uh no. That is a mishmash of 6th century history that any knowledgeable history teacher would mark you down for writing. What happened was that Justinian set out to reconquer the Diocese of Italy, & which was achieved at the end of the Gothic War, only to have the Lombards stream into Italy & shred the Roman administration into pieces. Most of these pieces were later slapped together into the Exarchate of Ravenna, which was run down due to Byzantine neglect until the Lombards finally conquered Ravenna around 750 -- although they missed some odds-&ends. One of which was Venice, which the Lombards never got around to conquering (at the time it was a collection of poor islands in the middle of a swamp) before Charlemagne swept in & extinguished their kingdom, & so it remained part of the Byzantine Empire until its inhabitants decided they didn't want to be.
  • "As Venice was one of the participants in the Crusade its relations with the Byzantine Empire were strained during this period." -- That's an example of extreme understatement -- & a bit misleading. The Fourth Crusade effectively extinguished the Byzantine Empire, per se. The resurrected Byzantine Empire was the renamed Empire of Nicaea, one of the successor states to the Byzantine Empire & I don't think it had much say in how the Ionian Islands were run, due to lack of reach & resources. So I don't know exactly what you're trying to say here -- or what you want to say.
  • The "Roman and Byzantine period" section under "History" -- I don't see how this relates to Venetian rule over these islands. By the time the Venetians conquered them, their administrative structure under the Romans was as relevant as the policies of Odysseus.
  • The part I was most interested in reading -- how the Venetians gained control of the islands (which was piecemeal, & apparently not immediately after the Fourth Crusade) -- is buried way down inside the article, after several paragraphs about tangential issues. (Two of which I mention above.) While not everyone is interested in that, by the time I found it, & how little you actually say about it -- conquest is rarely simple & bloodless -- I've come to see that this article was badly organized. First there is a section ostensibly on Venetian-Byzantine relations, which is part of the history. Then a list of the islands Venice controlled. Then more history, of the names, date & places variety. Then sections about "Administration", "Economy", & "Demographics". The parts which could bring this article to life -- "Social structure" & "Legacy" -- receive a sentence & a paragraph respectively. All in all, I'm left with only this fuzzy sense that the Venetians conquered these islands from some other people, held them for a while, then Napoleon took them away. Nothing about Venice's strategic goals in occupying these islands, how Venetian rule affected the inhabitants -- beyond it was in some way better than under Turkish rule -- & what happened immediately after its end. How typical was Venetian rule on these islands, as compared to other Venetian territories? Were there no peasant revolts against the Venetians on these islands, unlike on Crete? Did the local governors intregue with the gentry & officials of the neighboring territories? I sincerely don't see this anywhere near a GA candidate. -- llywrch (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Military history of the Russian Empire[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
So this is a long-term pet project of mine. It's only half done so far, so of course the review would only scope up to the last completed section, prelude to the Seven Years' War. This is my first significant foray into the area of military history, so I would love an expert review in particular. And a copyright of course. Along with all the usual reviewing that goes into a PR =) ResMar 23:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this one, just wait a few hours. Buggie111 (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, first things first:
  • describe your boundary line (i.e. Why not Mihail Romonov's army etc.)
All of the references I've read have referred to Imperial Russia beginning under Peter the Great. More closely, it was he who declared a "Russian Empire" after the Great Northern War.
I've added a new section at the beginning of the article addressing these concerns. ResMar 22:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Lead should be longer
I haven't gotten to it yet—can't write a good lead without writing the topic first! ResMar 01:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Info on each emperor's military interests and the way they were chsoen to suceed their prdecessor seems way to much IMO. Just a sentance or two at the end of oen section aobut such and such's death. Buggie111 (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Their military interest are really important, I think. The way I wrote this article I aimed to give a clear, if concise, view of each ruler, generally a paragraph or less on their succession. Otherwise there would be no context of what is going on. ResMar 01:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the background material is concise, as I kept it to at most a paragraph, and informative, as it is important to the understand each ruler's background to understand what and why they were doing with their big shtick. ResMar 22:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I"ll help with Russian sources, if you intend to take this further.
I have another book on hold in the library, keep forgetting to fetch it. ResMar 01:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I have it out, A History of Russia by Jessie D. Clarkson, dated 1964. Height of the Cold War! Will be interesting to see how perspectives have shifted from then. ResMar 22:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Separate decembrists revolt from Napoleon, 13 years of difference.
Haven't gotten there yet =). ResMar 01:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

All for know, Buggie111 (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Still reviewing? :/ ResMar 00:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, got sidetracked, sorry. Tommorrow evening should contain a plethora of suggestions. Buggie111 (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

K, section two:

  • Need cites for Peter III and onward
See below. ResMar 02:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Napoleonic section needs to have sub-headers (I presume the see also sections are your dividing lines)
See below. ResMar 02:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Basically I haven't gotten to there yet. ResMar 22:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Check for grammar/spelling mistakes (Anna I died autmn 1740). I apologize for my laziness of fixing, but I'm rather hurried now.
=) ResMar 02:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I looked over it again, but I only caught one needs a ce, that should catch stuff. ResMar 22:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 1735-39 Russo-Turkish war pic needs to be moved to the side of the article
Is that the imagemap? I'd rather it stay in the center, it squishes on smaller screens. ResMar 02:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Alts for images (not requiered, bu preferred)
Those are a pain in the butt and I'd rather not deal with them, sorry. ResMar 02:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Introduce the Russian Empire, not just start on about Peter the Great out of the blue.
Granted, I'll add something in later. ResMar 02:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Done, new section before Peter. ResMar 22:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That's it for now, ping me when you ahve the remainder done and I'll do a check of that and a line by line check of the entrie article. Buggie111 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, everything past the Seven Years' War remains unwritten, yet. ResMar 02:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. ResMar 22:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You there? ResMar 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
=| ResMar 21:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Scholarship essays, sorry. This time tommorrow I'll be done. Buggie111 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Last thing, then Buggie out:

  • Unbold Russian empire and battle of Narva in the text, don't see a reason to keep it like that. Buggie111 (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
...Nothing happened... ResMar 17:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that any more feedback would be welcome. As part of the AP Biology wikiproject I think that this will help me acheive my goal of GA

Thanks, Savetheoceans (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The following suggesstions
  • Add more content, ideally from the highest quality references(books and journal that cover the topic in detail).
  • Add WP:Page numbers where available. i.e If page numbers for the Hill refs are different then break up into individaul refs with page numbers.
  • ref name=PWS is a cite web but has no url. That's illogical.
  • Alt text on images per WP:ALT.
  • Write lead per WP:LEAD (best after body of article complete and stable).
  • Add a few more wikilinks on uncommon words or concepts like sodium fluoroacetate and Darling Harbour.
  • Requires a copy edit and redundancy check.
  • Check references information and where applicable filled in. i.e publisher, year, isbn, pages
  • Use {{convert}} or put both manually for imperial and metric measures.
  • Crop map
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

  • Lead
  • I think you need to expand the lead just a little to better summarise the article. A good rule of thumb is a sentence or two summarising the main points of each significant section, but the lead tells me almost nothing about the quoll's diet for instance, other than that it's carniverous.
  • "Four species of quoll live in Australia, the other two live in New Guinea or Tasmania." That makes it seem like either we're not sure whether they live in New Guinea or Tasmania, or that they flit about between the two, which I'm sure isn't what you mean.
  • Description
  • "Females have six nipples and develop a pouch which opens toward the tail only during the breeding season". The way that sentence is structured makes it look like the pouch opens toward the tail only during the breeding season, and toward somewhere else at other times of the year. But presumably it doesn't have a pouch at all except in the breeding season? In which case something like "Females have six nipples and develop a pouch during the breeding season that opens toward the tail" would be clearer.
  • "Northern quolls, are the smallest species of quolls, with the males weighing on average .4 kilograms (0.88 lb)-.9 kilograms (2.0 lb) and the females weigh about .3 kilograms (0.66 lb)-.5 kilograms (1.1 lb). I think it looks a bit awkward to be using fractions of kilogrammes here rather than grammes, as in ".3 kilograms (0.7 lb)", but better in this case I think to say {{{convert|300|g|oz|sp=us}}, which would give 300 grams (11 oz).
  • No sp=us required as it's an Australian topic. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The spelling needs to be consistent, and it's using American English spelling elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 17:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that the spelling in general appears to be British English, as in "behaviour", so probably best to remove the "sp=us" parameter from all the conversions. Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems always to have been a mix of Br and Am English, ("color", "center" and so on), but we need to make sure it's consistent. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Habitat
  • "Quolls are indigenous to Australia, New Guinea, and Tasmania, where they live in forests and open valley land". The structure of that sentence makes it look like quolls live in forests and open valley land only in Tasmania, and elsewhere in Australia and New Guinea.
  • There's no url for ref #12.
  • "But they do inhabit much of nearby Tasmania ... They are common in Tasmania". Some obvious repetition there.
  • "Northern quolls could be found in the northern third of Australia a century ago". So where can they be found now?
  • "The theory is that a land bridge once connected Australia and New Guinea. Around 6 to 8,000 years ago increase in water temperatures caused ice caps to melt causing a rise in sea level which effectively covered the land bridge." It's rather more than a theory, pretty much fact. But it wasn't a rise in water temperature that submerged the land bridge, it was a general rise in the global climate's temperature.
  • Reproduction
  • "... during the follicular phase, pouches were found to be red in colour, had many secretions, and sex-hormones were very high." What has that last bit about high levels of sex hormones, got to do with the pouch? And why is "sex-hormones" hyphenated?
  • Threats
  • I think the sub-sections should be removed and the sub-sections become regular paragraphs. Very short sections/sub-sections tend to be frowned upon by reviewers.
  • "... cane toads are highly invasive in environments". Not sure what that's trying to say.
  • "... but because of threats can only be found in much scarcer areas." Quite a bit wrong with that, not the least of which is that an area can't be scarce. And it sounds like there was some kind of racket going on, a bit like the Mafia, threatening the quolls that it would be in their best interests to leave quietly.

Comments by Yomangani The writing could generally do with a little tightening, but it's not a bad overview. A couple of thing a noticed as I flicked past:

  • Tasmania is Australia. You mean "mainland Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea"
  • "Northern quolls could be found in the northern third of Australia a century ago." How interesting, but I really want to know where they are found now.
    The attempt at correcting this is not really any better - the "presently" gives the habitat rather than the range. (Basically, we don't care where they used to be 100 years ago, we want to know where they can be found now)
  • "Quolls are largely solitary animals, and are nocturnal." Probably belongs in the behaviour section (and indeed is partially duplicated there).
  • "Male's territory often overlaps many females' territories" How many males? "A male's" or "Males'".
  • "Depending on the size of the prey, a quoll may leap or pounce onto it." You explain this again in the next sentence.
  • "In a study published in 2008, the pouch of a spotted-tail quoll was studied." Awkward phrasing.
  • "who can die rather rather quickly after consuming one" They'd prefer to die rather slowly? This flourish isn't necessary.
  • "The pups were born to inexperienced parents, both just one year old. The reason being that male quolls can easily kill a female if they do not want to mate." That doesn't follow.
    You've tried to correct this but "The reason being" doesn't make sense. This might be the reason that the yearling parents were bred but it is not the reason that the the pups were born.

I might have another look later. Yomanganitalk 17:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • The treatment of "quolls" as if they are species rather than as a genus is a bit worrying. Many of the statements probably apply to only some species but are presented as generic. (The first two sections make a better effort to differentiate between species.)
  • Lots of redundancy both in the writing and duplication of information between sections. A few examples only:
    "Quolls can obtain all the water they need from the food they eat" As opposed to the food they don't eat?
    "pouches were found to be red in colour" As opposed to red in size?
    "a short period of time"
    The threat to habitat is mentioned in both the Threats and Conservation section as are cane toads
  • Foxes are not feral. You may mean "introduced predators" in this context as neither foxes or cats are indigenous
  • "Habitats are also being destroyed by large herbivores trampling the grass and overgrowth, making camouflage and habitability impossible." Making "habitability impossible"? This is akin to saying habitats are being destroyed by the destruction of habitat.
  • "They do not have prehensile tails, but do have ridges on the pads of their feet, to walk rough ground." Why are these connected and why do we care that they do not have prehensile tails? (They also do not have opposable thumbs for example but this is not worth mentioning)
  • You still need to differentiate more between Tasmania and the rest of Australia. Yomanganitalk 15:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Techno Cumbia[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like the article to be a WP:GA. It already went through a c/e from WP:GOCE also a good friend of mine c/e one section.

Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This still looks kind of rough to me. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to WP:GAN.

  • I went to Youtube and found the video for this song and listend to it / watched the video. Since the article lead did not say, I somehow assumed the song was in English, but the lyrics are almost all in Spanish. This is a pretty important distinction, especially since this is the English Wikipedia, so I would mention it in the lead, and early in the body of the article.
"Techno Cumbia" is not a Spanish-language word, in the booklets the English translation is "The Techno Cumbia". So do you want me to say "is a Spanish-language song by American Tejano pop singer Selena"? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that somewhere in the three paragraphs of the lead the article should say that the song's lyrics are mostly (almost all?) in Spanish. Then I would also say this in the body somewhere - to me I would say this where the lyrics are discussed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the normal usage is just to say "mixed the song" (not "audio mixed the song") in ...and produced by Quintanilla and Brian "Red" Moore, who audio mixed the song.
  • Awkward and unclear sentence It was released in the United States for the Tejano and Contemporary Latin radio stations and as a promotional single in the United States and Mexico on December 26, 1995. First off, aren't promotional singles sent mostly to radio stations (and clubs) anyway (so why is this presented as two separate things)? Second, and more important, this seems to contradict what the Release section says "Techno Cumbia" was released to radio stations in late October 1994[15] and as a CD single and cassette single on December 26, 1994 in the United States.[3] (the CD single and casettee single were for sale, which is not the case for promotional singles).
I fixed the lead. However, this single was not released as a "physical single" so it is ineligible for the Hot 100. Secondly, the cardboard box reads "for promotional use". Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
That is not what the article says. In the Release section it says (and I quote): "Techno Cumbia" was released to radio stations in late October 1994[15] and as a CD single and cassette single on December 26, 1994 in the United States.[3] The Recording Industry Association of America did not issue any certifications for the single, as it sold poorly;... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Need to explain some things the average reader will not know about. Two examples from the lead - most readers will not know what cumbia is. Although it is linked, a brief explanation would help. Second, in this sentence In the recording studio, Los Dinos helped with back-up vocals and Quintanilla performed a rap verse in the middle of the song. the average reader will have no idea who Los Dinos were and again a brief explanatory phrase (Selena's band) would help to WP:PCR.
  • I would make sure the lead is a clean overview of the whole article without too much unnecessary detail - chroma key is mentioned once in the body of the article - does it have to be in the lead? (Just one example)
  • Despite the copyedit, the language is still rough - just in the lead this is awkward too According to Billboard, "Techno Cumbia" was believed to be the earliest template of pop-cumbia-rap fusions. What does "template of pop-cumbia-rap fusions" even mean? How about According to Billboard, "Techno Cumbia" is one of the earliest pop-cumbia-rap fusions.?
Did you want me to clarify what Billboard had claimed? If so, I'm not really sure myself! When I found this claim I wasn't sure what it had meant, never knew there were other "pop-cumbia-rap fusions" songs. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I did not check the original source before - now I see that it says "During her heyday, Selena established one of the early templates for pop-cumbia-rap fusions with her hit 'Techno Cumbia'..."[13]. Sometimes it is best just to quote the original. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Or this makes no sense The song has been covered by many artists, most notably by Banda El Recodo, who both recorded it in homage to Selena during the Selena ¡VIVE! tribute concert held on April 9, 2005. what does "both" mean here? One band is named. Plus do we really need the date of the tributre concert in the lead? Also usually artists perform a song live in concert and a recording may be made of this performance and released - but again is this level of detail needed in the lead?
All participants at the event had recorded a studio version of the cover song and sang it live during the event. So would "The song has been covered by many artists" instead of stating the "most notably" or an example which seems WP:OR since no source indicates which cover is "more popular" right? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The word "both" still makes no sense in the original. The original sentence in the article says that the recording was made during the live performance ("recorded it ..during the Selena !VIVE! tribute concert"). Now you say it was recorded before the concert - which was it? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, moving on to a few other issues in the article body itself... the lyric content paragraph is way too detailed - give the most important points of the song lyrics, not every detail.
    • I think you cut it back too much ;-) The Beyonce song is a good model - it has lots of technical detail and comments on the song by critics. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Nothing should be in just the lead - the lead says she performed the song in every concert of the Amor Prohibido concert - the Live performances section does not really say the same thing (just that it was performed on the tour - not in every concert).
  • I also think this section has some needless detail - why do we need to know what other songs she performed (or did not perform) at specific concerts? Keep the focus on this song.
  • My rule of thumb is to try to go from the general to the specific - so in Live performances I would say that the song was performed at every concert in the tour, then talk about specific performances during the tour, then other performances like the tv show.
  • If you quote a critic / author and this person is not well known, say who they are or what they are writing for - so for example identify this woman as the author of a book on Selena and others Sara M. Misemer, wrote that "Techno Cumbia" reminded her of Guillermo Gómez-Peña's suggestion that "...cultures are being superimposed",... (and the ref says there are two authors of the book - are you sure this is the one author to quote here?
  • Background and development describes two videos for this song, then talks about "the video" - which one is meant? Also the video synopsis seems overly detailed...
I'm not sure what you mean by "two music videos"? There was only one, which was released posthumously. Also, Irreplaceable's synopis is as big as this one. I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument but I will trim it :) Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Despite the many peer reviews I have done about Selena, I am not sure when she died. I read The music video for "Techno Cumbia" was filmed from August 3–5, 1995... and then a few sentences later read EMI Records created a posthumous music video in honor of Selena, including songs; "Dreaming of You", "I Could Fall in Love", "I'm Getting Used To You", "Tú Sólo Tú", "God's Child (Baila Conmigo)" and "Missing My Baby", from the album.[33] so I thought there were two videos (one made before her death and another after). My mistake, but this points out that the article is unclear. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Most of the Legacy seems like it could be in reception (Billboard book) or is of marginal connection to this song (what her borther did later)
Will move there. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have Fixed what I could and left some comments. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I finished most of the concerns. I'm gonna have to work on the composition section a bit further. I'll ask someone who is very familiar with music notes that could help me expand that section similar to Irreplaceable. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Piano music of Gabriel Fauré[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have just created this page, and I'd be grateful for your candidest comments on what to do with it. It was a devil of a slog compiling it, and it has ended up longer than I foresaw. But should it be chopped up into independent articles? I'm not attracted by the idea (the nocturnes and the barcarolles might make decent stand-alone articles but would the rest?) but I'd be glad to know what other editors think. And any other comments, of course, will be welcome, on fact, form, prose and anything else. – Tim riley (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Basically what we have here is a high-quality list, but with perhaps rather more prose than is normal in a WP list. I wouldn't recommend the WP:FL route, though; if it's not a pop discography or sports-related, it probably won't get reviewed there. I think that there is sufficient prose for this to be considered like any other article; that doesn't mean that, if you wish, you can't develop in-depth articles on, say, the nocturnes or the barcarolles. But this has a value of its own, as a neat summary of Fauré's piano oeuvre, and I found it very informative. Here are a few niggles, comments and suggestions:-

  • General comment: throughout, there is a tendency to overdo the direct quotations, even for unmemorable comments such as ""the scintillating worlds of Chopin and Saint-Saëns waltzes." Maybe use paraphrase a little more
    • Good point. I was dimly aware of this and will revisit. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe give Faure's dates?
  • "...charm is a conspicuous feature of many of his early compositions". Opinion needing a citation.
  • If we are quoting Phillipe Faure in English translation, then "reveries" does not need the diacritic.
    • The accent is there in the source, and I feel obliged to keep it. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Re No. 1: The Sally Pinkas quote is out of kilter with its introduction. The word "including" needs to go. I would also paraphrase the latter part of the quotation.
  • Re No. 6: Close repeat of "passionate"
  • Re No. 7: I'm not fond of "while Fauré was staying in the UK"; we tend not to use the term "UK" about ourselves. Why not "staying in England"?
    • Ah, well because he was actually staying in Wales, but the French (and indeed our own countrymen of 100 years ago) were wont to use Angleterre/England as synonymous with Great Britain or UK. As the piece is nicknamed the "English" I have sought to dodge the issue. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Re No. 11: Not clear if Noemi or Pierre was Faure's friend
    • Done. Rather tricky. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • it would be useful to have somewhere a precise definition of the musical term "barcarolle"
  • No. 2: Likewise, the time signatures "6/8" and "9/8" may not be widely understood and could be usefully piped to time signature.
  • No. 3: Nitpick: Four commas in te opening sentence is too many. Rather: "The third barcarolle is dedicated to Henriette Roger-Jourdain, wife of Fauré's friend, the painter Roger Jourdain. It opens..." etc
    • Good. Better split. Now done. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No. 5: What is meant by a "self-contained" section?
    • Typically the A-B-A sections of earlier works. I have redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No. 10: Maybe Mme Blum should be identified, e.g. as "wife of the future French Prime Minister"? (As I recall from A level history, Blum's terms in office were on the short and sour side, but at least he got there.) Note: I had the same thought earlier about Mme d'Indy, though of course he was never PM.
    • I'll ponder this again. Mme Lalo was Edouard Lalo's daughter in law, Mme d'Indy was (I think) Vincent d'Indy's wife, and Mme Blum, as you say, was Leon's wife. I wondered whether to follow those three points up in the text, but concluded that they verged on the peripheral. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No. 2: Phillips specifies the dedication to Mlle Sacha de Rebina
    • So he does. (You surely haven't got a copy of it?) Desirable to include the "Mlle" to make it clear that Sacha is a girl's name, you mean? Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
      • No, I just saw it in the online extract. Sachas are generally male (Distel, Guitry, Baron Cohen etc) but this was definitely a girlie. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No. 5: "describes this piece as "a piece of..."
  • Copland has already been identified in the "Background" section
    • Fixed. A legacy of my piecemeal constructional technique in this article. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Other solo piano works
  • Romances sans paroles: "prentice" is somewhat archaic. If Copland used it, it should be in quotes. Otherwise I'd update it to "apprentice"
  • Ballade in F♯ major:
    • Citation missing?
    • "Debussy was less impressed..." - Than whom?
      • Than Proust. Ought I to repeat Proust's name here, do you think? Tim riley (talk)10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
        • No, reading it again I think it's clear enough. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Mazurka in B♭ major: Maybe link mazurka in the text
  • 8 Pièces brèves, Op 84:
    • Check "insisted ... insisted"
    • (see below) is too inspecific. Where, below?
  • 9 Préludes, Op 103:
    • Too many "ands" in the last sentence of the first para
      • I did that deliberately, but can't now remember why. Adjusted. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The Koechlin quote needs closing
For two pianos
  • The first paragraph of the "Dolly Suite" section lacks citations

All in all, well-researched and impressive. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for this very thorough review. The article is decidedly improved by the resulting changes. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Tranmere Rovers L.F.C.[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this article up to GA standard. However, there aren't many reliable sources relating to the team – or women's football in general – so this may not be possible. I'd appreciate any pointers in the right direction. Cheers! U+003F? 09:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

  • I've taken a quick look at football club articles that have made it to GA. None of these relate to ladies' clubs, so I made a point of concentrating on articles about small, mainly non-league clubs. The main things that struck me were, first, that this article (c. 600 words) is very short by comparison; secondly, the standard structure for football club articles seems to be the following sections: History, Colours and crest (or badge), Stadium, Supporters and rivalries, then the tables dealing with the club's playing record, its players and honours. It seems to me that you should be looking to adopt that structure, and for opportunities to expand the text.
 Done I've rearranged the article according to the MoS at WikiProject Football. I've added those sections that I think "fillable" with the info available – Colours, and Honours. U+003F? 09:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Edit: Have now filled the colours and honours sections. U+003F? 11:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Sources
    • Are there no newspaper sources, national or local, that could be used to inject a little colour into what is presently a rather dry account mainly of results and league positions? I find it hard to accept that the club, even though its success has been modest, gets no attention at all in the local sports columns
    • Using the club's own website as the basis for the history section is a bit iffy. Are you sure that there are no alternative sources? Have you extended your research beyond what is available online?
    • Why is the publisher of refs 7 to 11 given as "The Owl"?
That's the title of the parent page. Would a different publisher name be more appropriate? U+003F? 17:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done The club's official twitter feed responding to a specific question is a pretty reliable source. But I appreciate it's not ideal, so have replaced it with a less up-to-date BBC story. U+003F? 16:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 Not done Changed my mind here and put the twitter reference back in. It's the only source I can find to say Edwards is manager this season, and I feel the club's official twitter feed responding to a specific question is a pretty reliable source. U+003F? 08:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Ref 29 lacks publisher information
 Done U+003F? 12:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Other points
    • Under the "Players" heading is a link to what is said to be a list of players, both former and current. The list has 8 names, all of whom are former players, so the link description is wrong. As the list is so short, I imagine it is limited to former players of some distinction. Would it be an idea (since this article is so short) to bring this information back into the article, in the form of a prose section?
 Done Good idea! U+003F? 21:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Current squad: Why have a "number" column if numbers are not used? What, eaxctly, is the flag symbol indicating? Its position, at first sight, is a little confusing, but I assume it relates to Scheuber?
 Done The usual squad template is not appropriate when numbers and nationalities are unknown, so I created a new, simpler, one. U+003F? 12:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Imprecise information: "During their first years, Tranmere played in a several venues". It must be possible, e.g. from press reports, to find out where at least some of these "several venues" were, and thus make the sentence more informative.

My overall impression is that this article is not ready, yet, for a GA nom. Attention to these points might help to bring it closer. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this. I'll work through your points and get back to you. U+003F? 10:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Whilst the local rags are available online, they contain very little coverage of the team. The exception is the Boro fight and trial that I've now added to the article. I think a lack of sources will stop this getting much bigger or better. U+003F? 22:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Added comment: It's a little better, and you may be right when you say that further development could be hampered by lack of sources. A few outstanding points:-

  • Are there really only 10 players in the current squad?
No there are 20 in two columns. Is it not clear? U+003F? 16:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is Sue Smith wikilinked twice in the same paragraph?
 Done U+003F? 16:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What's the point in keeping the link to the eight players listed in the category "Tranmere Rovers L.F.C. players"?

 Done Removed link. U+003F? 16:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time. U+003F? 16:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)