Wikipedia:Peer review/October 2007

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 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 copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).


Universitario de Deportes[edit]

What does this article need to be improved? I've added more content to the history section.

Thanks, MicroX 15:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 02:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've done everything asked by the automated peer review and would like some more feedback on the article. MicroX 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Duquesne University[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've significantly expanded it within the past month. It's currently rated at B-class, but I believe the actual rating could be higher. I'd also like to get a feel for where the article should go next, if it's not basically complete as it is. One possible short section I see at the moment is "Academics". Since I was the primary contributor over the past month and affected all changes and revisions on my own initiatives, I'd really appreciate some outside opinion on the quality of the article.


Alekjds talk 21:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 12:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. All of these suggestions have been addressed except two (I will need some help copyediting). Alekjds talk 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

From User:Midnightdreary Greetings! First off, great work on this article and thanks for putting so much focus on it. If you don't mind, I have some suggestions...

  • Intro: I wonder if "U.S.A." is needed here. Do similar articles carry it as well? I wouldn't italicize its former name in this 'graph either. By the way, what's "Spiritan"? A wikilink here would help. In the second 'graph, the hyphen before 81 percent of Duquesne students... is a bit awkward. Maybe a comma with the word "with"? In the next 'graph, I wonder if Duquesne University can count at all, considering it's just brick and mortar. Oh, and I always like to remind people to visit WP:LEAD.
It will seem pretty robotic, but I'll respond to each of these comments in order. There is precedent for "USA". I have unitalicized the former title. Spiritan refers to "Congregation of the Holy Spirit," mentioned earlier in the paragraph (although not completely clear, it is rather intuitive); I'm not sure if another wikilink to the article for Holy Ghost Fathers would be warranted. I've attempted to fix that "81 percent" awkwardness. As for the issue of Duquesne University being able to count... it's the institution which counts the alumni. There's no other name for the entity other than "Duquesne University," which refers to the institution rather than the buildings anyway.
  • History: You are using European style of dates here (i.e. 1 October 1878). As far as I know, Pittsburgh is not European; can this be swapped? I'm confused that the school was founded in 1878 but did not offer instruction until 1881. Oh, and don't capitalize the C in "the college." "Duquesne established itself at its current campus" might be better as "current location." The third paragraph of "Early history" is an awkward run-on sentence; consider re-writing into two sentences. You need more citations under "Recent history." I would move the Forbes Ave. expansion project as a sub-sub-heading under this part, rather than saying "See below" or whatever it says. :)
It's a personal bias of mine to use European dating (I think it's clearer). I suppose it could be swapped, but I would want to see some sort of Wikipedia policy that states that date notation should adhere to regional standards first. After all, I maintain the practice consistently throughout the article. As for the "did not offer instruction until 1881" issue, I've rechecked my primary sources, and can't find a mention of that. I'll just remove it, since it doesn't make that much sense. I think I've cleared up the confusion in "Early history", but as for the citations in "Recent", I'll need to look back to where I found that information to properly cite it. I think the entire history section could use some work. I skipped the years between 1911-1950 out of convenience, but it seems like a conspicuous absence.
  • Campus: I'd suggest moving one of the images to the left side of the page so it's not so right-heavy throughout. Your first sentence here about tripling in size should have a citation. This paragraph could also be expanded; I always recommend at least three sentences per paragraph. Why is Canevin Hall notable, and according to whom? That could potentially be labeled original research. The article also uses the term "scenic," which needs a source or it breaks NPOV. Really, this whole section needs lots of in-line citations. Also, I wonder if "Italian campus" is a preferable subheading to "Rome campus." Is that a colloquial term for it? Either way, I'd combine the two paragraphs into one.
Image moved. Campus expansion cited. I can't think of a sentence to add to that first paragraph off the bat, but I will give it some thought. I've reworded the mention of Canevin Hall so it doesn't include a value claim, and removed the qualifier "scenic" (how would I state something like that and it not be NPOV?). More citations will be forthcoming. What do you mean by "combining the two paragraphs into one"? Which two paragraphs? I think it might be a good idea to group the Capital region and Italian campuses into one header, since they don't really fit into the "Campus" header.
  • Academics: Source the enrollment figures.
  • Jumping ahead to Student Life: That image looks like it's a little crooked; if you have Photoshop or similar image editing program, consider fixing that tile. Under "Student groups," is it an active Greek life or just active Greek life? The word active, by the way, may need to be sourced or it's another NPOV and/or OR problem. I'd also italicize "The Duquesne Duke" as its a title. "Performance art" needs more sources too, especially that very first line about them being the oldest whatever it is... :) And if you introduce those three groups in a certain order, it makes sense to describe them in that order too.
I'll see what I can do about the image. I suppose you mean the Towers picture? I've reworded the Greek life thing. Duke is italicized. Performance art better cited. Order fixed.
  • Athletics: Great job keeping this concise and to the point if there is a forked article. What's here should still be sourced, though.
  • Notable alumni: Though it's a forked article, there should be some summary here to entice readers to read further. Try getting a short representation. I wonder if it's also worth repeating the number of alumni that was mentioned in the intro.
Summary created; I did repeat the number of alumni. I modeled the section off of FA University of Michigan's, which doesn't cite for every individual alumnus.
  • References: No need for that image there. I know you're probably trying to make a boring section look pretty; it's not worth it. :)
Image removed.

Overall, a great article. I'd consider trying to find more sources, though, besides those hosted or endorsed by Duquesne itself. I'm sure the local Borders has a "Local interest" section with some books on Duquesne. Without more unbiased sources, some of this info is easily challenged in a good article review. You may want to also look over the article guidelines suggested by Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. I hope you don't mind my focus on minute details here; as a former resident of the PGH area for a few years, I thought I'd lend a more thorough review than usual. Best of luck with this! --Midnightdreary 23:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your honest criticism! The main thing I feel I need to do now is complete citation, and expand the Campus and History sections. Alekjds talk 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I like what you did with the Notable alumni section. Keep up the great work! --Midnightdreary 00:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycle club[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone major expansion and improvement over the last several months, and it's time to solicit feedback from a larger audience. All comments and suggestions welcome!

Thanks, Mmoyer 02:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Dahl[edit]

A good start, plenty of refs. I get the sense that this article is overly preoccupied with hierarchy, structure, and the relationship of the motorcycle clubs with the motorcycle riders clubs. It's ok to make the distinction and talk about hierarchy, but don't go overboard.

  • I see some Point of View problems, for example in the paragraph starting "Law enforcement agencies routinely view their confiscation of colors..." Try rewriting this in a more neutral tone, so that the article makes it clear that it is a specific Motorcycle club which thinks the police department use confiscated colors as trophies. "The evidence value of such items is questionable..." same as before, questionable by who?
Fixed and added citations. Mmoyer 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "One MC successfully sued..." this statement is fine in terms of NPOV, but make sure to cite such claims.
Removed as unsupportable. Mmoyer 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Sometimes clubs are forced into "support" roles for a one-percent club..." This section seems like a POV problem, or at least makes this reviewer very uncomfortable. I think this needs to be more specific, at least citing examples and take a more neutral tone. What exactly does a "support role" mean in this context?
Citation provided. Mmoyer 02:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "A one-percent club does not always befriend a AMA club..." more trouble.
Removed as unsupportable. Mmoyer 02:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The save face wikilink seems really weird, it links to a concept of Chinese culture.
Changed. Mmoyer 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "There are a great many clubs for motorcycle riders who refer to themselves generically as motorcycle clubs. Though they are grammatically correct, these clubs are not MCs in the strictest sense of the term, and members of MCs (as defined in this article) regard these other clubs as motorcycle riding clubs." I think I know what you are trying to say, but the sentence is disconcerting. It needs to be rewritten.
Done. Mmoyer 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "(as defined in this article)" bad self reference. "This article" shouldn't make its own arbitrary definitions. Instead, say who does define them.
Done. Mmoyer 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How about an image of some guys riding their motorcycles?
I'm looking for free images of MC members, but they are hard to come by. Still trying, though. Mmoyer 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "A Motorcycle Club (MC) is an organized club of motorcycle riders who follow a series of traditional rules for participation in the club, including, but not limited to, a group of elected officers; a probationary period for new members; the wearing of a specific club patch (or patches) adorned with the term "MC"; a measure of privacy about their internal structure, bylaws, and membership; and some level of sworn allegiance to other members of the club." Try this:
A Motorcycle club (MC) is a sworn allegiance of motorcycle riders who..." and then just say what it is they do, which I assume more than just riding their motorcycles. We know that a MC rides around, but what else do they do? make trouble? do charity work? kill time? This stuff needs to be in the intro.
Addressed, but not exactly per your suggestion. Can you give it another read? I really value your input. Mmoyer 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
First sentence is good, but second sentence needs work. I am not sure how to put this, but perhaps an example will show what I mean:
Imagine we had the sentence "Soldiers in the military have to follow a series of traditional rules, including but not limited to, a group of commanding officers; basic training for new members; the wearing of a uniform; and some level of sworn allegiance to their country." A better wording would be:
"Soldiers in the military must swear allegiance to their country, obey their commanding officer, wear a uniform to denote their rank and branch of service, and undergo rigorous training to keep them physically and mentally fit." Although the second sentence is shorter, it actually has more information and is easier to read. Jeff Dahl 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Got it. Have another read and see what you think. Mmoyer 02:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Much improved. I'd be happy to take another look at the article after you've had a chance to address some of the other suggestions. Good Luck! Jeff Dahl 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 'one percenter' should be defined at the earliest possible opportunity (i.e. the intro), in a crisp, concise sentence. Try to avoid jargon, so the section by this name might need to be changed.
One-percenter is now defined in the opening. Unfortunately, the jargon is ingrained in the biker subculture so it would be clumsy not to use it. Or not, I guess. I am open to suggestion for alternative terms. Mmoyer 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Members of motorcycle clubs are often viewed in a negative light by traditional society" mention in intro, and "traditional society" might be problematic.
  • " an act of disgrace and may result in loss of membership in a club, or worse." Like what? This just begs for more information, specifics, citations.
  • "nicest club uniform, prettiest motorcycle" pick different adjectives...
  • "diamond (rhombus)" instead of using the parenthesis, just say diamond. I think people know what a diamond shape is. If you feel compelled to wikilink, use [[rhombus|diamond]] syntax.
Done. Mmoyer 14:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "99%er" avoid. In fact, I think there are too many abbreviations in this article, like AMA etc. If you only refer to a term once, (e.g. RICO), don't bother with the acronym/abbreviation. This confuses readers.

I think the coverage is pretty good, and pretty good refs. The prose needs some simplification to make it less wordy, and try to get rid of the POV problems. Make sure the lead, especially, is more concise and that it mentions all the topics covered in the article. Remember only the first word of the heading should be capitalized. Remember to avoid jargon without explanation. Jeff Dahl 04:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmoyer's response[edit]

Thank you for the very excellent comments! This article has been a great challenge for me because of the controversial and secretive nature of motorcycle clubs, and the members (and perhaps victims) of MCs unwillingness to openly discuss certain negative aspects of the culture, leading to few references for some topics. Thanks again and have a Wiki day! Mmoyer 14:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a few things I noticed as well
  • Because the Hells Angels jacket has a logo, you might run into copyright problems, compare with the jacket images from the Hell's Angels MC page.
I found a new photo. Mmoyer 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Instead of the list of notable MCs, you might convert it to a paragraph to talk about them and why they are famous. The history section could use a little more, esp since they must have quite a history.
  • I don't see any reference to Sturgis, isn't this an important MC gathering? Jeff Dahl 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Sturgis is a biker rally, true, but has no special significance to members of MCs beyond those of non-club affiliated bikers. Mmoyer 03:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


I see one big omission: not one mention of Hunter S. Thompson's Hell's Angels: The Strange and Terrible Saga of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs If for no other reason, I remember that the "1%er" comment appears in its pages, with attribution.

Another omission is (and I can hear the groans already) that it needs a Motorcycle gangs in popular culture section. One item would be Thompson's book, but a far more important one is the numerous movies about motorcycle gangs in the 1950s: The Wild One is perhaps the best known, but not only, example (which you have mentioned, good). No need to go oveboard, but motorcycle gangs are a prominent & undeniable feature in folklore. -- llywrch 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have created this section in a narrative timeline style, including Thompsons book. I'd love your opinion! Mmoyer 14:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Not bad. I made a few tweaks to the section; hopefully the link to B movies (The exploitation boom) will discourage other editors from willy-nilly adding every "biker movies" they can think of to this article. -- llywrch 21:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

B-52 Stratofortress[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's almost to the point where I can put it up for FAC, but I want to get some fresh eyes on it to spot the stuff I've missed.


Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks pretty good to me. I only saw a few minor issues here and there. The lead seems a little brief for the length of this article. The first two paragraphs are a single sentence and the third paragraph has two sentences. Could they be expanded a little to satisfy WP:LEAD? Also the sentence that starts with "Beginning in with the" in the lead seems as if a date is missing betwee the 'in' and 'with'. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Gordon[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd eventually love to see this as a featured article. Barbara Gordon is a fictional superheroine within the DC Comic Universe. Originally known as Batgirl, she is now known as Oracle- the premier information broker of DC. The article has recently been promoted to GA-Class and I would like notes on how to prepare it as a Featured Article.


Bookkeeperoftheoccult 23:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, weren't, aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. AUTO PEER REVIEW Bookkeeperoftheoccult 02:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Space opera in Scientology scripture[edit]

Looking back at Wikipedia:Peer review/Space opera in Scientology doctrine/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space opera in Scientology scripture/archive1, and especially Wikipedia:Featured article review/Space opera in Scientology scripture/archive1 -- Would appreciate any specific guidance and input, whether major or minor suggestions - to get this article back up once again to Wikipedia:Featured Article status. Thanks, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Good Article - I just took a read through the entire article. It sounds great to me. Everything is well cited and it reads clearly. I don't see any POV either intended or unintend. When I get home tonight I'll copy edit the article and also check the references more thourougly, make sure there aren't any broken links or anything that is considered less then reliable. I'll also take a look and see if I think anything maybe needs to be condensed or or combined or if any re-sectioning is necessary IMO. I think it might be hard to condense anything more though since there is a lot out there on this subject. Cheers! Elhector 20:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhrfisch (talkcontribs)
    • Thank you both for the comments. As the first reviewer said this was a "Good Article" - I put it up for WP:GA. Seeing as how it was once a Featured Article, it may just pass as GA, but we can still work on it in the interim, as there is a big backlog at WP:GAC at the moment. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
Automated peer review points being addressed

I am going to copy items from the Automated Peer Review here, and explain how they were/are being addressed in the article Space opera in Scientology scripture, here on this page. The original Automated Peer Review is maintained at: Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/October 2007#Space opera in Scientology scripture. There were (12) points of improvement brought up in the Automated Peer Review. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

  1. If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one. -- Yes check.svg Done - I moved an image from a lower subsection up to the top right corner of the article. This is a free use image rendering of the Xenu space planes, and was used in the initial blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 10, 2005. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  2. There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) -- Yes check.svg Done - Well, nothing to do here, really. As this article is moreso an analysis of a mythological story, and not a description of a person, school, city, etc., there is no need to have an infobox at the top. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  3. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 116 km, use 116 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 116 km.[?] -- Yes check.svg Done - This change was easy, only 2 units of measurement in the article, miles and km. Changed as suggested. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  4. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] -- Yes check.svg Done - You know for the life of me I looked through the article but I could not find instances of this, so I guess it must be in the citations. When I eventually go back through all the existing citations and format them with WP:CIT, this should take care of itself. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  5. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?] -- Yes check.svg Done - This was easy, there was only one instance of this: "The Theta Universe vs. Out MEST Universe." I removed the "The" in the header, as recommended. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  6. Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?] -- Yes check.svg Done - This was one of the first things I did change initially, per WP:LAYOUT. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  7. Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?] -- Yes check.svg Done - This was in regard to the long subsection, Alien civilizations. I just reformatted each of the mini-subheaders as bolded headers instead, so they still label the sections, but do not appear in the Table of Contents. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  8. There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. apparently might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] -- Yes check.svg Done - I removed three instances of the word "apparently". They served no purpose in the article, it is clear who is asserting what and where, and in each location is already backed up by citations and source material. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  9. Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” --- Yes check.svg Done - There were a lot of instances of this poor use of language present in the article's current state, so I removed them. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  10. The script has spotted the following contractions: won't, don't, DON'T, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. -- Yes check.svg Done - I checked, these were all within quoted portions, so this is okay. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  11. As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] -- Yes check.svg Done - I don't know why, but there were lots of instances of this weird refs spacing, scattered throughout the article. I removed the extra cite spaces. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  12. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC) -- X mark.svg Not done - The article's language, syntax, structure, constant use of blockquoting in weird places, etc., all do not go along with this particular last point. First things first, to go back and standardize all existing cites with WP:CIT. But the article's structure and syntax probably need a once or twice over as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power[edit]

The only "article history" that this article has, is that it was up for deletion, back in May 2007, with a resultant Keep consensus. Recently, I expanded the article from this: 10 September 2007, to this: 26 October 2007. In the process of doing so, I was able to find (27) more good sources, (2) free images (Supreme Court of the United States), and I added a chronological table to the very end.

I am interested to hear what more can be done to improve the quality of the article, and where you think I should go from here, whether it be WP:FAC, WP:GAC, or more work. Thanks for your input.

Cirt 16:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC).


I have posted a notice about this Peer Review, at relevant WikiProjects including: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism. I am also posting a notice to individuals who had previously commented at the prior Deletion discussion, who after a quick look at their contribs I don't think would know about this Peer Review from the WikiProject postings. Let me know if this was okay - as a Peer Review is not a vote, or a promotion discussion like WP:GAC, WP:FAC, or of course WP:AFD, more feedback should be okay, and this is not meant as spam, but reaching out for suggestions. Thanks. Cirt 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC).

Not even near GA

My review was requested, as I commented at the AfD. There are several major problems:

  1. the article is a WP:COATRACK -- the entire section on "contents" is devoted to the recital of a number of attacks on Scientology. Regardless of their merit, they are covered more appropriately elsewhere in WP. Some of the other material is also not actually relevant to the topic of the article, such as the award to Paulette Cooper
  2. Some of the references are not RSs, such as, and some are irrelevant to the subject of the WP article. A few might be better as external references.
  3. I am not certain about NPOV. If the lawsuits are covered, the accusation brought in them must be reported more exactly.
  4. citations are good, but it is quite possible that the number here is considerably in excess, and represents an attempt to bring a many accusations against Scientology as possible, interlocking with other articles. The opinions of, say, Seinfeld, about the article, are not really encyclopedic content. However,some of them, such as the award, do serve well to rebut what i said at the AfD that the article itself was not notable, only the controversy. DGG (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done - I went ahead and removed the citation. Cirt 01:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Thank you for responding so quickly to the Peer Review request. I get that you feel this article is not currently ready for WP:FAC, and that you feel we should instead think towards a potential WP:GAC, which is what I will focus on for the time being. As to some of the statements above like allegations of "coatrack" and claiming that the fact that Paulette Cooper was awarded the same prize for the same qualifications in the same year for also writing about Scientology is not relevant - some of these comments unfortunately do seem a bit subjective to me. However, that's okay, that's what this Peer Review is for - to suggest lots of ideas, take a few, and try to improve the article's quality status. I would really also like to hear from some individuals with varied perspectives, perhaps someone coming from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism background and experience, but we shall see. Some of the above points are specific in nature, and might be better off addressed in a more lengthy discussion on the talk page at a later point, instead of the Peer Review. However, the suggestions do stand and I do take note of them. I will also endeavour to find more sources for the Church of Scientology's specific accusations as you requested, to add to the litigation section. Thanks again, Cirt 01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes check.svg Done I utilized an opinion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to expand a bit more on the Church of Scientology's specific allegations in its initial complaint filing. However, if you find more sources for additional Church allegations in the initial complaint, or elsewhere, please don't hesitate to let me know. This was a good idea, by the way. Cirt 02:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes check.svg Done I shortened the "Contents" section a bit, removing superfluous information about the suicide, that was not directly relevant to the article itself. If you now read through the "Contents" section, it actually is useful by providing a brief background of the article, which the Church of Scientology itself later quotes in its lawsuit against TIME magazine, so it's good for the reader to first know what they are suing about, at least briefly. Cirt 09:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes check.svg Done DGG (talk · contribs) is correct, the Jerry Seinfeld reference and his comment on "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power," though interesting, is not encyclopedic, and especially not when the rest of the "Analysis" section deals with secondary sources, not celebrities. When I put it in there initially, I thought it noteworthy that he was asked and then commented on this at all, but upon reflection I agree with DGG, so I removed this portion. Cirt 09:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
Automated Peer Review
  1. There may be an applicable infobox for this article. -- Yes check.svg Done I modified the infobox from the main TIME article. I think it actually looks quite nicer than just the plain image of the cover sitting by itself. Cirt 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  2. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked. -- Yes check.svg Done Cirt 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  3. There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. -- Yes check.svg Done I did a quick check, and all instances of the word "allege" are appropriate. They are from either David Miscavige or the Church of Scientology, attributed as such, backed up by WP:RS citations, and must be phrased in this manner due to the state of the legal case as of that point in time. Cirt 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  4. The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. Yes check.svg Done There is only one use of the word "aren't", and that is from the title of an article, and it only appears as a citation in the References section itself. Cirt 17:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  5. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. -- This is always a good idea, no matter what the quality rating of an article, to go through and do copyediting and syntax adjustments for ease of reading and clarity. But I will work on this and might try to enlist the help of an experienced copyeditor. Cirt 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant[edit]

This article is a Good Article, first listed after passing WP:GAC in June 2007. It was reassessed by a different reviewer in August 2007 as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, and the reviewer decided to keep it as a Good Article. I have done some restructuring, added an introduction that summarizes the article, and added a few more citations. I want to check if there is anything else that can be done to improve the article further, before putting it up as a Featured Article Candidate. Thank you for taking a look. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Points- John Carmichael (Scientology) is a redlink; The cast recording section is a little skeleton-like, maybe add info like track durations to the track list, or hide it in a tab? See the track listings in Music of Final Fantasy VIII for what I mean. Other than that, looks great! (Disclaimer- I'm the original GA reviewer.) --PresN 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I red-linked Carmichael (wikilink corrected, above), because I thought he was notable enough, but just never got around to creating an article. I suppose I could de-link it, and just leave Carmichael as plain text, or I could go and look for sources. Something to think about before WP:FAC. I will take a look at Music of Final Fantasy VIII to see what you mean. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
Wow! That new box really does look much better! Thank you! Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I read the automated review. Thank you for doing this, even though it was automated, there are some very good points and I will strive to address them all so that this article may be a good WP:FAC candidate at some point soon. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes check.svg Done - I reorganized the bottom three sections of the article according to Wikipedia:Guide to layout, per a suggestion from the automated review. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes check.svg Done - I decided to just remove the wikilink to Carmichael after all, so there are no redlinks in the article. If the article gets created down the line, we can always wikilink it later. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes check.svg Done - I formatted the music section, per PresN (talk · contribs)'s suggestion, from a similar section at Music of Final Fantasy VIII. I will, however, probably expand that section a little bit more with more cited paragraph commentary on the piece. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes check.svg Done - From automated peer review suggestion, which cited Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, removed wikilinks from years without full dates, and added wikilink to year with a full date. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
The only automated peer review suggestion remaining is to make sure the article exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work, and to consult User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
Some more ideas

From Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) :

  • There are too many "Obie" mentions, cut it down from four to two. Yes check.svg Done - Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  • How long is the play? Yes check.svg Done - I found out that the play is an hour long, but not sure if I placed this short sentence in the right spot (at the end of "Plot.") Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  • How many acts? Yes check.svg Done - One act. And I moved this one sentence (act and hour-long), up to the lead paragraph. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  • How long were its runs at each theater (mentioned for some, not all)? Yes check.svg Done Well, virtually almost done. I added the exact dates of each production runs of the play that are described in the Performances section of the article, save for one - the original run dates for the November 2003 production. Unfortunately, so far I have been unable to find a cite for that, I hope that's okay to just say "November 2003" and "ran through that winter", because that much is cited. I also added dates for an upcoming production run in Atlanta, Georgia, at the same place as it was before. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 15:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

These are all great questions and I will endeavour to find answers and add them to the article. When I do, I will check them off here. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC).

  • I am not familiar with any FA articles on plays (I write mostly on creeks), but it would be good to find a model FA play article and compare this to that. Since Scientology is a controversial topic here (and elsewhere) you might want to make doubly sure that every potentially controversial statement is sourced and have someone check it for NPOV compliance. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with Ruhrfisch the potential for controversy is very high, make sure that all the statements are referenced from a credible source. Dincher 21:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes check.svg Done Actually, I already checked, thank you, and every single sentence is backed up to at least one, in many cases two or three sources that satisfy WP:RS nicely. However, thanks for the suggestion, I will try to find a nice WP:FA article about a Play or Musical to take some more ideas from. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC).

Porgy and Bess is a musical FA-class article to compare. Thespis (opera) is another very good article about a musical play. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

John Knox[edit]

I originally found this as a B-class article and I completely rewrote it. It is now in the GA nomination queue, but as they have a long backlog, I assume I won't get feedback very soon. So I ask for your advice now. I intend to take this to FA. --RelHistBuff 12:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I reduced the lead section to 4 paragraphs and I believe it is a summary of the article. There was only one date wikilink in the text which I removed. --RelHistBuff 09:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the GA queue, I can see that it will probably take another month(!) before this article gets examined. So I am thinking of skipping GA altogether. I would like your advice on whether instead to go ahead with an Biography A-class assessment or maybe even directly to FA candidacy. --RelHistBuff 21:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
A-class review is very slow. DrKiernan 12:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the archives, the review speeds seem to vary. But at least someone responds and I am happy just getting feedback from "humans". The worst thing is if it sits there and no one comments except for an automated script. That happened to me twice on the general peer review page. --RelHistBuff 13:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am responding to the comments on the talk page. However, I still have this page on my watch list. So if anyone in addition to Awadewit have comments, please put them here below. Thanks! --RelHistBuff 11:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Awadewit[edit]

  • Hello, fellow researcher and writer. I have only briefly glanced at John Knox so far, but the first thing I noticed was that many of your sources are a tad on the old side (the notes rely on those from the 1850s, 1950s, and 1960s). Is this because there are few to no modern biographies of Knox that are as reliable as these older ones? I checked the DNB and it seems that they use older sources as well (that entry might be useful to you, by the way). Awadewit | talk 23:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I used those biographies only because those are what I had easily available. All of them use Knox's History as the starting basis. McCrie's biography is the oldest, but MacGregor says that it is the standard. The style of writing is old, but it is very comprehensive. I also have access to one more major biography, although I have not used it yet, Peter Hume Brown (1895), which is equal to McCrie as a comprehensive standard reference. I noticed McCrie's impact by looking at all the biographies together. There are biases in all the biographies I used, which is why I tried to use as many as possible. To avoid any biases, I would like to try to place multiple footnotes for each potentially contentious point. There are two more recent biographies that I am aware of which are Douglas Wilson (2000) and W. Stanford Reid (1974). The first one also looks like it has biases; I don't know much about the second. --RelHistBuff 07:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think your idea of using multiple citations is excellent. That is what I tried to do at Joseph Priestley. I tried to include only the information that all the biographies agreed upon. Other information I identified as being the opinion of a single scholar. (Of course, all books have their points of view and limitations - that is why it is such a good idea to use multiple sources, as you have.) I will read the article over more carefully today and post my comments later. Awadewit | talk 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you might have noticed that the first two sections did have multiple citations. I got a little bit lazy as the article evolved, but I did consult all the books I have. I will start adding additional citations now. --RelHistBuff 19:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good article. You have done an excellent job of identifying sources in the prose when necessary and explaining when particular theories are only theories and not facts, a rare skill on wikipedia. I have carefully combed over the article, as you indicated that you would like to take it to FA eventually.

  • The Wishart incident needs to be more fully explained. Why was Wishart arrested? Why was Knox prepared to die with him?
  • He was still in charge of three boys, the sons of Douglas and Cockburn who wearied of moving from place to place while being pursued. - This is the first readers hear of the three boys, so the "still" is awkward. More explanation is needed, I think, if this is an important part of Knox's life. If it is not important, a rewording is in order.
  • The section entitled "Conversion to Protestantism" is not focused on Knox's conversion. Do we know more about the conversion itself? If not, I would suggest a new heading, one that reflects the material in that section.
  • The paragraph divisions in "Conversion to Protestantism" could be better - think of each paragraph as being about a single topic.
  • The beginning of the "Confinement to French galleys" section does not focus much on Knox. Is there a way to make it seem less like a general history and more like a biography at this point? (More like the "From Geneva to Frankfurt and Scotland" section)
  • On his release Knox found that he could be of little use in Scotland in its existing state. - Perhaps explain a bit why?
  • However, Knox found that England to be a very congenial place and felt sympathy for the English in their troubles. - Perhaps hint at what the troubles were?
  • He found much work that needed to be done and the English were receptive to his ideas. - A few details, perhaps?
  • In the pulpit he preached Protestant doctrines with great effect. - Explain the effect perhaps?
  • When Mary Tudor ascended the throne, England was no longer a safe place for Protestants. - This needs to be explained to readers who don't know the history.

Prose: While the article is, in general, well-written, I think that it could be improved even more by a good copy editor. Having someone else look at the sentences, someone who hasn't stared at them for hours, is generally a good idea. I did a quick copy edit of the lead; here are some additional prose issues from that section:

  • he was caught up in the ecclesiastical and political maelstrom of that period - Could you be more specific here? (I love "maelstrom", by the way.)
  • He was licenced to work in the Church of England where he quickly rose in the ranks until he became a royal chaplain serving the King of England, Edward VI. - You have put the most important thing at the end of the sentence where readers are less likely to pay attention to it.
  • After gaining the trust of English Protestants, he was able to influence the text of the Book of Common Prayer. - This sounds slightly sinister.
  • He also made an attempt to return to Scotland where he was able to meet and to support the Scottish Protestants. - It is not clear from this sentence whether he succeeded in the attempt, which makes the second half of the sentence confusing.
  • On his definitive return to Scotland - "final" perhaps?
  • He continued to serve as a religious leader during the reign of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots. - Unclear - "religious leader" of what and for whom?

Recommendations to consider:

  • Many biographies have "Legacy" sections. If, after reading your sources, you think Knox has a legacy worth a section, you might include one.
  • Infoboxes are optional; you might think about removing this one. I don't think it aids the reader in any particular way and it is a bit unaesthetic.
  • It is always difficult to know how much information to assume readers have or how much they should be expected to gather from wikilinks. My overall impression from the article, however, was that perhaps a few phrases or sentences could be added in various places early on to explain the Reformation. I say this as someone who has a familiarity with the Reformation because I fear most readers will not know its history in any detail. Doing so will add some historical context to the biography. Later in the article, however, I felt that the historical context overwhelemed the details of Knox's own life. I wondered if this was because we know little about his life.
  • You may want to cite some more claims before FAC. This is up to you. Technically, the WP:V policy states that only "controversial" claims or claims "likely to be challenged" need to be cited, but I have found that at FAC, nearly everything needs to be cited. Perusing some recently promoted FA biographies would give you a good sense of this. I once heard that a rule of thumb was a minimum of one citation per paragraph but most FA articles have more. Also, all direct quotations need inline citations directly after them (I noticed some in this article were missing citations).
  • You have used many images of buildings - what about also including images of Knox's works? I noticed that the title page from "Monstrous Regiment" is available.
  • Before nominating for FAC, I would suggest that you spend a day or two perusing the manual of style and making sure that the article conforms to it as closely as possible. That way the nomination can be a discussion of content rather than dashes or quotation marks. I noticed, for example, that the article had a lot of unlinked dates.

The nit-picky nature of these comments demonstrates the already high quality that this article has reached. I look forward to seeing it refined. I don't know how familiar you are with the FAC process, but I have run the gauntlet quite a few times now and can offer advice on that front, if you would like. Awadewit | talk 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments! This will certainly keep me busy for awhile. I think I will take this step-by-step, working on GA and A-class before moving on to FA. I will probably take up on your offer on FAC advice when I get closer to nominating the article. Again, thanks a lot for taking the time. --RelHistBuff 07:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like you have the right attitude - takin' it slow and steady. Lettin' it stew. I look forward to seeing the article at FAC in the future. Feel free to drop me a line if you want any advice. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get additional opinions before FA nomination. It seems to meet FA conditions, but I'm not sure it comprehensive enough. Also some moments can be unclear.


Shmuliko 12:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I confess that I find writing articles on cities particularly difficult because I'm always finding that they aren't comprehensive enough; they tend to be little more than the history of the place. You may want to look at articles on cities that have reached FA status for ideas. In any case, here's my comments:
  • Higher education. I can't believe a city as large as Ashdod doesn't have at least one college, either full or junior. (Do they have Community colleges in Israel?)
  • Local media. Same thing: any newspapers, magazines, radio stations or tv stations in Ashdod?
  • I found the "Ancient Ashdod" section a bit choppy; it may need more material to smooth out the narrative. Some questions about that section:
    • A "'usurper' Yamani" is mentioned, with no other details. Please explain who he is, or at least put the allusion into some contect.
    • Is there a reason for splitting out the references to Ashdod in the Bible from the rest of the history section? Say, the Bible presents one image of the town, but archeology another? If so, it would be a good thing to bring out the contrast; if not, perhaps you should consider integrating the material.
      • This split was required by GA viewer. It was said that Bible source is not reliable historical reference. Shmuliko 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
        • (Bangs head agaisnt the wall) Many historians quote the Bible as a reliable source, especially for this period. For some subjects, the Bible is not reliable; for other subjects it is. That's why we provide cites -- so the reader can decide for her/himself. I wish people would recognize that, & stop trying to submit sources to the guidelines of Reliable Sources like Procrustes submitted travellers to his infamous bed. -- llywrch 17:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • A last issue is the size of the "Ancient Ashdod" section. Like many settlements around the Mediterranean, Ashdod has many thousands of years of history, & the ancient Ashdod would be what many non-Israelis think of when they consult this article. You should consider if/when it would be feasible or a good thing to spin off this section into its own article.
Otherwise, a good start. While there are some nits of grammar or phrasing I might pick at, lots of information here. -- llywrch 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thespis (opera)[edit]

Thespis, as a lost opera, is the most minor of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas, but has still attracted a fair amount of scholarly attention. It seems to meet the FA requirements, but I think I need some other eyes before going there.

If there are any problems or missing details (well, except for the lost music - much as I'd like to, I don't think I can provide that), please say: I really do have a wealth of information available at my fingertips and can almost certainly fix them.

Also, VanTucky brought up the "In Popular Culture" section. This got added a bit after the peer review started, and I'm not sure how notable its single item is. We have an article, Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan that's meant to eventually attract all these popular culture sections. It's mentioned there, so it can probably be cut without too much harm done. But I would like to hear other opinions on whether it should be kept or not.

If no problems come up in the review, it'll probably go to FA next.


Adam Cuerden talk 15:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Couple minor things: I think it's appropriate to more clearly state the obvious notability of Gilbert and Sullivan by adding some sort of qualifier like "famed" or something. Their fame as a pair is uncontroversial, and it might jazz up the lead a bit. I don't think the however is necessary in the first sentence, as you're not refuting anything. But no big deal. Last but not least, is a popular culture section really necessary for a single entry? Couldn't that either be removed or merged with another section? Nice work so far, VanTucky Talk 20:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The popular culture section only appeared a couple hours ago. I'm half wondering if it should be cut: I don't think it's had any other notable mentions, and the one mentioned isn't all that notable either, but, well, let's see what others think.
As for the lead - I've tried to punch it up a bit. See what you think! Adam Cuerden talk 21:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks much better, good work. I would be happy with removing the pop culture section as well. VanTucky Talk 21:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the pop culture reference to this notable story by Isaac Asimov that is directly about the article's subject. I think it is exactly the kind of thing that shows that a work is interesting beyond the history of its own performance. But I don't care what heading it goes under. -- Ssilvers 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the plot summary at the beginning of the second paragraph is a non sequitor Can it be placed somewhere else? Danny 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to a brief discussion of classical mythology in Gilbert's work. Adam Cuerden talk 01:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Instant-runoff voting[edit]

This article seems to be almost ripe for a Featured Article nomination. Please let me know if there is any way in which it falls short of the criteria. We expect to be getting more images soon from FairVote, so that should help with criterion #3. Thanks, Captain Zyrain 06:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by Jeff[edit]

Ok, a tough topic because I'm sure it gets disrupted by POV pushers. I vaguely remember this article from a while ago, I see that it's changed a lot since then. It's looking fairly good, not too many neutrality issues. Here are some specifics:

  • Of course, more refs please, and check them for accuracy/neutrality. I'm sure you already know this one.
  • The lead is pretty good, but I would say you need to add a sentence regarding the history. Perhaps something like "First proposed in 1870 by American architect William Robert Ware, Instant runoff voting..." The history section should probably say why he came up with it, and maybe flesh it out with information about the history of its adoption.
  • Turn some of those lists into prose, such as the pro and con section. They should be written in sentences organized into paragraphs. Make sure to point out that it is the adoption of such a voting system that is supported or opposed.
Evaluation by criteria - this section needs to be fleshed out. Use complete sentences and paragraphs to explain the concept. Give the reader sufficient background to understand the concept without going into unnecessary detail. (OK now I'm really starting to sound like a page out of the manual of style)
  • Explain (but don't elaborate upon) jargon at the first possible opportunity. Examples include First past the post, Majoritarianism (?), Condorcet, tactical voting, exhausted ballot etc. Explain the concept once the first time it is used, and only once. There is no need to explain it again every time it occurs.
  • I would cut down/simplify on the Similar systems section. It's OK to mention comparisons to the IRV system, but that comparison should focus IRV and how it differs from other systems, and how the outcomes differ, rather than bogging us down with procedural details of systems explained in other articles. Keep the focus on IRV. Reading through Similar systems, I felt confused.
  • "What happens in practice in Australia is a simplified count is sent through to..." yikes.
  • "The common way to list candidates on a ballot paper is alphabetically or by random lot, a process whereby the order of the candidates published on the ballot paper is determined by lottery. In some cases candidates may also be grouped by party." Simplify. How about "Candidates may be listed on the ballot by party affiliation, alphabetically, or randomly." Keep it crisp and concise.
  • "However, if this election were in Vermont for governor under proposed IRV legislation there, if there is no majority winner, the election would to the Assembly, to be decided among the top three by secret ballot [citation needed], so the fact that the election was IRV would have been moot." I don't understand how this is relevant.
  • "IRV produces representation very similar to those produced by the plurality system" here is where this article could use some expansion, try to cover how this voting system has worked out for the countries that use it. Is it pretty much the same? Is it substantially different? Advocates and Opponents give us long lists of how it is better or worse, but how has the system worked out in practice? Mention in the introduction!
  • Check for duplicate material that is explained/discussed several times. I didn't get the feeling like I was reading a well-organized article. The content seemed to jump around a lot. Consider writing out an outline from scratch, and then moving the text around to fit the outline. Over time, a good outline can become eroded by lots of little edits.
  • "Some of these arguments may may be false or otherwise misleading" Oh boy, this is just what we need on wikipedia...
  • References should follow after the punctuation. Esp in the pro and con section for a place that needs work.
  • "Scholars of electoral systems often compare them using mathematically- " them?
  • I know you have probably made a good effort to keep it balanced, and not too heavy on the United States, but the list of US IRV elections in the History and current use section needs work. If you choose to use an example, from the US or anywhere else, explain why it is important. Was it the first one in that country? Were there mass protests? Did it go smoothly? Was the outcome unexpected? A dry list of details of every place it was ever used is mega-boring.

OK that should get you started. Jeff Dahl 18:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll just toss in one last piece of advice from FA director Raul654, which he appropriately calls Raul's Razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie."
    Good luck with the article. Jeff Dahl 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree that the article is anywhere near ready for Featured Article status. It was edited and maintained for a long time, and vigorously defended against change to make it more balanced, by a few sincere supporters of IRV, plus sock puppets and, in fact, the Executive Director of FairVote, see the history of the block placed on the article which is still there as of today. The anonymous and liberal use of Undo, more than violating 3RR, was from Rob Richie, and he acknowledged it. Unless, of course, someone is imitating him, which would be difficult. Lots of people have personal email from him with the same IP, that's how we identified him. But instead of heavily revamping the article, and in spite of complaints from Richie that now I would have a "free rein," I made only modest edits, pending something more important: the development of a template for election methods articles that applies evenly to all of them, so that the very structure of the article cannot so easily be manipulated to bias how readers will see it.

The comment about the arguments made by the reviewer is necessary if the arguments are to be presented at all. Here is the reason: many of these arguments are very carefully framed by activists such that they seem reasonable at first glance. If we present the arguments in a rigorously neutral and balanced way, they become quite wordy. By reporting the arguments raw, without comment, we keep it simple, and we frame it with a warning. I agree that it isn't the best way. However, it enabled us to start listing the arguments, otherwise we'd have to simply cut them all out, and I repeatedly gave that as an option. Captain Zyrain has started a stub to do that, but has gone ahead without understanding that what should be done -- as a user who objected to the stub being formed suggested, if I recall correctly -- was to discuss the Controversy. That is, I'd call the article Controversies around Instant Runoff Voting. And each claim would be examined in detail; that is, what might be, for example, a Pro argument would be immediately balanced with Con arguments that relate to it, explained. We really should be able to agree on this, *unless* some of us have an outside agenda and insist upon it. This *is* the situation we had, very clearly, and it remains, just no sock puppets as far as I can tell. When the block comes down, we'll see: one of the continuing socks, in my opinion, an SPA formed at the right time, as User:BenB4 was about to be blocked, has been using reverts on the Approval Voting article.

What are the issues remaining? Let's see: I attempted to make the reference to Robert's Rules alleged "recommendation" more accurate, it was undone and removed for the most part. I attempted to move it to the middle of the article, because having it in the introduction is precisely where an advocate of IRV would want it to be, Robert's Rules has cachet, but for the mention to not be misleading takes more words than appropriate in an introduction, so being in the middle is better, but that was blocked.

The very name "Instant Runoff Voting" was politically crafted, I believe by FairVote. It makes implications about the method that are, at the very least, controversial. Note that Robert's Rules does not mention "Instant Runoff Voting" by name. You'd never have known that when the article was purely as FairVote wanted. It's "preferential voting." Is it the *same* as "IRV"? Well, RR actually is referring to a class of methods, not just the one that it describes, and it actually expresses some reservations about the whole class, it's a compromise. It's actually *not* recommended, but it *is* possible. Then it describes one specific method. Is that IRV? Yes, it is *one* of the forms of IRV, that is, there are forms being advocated. In Vermont, the form advocated was, as near as I can tell, the *same* as the form in Robert's Rules. But that is not what was described in the article, it is different: if there is no true majority winner, it fails and the question is then resolved with further process. I try to put this in the article, and it is taken out. The article was being maintained by a cabal of editors. One of them is still active. Captain Zyrain is not one of them, but he is, from my point of view, naive about the political implications of the article and the arguments.

I'm *not* aiming for an anti-IRV article, contrary to hysterical claims from some. I'm aiming for an NPOV article, developed by a consensus of editors, on a topic which is hotly contested in the public arena. That's not an easy task, but I believe we can do it. However, my opinion is that we need to establish some principles. The whole question about how controversy is handled is tricky. The basic principles are clear: controversial statements are sourced. But sourcing isn't enough. How the arguments are presented must be balanced, and that is not so easily defined.

There are more issues, indeed, but I'm only one editor, working on many other projects. I've been attempting to attract experienced editors, familiar with election methods, to the article. User:Scott Ritchie has said he will help, though I don't know how much time he has. I've deliberately avoided recruiting opponents of IRV, but I have mentioned the existence of problems with the article on the Election Methods mailing list. I acted to make it clear that User:TBouricius was not part of the abuse, helping to get his block lifted, even though he is a FairVote consultant and co-author with Rob Richie. I believe that all points of view must be represented and the people holding them must be a part of the consensus that creates a truly great article.

One more comment: the reviewer referred to this: " 'However, if this election were in Vermont for governor under proposed IRV legislation there, if there is no majority winner, the election would to the Assembly, to be decided among the top three by secret ballot [citation needed], so the fact that the election was IRV would have been moot.' I don't understand how this is relevant."

I agree that this was incompletely explained. However, there is a critical issue here. IRV is being sold on the grounds that it allegedly guarantees a majority winner. If it is done as described in the article, it does, but through a trick. Imagine you have an election between 3 candidates. One of them gets 41% of the vote, one gets 39%, and the third gets 20%. None of them have a majority. Under Plurality the first one will win. Now, make this an IRV election where no voters choose to add second rank votes. Magic! The third candidate is eliminated and the first one still wins with a majority *of the remaining ballots.* In Vermont, no. There is no majority winner (which is what Robert's Rules would assert, clearly), and so the election, as provided in the Vermont constitution, goes to the legislature for resolution. And any of the top three can win. The devil is in the details. Is this some minor point with no effect in real elections? No. In San Francisco, a number of races have been won by candidates who had less than 40$ of the legal votes cast. Supposedly a big selling point for IRV was that it would eliminate runoffs. It did. And, at the same time, it eliminated an important element of the democratic process, which would be the ability of voters to reconsider their votes and actually make a new choice between the top two, when none enjoy a majority. Abd 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I am keen to progress it to featured article status. Thanks in advance to all those who contribute. Regards OSX (talkcontributions) 06:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blue Harvest (Family Guy)[edit]

I think this page already looks good already. I just want to see what can be done to improve the article further. The episode is pretty notable to Family Guy itself, so it would be good to improve it. Hopefully with this, I (or we at WP:FG) will be able to improve what is needed to bring the article to GA status... or ultimately, FA status. The Chronic 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I just did a quickie review of it, and I think you are a ways off from GA status. The plot section goes into way too much detail about miniscule things and one-off jokes, there are no references whatsoever for the cultural references section or the cast section, and only one for the notes section. So, sourcing and the plot section are the two biggest issues right now. You will probably have to wait for the DVD release before you can have a sufficient and well-sourced production/notes and cultural refs section. As well, the image needs a fair use rationale. -- Scorpion0422 00:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try to do my best to re-word the plot, cultural references and cast section. I'll try to find more references. As for the image, (I'm not sure, but) it looks like it has an appropriate tag. And it looks like it's sized to standards. If I'm wrong, sorry. Thanks for the insight. The Chronic 00:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It has the right tag, but it needs a fair use rationale. As well, I can't help but wonder if the plot section is really needed because once you remove the jokes, it's basically the Star Wars plot (except for a few minor details), so perhaps it isn't needed. -- Scorpion0422 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not that familiar with the image policy (I don't upload images anyways). As for the plot, I'll work on talking out un-necessary points. I'll be working on the overall article on my my sandbox. The Chronic 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed up the "Plot" section. I just wanna see what other people think of it, compare to the one on the main page. (find it in my sandbox, link above). The Chronic 05:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Klaas-Jan Huntelaar[edit]

Article is currently a good article candidate. Any feedback regarding further improvements that can be made would be much appreciated. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-15 21:30

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Corrao Q[edit]

This article is just a start and I really need as much advice as possible before it is speedily deleted. Help! Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Gregory House[edit]

Writing articles on fictional characters has been tricky. Please check to see if there are any original research, excessive information etc. I know there are in-universe perspectives in the article, but I don't know how to change them.


mirageinred 16:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

First blush:
  • Absolutely make sure there's a dividing line between when you are in-universe and when you switch to purely out-of-universe; the "relationships" section should be above what is presently the "similarities to Holmes" section.
  • The relationship section, to me, seems unnecessary. You cover some of the details already in the biography, and looking at it further, you don't really mention much about getting and retaining his position at PPTH beyond one line, this is likely where you can merge details. (Heck, I would think the entire Voller 1st season arc and the cop arc from last season warrant such inclusion (a sentence) as to why the heck House still is at PPTH).
  • I think if you did absorb the relationship stuff into the biography, your in-universe content is about right. However, you need more out-of-universe stuff. There has to be interviews with Hugh Laurie or Stone about creating and portraying the character (again, keep in mind this isn't Laurie's biography, but as I understand it, Laurie does bring a lot to how the character developed), which will help fill in the out-of-universe stuff. Also, I think fair mention of the Emmy nominations Laurie got for portraying House is warranted.
  • Make sure when you do cite other sources, you have the proper citation template.
Its definitely not going down the wrong path, just that any further in-universe would be too heavy. --Masem 16:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Is in-universe information allowed at all? Just wondering. mirageinred 18:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking , no, its not disallowed. However, in-universe details tend to either give undue weight to the fictional aspects relative to the real-world notability, or too much can be considered too much information. I think save for that relationship section which can be trimmed and moved elsewhere, you have the right amount of in-universe detail that should match what exists in real-world, secondary sources for House. --Masem 23:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I completely merged the relationships section with other sections and elaborated on casting etc although they are still shorter than the in-universe sections. What else can be done? mirageinred 23:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • First off, I feel the article requires a more thorough copy edit. There are some prose and tense problems, especially in the Character Overview section. There also appears to be a lot of trivial detail in that section. Personally, the article might benefit if you merged House's Personality section with his character overview and curbed the amount of statements comparing House to his colleagues. I feel that the flow of the article suffers precisely because of this reason. Besides, it invites out of universe and in universe conflicts. Wisdom89 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. But it still needs copy editing. Could you give a hand? mirageinred 19:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I will certainly lend a hand - an objective eye is always a good idea Wisdom89 20:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between characterization and concept and creation? mirageinred 16:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Joel Selwood[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to eventually present it for an A-Class nomination, and subsequently for possible FA status down the line.

Any comments or noteworthy improvements that can be made, please feel free to suggest.


Boomtish 03:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 12:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, all points noted and duly taken care of.

Boomtish 10:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Speers Point, New South Wales[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…Its been taken from a stubbly stub to a nicely written article, which the main contributor (Auroranorth) is trying to get upto GA class. Needs a second set of eyes. Cheers. Twenty Years 13:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Twenty Years[edit]

The article looks quite good, but i have found some minor problems:

In the infobox it says SP is located 18km WSW of Newcastle, yet in the Geography section it says its 17km West of Newcastle. Needs a source to conclude that one is correct.
In the infobox, in the location section again, i think it should be from Sydney CBD, not from Charleston, with all due respect to the 11,000 people that live there, no-one knows where the hell it is! People know where Sydney is. Might also be worth having Canberra there too.
The image in the Education section the image of the school logo, the Fair use rationale is a bit whacked, it needs to be fixed up in order to meet the requirements for this exact article, not a generic FUR that is slapped on every article.
I know this is very nit-picky, but in the image: this one the colours of the lines are somewhat misleading, i would suggest using a neutral tone for the "Others", as green seems to represent the Greens. Red is also used for the liberal bar (red is used quite prominantly in the ALP logo), Id swap the libs and labour bar colours around, so its less misleading, or making the key larger.
The short sections in the facilities sections break the flow of the article. We need to be realistic here; you are not going to write a massive section on Churches in SP, so why not just merge the 3 bits together, and have a nice big flowing section.
What happened to the rainfall/temperature table? i liked that.
Keep up the good work Auror. Twenty Years 13:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 18km WSW is correct (I'm looking at a street directory).
  • Charlestown is the nearest major urban district, just as a Perth article might use Joondalup, Fremantle or Morley for a reference point. That being said, it's not strictly necessary if Newcastle is already there.
  • Good point re ordering. Re colouring - convention on WikiProject Australian Politics (which actually derives from the ABC's election night displays - see for instance here) dictates Liberal/Coalition be blue and Labor be red - this despite both having red and blue in their logos. My suggestion would be that as there is one very consistent winner in this suburb, to have Labor first, Liberal second and others last. Agreed with need for neutral colour - eg light grey.
  • Weather doesn't relate to Speers Point (the station is if I recall 25km away) so I don't see any reason to include it. Orderinchaos 14:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


A few comments on the article:

  • The lead is a bit short and doesn't summarise the article, particularly the facilities, education and industry sections.
  • A few too many sentences starting "In <year>" make it read like a dot-point list. Eg:
In 1920, a rowing boat (later hire boat and ferry) service operated across Cockle Creek, however a footbridge was constructed in 1928
Could be ... Pedestrian crossing of Cockle Creek was by a rowing boat service from 1920. This was later replaced with a hire boat and ferry then the 1928 construction of a footbridge.
  • Could do with a map of the suburb
  • The opening dates for the schools (History section) are disconnected with the schools (Education section). It should all probably be in the Education section
  • Unwikilink the individual years (1828 -> 1828) per the style manual

- Peripitus (Talk) 07:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C.[edit]

Previous peer review can be found here

New peer review as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Liverpool task force drive to get this article to FA standard. NapHit 13:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of quick comments:

  • Remove minor staff members such as masseur, kit man, assistant scout etc. The article isn't a club directory.
  • The club culture section deteriorates in the second half. Mention of an alleged rivalry with Chelsea is pure recentism, and the reference to the film 51st State is inconsequential. Oldelpaso 15:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Taking a look at that section, you're clearly right about how it deteriorates, it's probably the weakest section of the article as it stands. I will try and do something about it. However I'm not so sure about the reference to the film 51st State being inconsequential - Liverpool and Anfield are central to the plot of the film, so I would have thought it was worth a mention? Robotforaday 17:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
My point of view is that while Liverpool may be of importance to the film, the film is not of importance to the football club. Kind like how Liverpool are central to the biography of Rob Jones, but the converse is not true ;) Oldelpaso 12:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You may well be right, it's not a major point for me - but I would like to see what the consensus is on this before doing anything like removing it myself. More broadly, I've deleted some of the recentism and tagged some of the assertions in the club culture section as needing referencing. Robotforaday 20:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross-dressing, sexuality, and gender identity of Joan of Arc[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

The main article, Joan of Arc, is already quite large. An issue that has led to a lot of contention on the Joan of Arc talk page and isn't even mentioned at all in the article is the issues related to Joan's crossdressing: specifically, its implications for her sexuality and gender identity. This issue, long debated in academic circles, has gained increasing public attention after such works as "Transgender Warriors: Making History from Joan of Arc to Rupaul" by Leslie Feinberg and "Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People" by Joan Roughgarden. As per discussion, there seemed to be enough agreement on WP:Notability that it was suggested that this new article be created (in my talk page for now; I'm trying to tread lightly) so that people could comment. Unfortunately, I have not received any comments from the main Joan of Arc editors, despite a post announcing its existence. So, before I make this a normal, public article, I'd like to get it peer-reviewed. Since this is a hot-button issue, I want to stay to the highest standards of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V.

On the talk page of the proposed article, I've listed a number of things that I think might be issues with it and am seeking ideas for (including the title, which I think is a bit awkward).


Rei 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about the subject and so really can't comment on that side but in general I would say this article reads very much like an essay and not like an encyclopedia article. Reading the main Joan of Arc article I don't particularly notice a yawning gap where major information on dressing as a man is missing.
To make the article better though I would try to do the following:
  • summarise and shorten everything
  • move the 'Historical context' section off to an article called Cross Dressing in The Middle Ages or something similar (maybe it already exists) and summarise it in a paragraph
  • you start a lot of sentences with 'Person X writes "a quote from person X"' and then don't finish off with much discussion. It is much better to write a statement based on the quotation from X (and preferably someone else too) with a reference to the quote/book etc.
  • the intro section needs some work, what is the prevailing view of what her sexuality, and gender identity were? if there isn't a prevailing view then has there been in the past? just saying that it is debated isn't very helpful, the intro should sum up the whole article. JMiall 12:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I know this could use a lot of work, so any input I can get is much appreciated.
As for the "prevailing" view, there is no single prevailing view. There are the Catholic and French nationalist traditionalists who tend to see her clothing as being irrelevant to her gender identity and sexuality, and then there are people who believe that it has implications bearing on her sexuality, her gender identity, or both. Even historically, there was no single view, with the English often crediting it to loose morals or witchcraft, and the French as purely out of necessity.
Actually this last paragraph would make a decent addition to the intro, it is a quick summary of the opinions of various sets of people, exactly what the article needs! JMiall 09:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I had already been thinking of moving the historical context section into a new article and summarizing here, so I'll go ahead and do that this weekend.
My main concerns with "summarizing and shortening" (and the reason I wrote it like this to begin with) are exposing myself to charges of WP:OR. The reason it credits everything to various academics, with little to no summarizing, is that I worry that if I don't do it that way, some of the traditionalists (of which there are some on the main Joan of Arc article) will almost certainly step in and claim WP:OR on anything that they oppose that isn't clearly sourced. In fact, this is the main reason why this is its own article; getting anything "summarized" in the (crowded) main article invariably ends up being labeled as OR because it's not credited to a single source. The results of talk page discussion on the main article were to create a new article so there would be room for discussion of historical context, prevailing views, and the like. Do you think I shouldn't worry about that as much?
Again, thank you very much for the feedback! -- Rei 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The title is really quite awful. It reads like the name of an essay, not the title of an encyclopaedic article. I suggest a rename. Adam Cuerden talk 15:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

George Kay[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see if it's possible to bring an article about a relatively unknown figure from before the present era up to G.A. standard.


Daemonic Kangaroo 17:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Yes check.svg Done Daemonic Kangaroo 12:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Daemonic Kangaroo 07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Daemonic Kangaroo 07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
Yes check.svg Done Daemonic Kangaroo 07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Various comments in no particular order:

  • A lot of paragraphs are very short, consisting of one or two sentences.
  • Division Two, not Division 2.
  • Parentheses are overused, something I'm often guilty of myself.
  • On occasion, the section about management drifts into writing about the club instead of Kay, going several lines without mentioning Kay or his actions.
  • Was the Southampton junior team definitely known as the "nursery" team, not the modern term "youth team"? It might help to give a quick clarifier as to what the nursery team is when it is first introduced.
  • Presumably this is related to the source material available, but some parts of his career are covered in far more depth than others. In particular, more might be expected about his West Ham career given that he made more than 200 appearances.
  • If there is little material about his time at Luton Town, merge it with the section below instead of having a two sentence subsection.
  • Saints managed a miserly total of only 46 goals - given that they will have wanted to score goals, "miserly" isn't appropriate here.
  • It seems odd to have a table for his West Ham appearances but nothing similar for his other clubs.
  • By now, Kay was clearly not a well man - how so? If it was clear then it should be possible to give some more explanation.
  • The lead is a little thin.
  • he retired from active playing - is there such a thing as inactive playing?
  • Saints equalled the record of 15 home victories - club record, league record or national record?
  • Using "Saints" to refer to Southampton might confuse a reader unaware that Southampton are nicknamed "the Saints".

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 12:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Windows Mobile[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know what the article needs as a whole. What sort of things need to be added? Removed? Is everything appropriate for a featured article status? Thanks, Brianreading 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done Brianreading 18:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've completed this checklist of automated peer review suggestions. Any non-automated suggestions? Brianreading 18:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by Jeff[edit]

After taking a brief look through this article, there are some good parts, but I have to say it has some issues. Although it doesn't look like an advertising piece (because it is written in a neutral tone) it feels like just a list of features.

  • I can see a lot of work went into this article, so the research part of the work is done. It just needs some rewriting to make it flow more smoothly.
  • The article needs to be cut back drastically, especially in the 'versions' section. No one wants to read a long list of things like "Customer feedback option" and "Improved internet sharing." Turn these things into prose, where the important details/changes/features are talked about and why they are important. Some of the features mentioned in the versions section are too detailed and should be trimmed back. Many readers don't want to read through a tedious march of sentences like "When a program or message box is open the blank space after the clock is filled with an OK or close icon"
  • The article needs to mention criticism of the software, which includes both positive and negative criticism. (I'm sure there must be something). Did people find it too expensive? complicated? Did they like it because it has a certain feature? how about system security?
  • The lead needs to better summarize the article, meaning it should include a (very short!) summary of everything in the article.
  • check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style and especially Wikipedia:The perfect article for some good writing tips. Jeff Dahl 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


The article needs to be reviewed for POV compliance as well as ways to build a more balanced and encyclopedic article. Primarily, the intro and history sections need to be reviewed. Thanks, Strothra 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this page from the sidelines, off and on, for a long time & agree that the history section needs to be pruned back into a compact narrative. Some of the other sections likewise need to be pruned, and worked back into shape; the religion section is one example. I've held off on this because it would require a huge investment of time and effort, & at the moment I'm unable to make a solid commitment to this -- although I'm willing to contribute where I can.
As for "NPOV" issues, especially in the lead, I'm not sure I see them. Yes there are some, but I consider them minor & due more to less-experienced editors attepting to add everything they think is important than to intentional POV-pushing. (Believe me, I am familiar with the potential topics & am a little surprised that I haven't seen more of that.) -- llywrch 17:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Clarkson Gibbs[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want advice on how to make this article better, and ultimately to make the article into a featured article. The subject matter is very pertinent, particularly for the field of Reconstruction scholarship. As many people as possible should see this article and others like it.


Ladb2000 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Ladb2000 Ladb2000 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


After working on and off on this page for over a year, I'm not sure where it can go, or what more to include. There just doesn't seem to be any more relevant, citable information available on the internet and in English. Some if it was written in my early days as a Wikipedian, so it may not be proper style everywhere. All thoughts and suggestions are welcomed!--Patrick Ѻ 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by Jeff[edit]

Great article, a smooth read and thorough. After PR complete and the changes made, I suggest it's ready to be a featured article candidate. Now for my thoughts:

  • Try to provide an IPA pronunciation for Alanya
  • Suggest putting some refs in the lead. This doesn't mean you have to find new refs, just use them in the lead.
  • "holidaymakers" usually called tourists
  • "responsible for 9% of all tourism in Turkey..." It took me about 4 read throughs to realize that this meant 9% in the entire country. Try something like "...responsible for 9% of Turkey's tourism sector." or at least emphasize that it refers to the whole country.
  • The 15th century map is fantastic. I recommend adding to the caption, perhaps saying something about how the map depicts the main fortress, the mountains, or whatever. Try to write the captions so they add some interesting information, for suggestions see Wikipedia:Captions
  • "the castle rock was likely inhabited long before that under the Hittites and the Persian Empire" long before that... instead of "that" try a less vague phrasing.
  • The history section makes heavy use of the passive voice: "Alanya was partitioned...the city was designated..." It's ok to use the passive voice sometimes, but here I think it is used too much.
  • The history section is pretty thorough, but this is a section that is kind of hard to follow. Not sure what to suggest here, maybe I can reread it a few more times.
  • The names section, is this something that could be wrapped into another section, it seems to short but already covers the subject well. This is true for a number of sections, where the coverage is thorough but the section itself is really just looks short.
  • "the town is between the Taurus Mountains..." how about: "The town is situated between the Taurus..."
  • "isolated example of Eastern Mediterranean conifer-sclerophyllous-broadleaf forests..." This is a bit too technical, how about "isolated example of an Eastern Mediterranean conifer-shrub-broadleaf forest."
  • "The town is divided by a rocky peninsula which is perhaps the most distinctive feature of the city." How about "The town is divided by a rocky peninsula which is a distinctive feature of the city. "
  • "Regardless, the area was indeed under some Egyptian hegemony in the early centuries BC" This bit really belongs in the history section, and might be totally reworded if you decide to keep.
  • "Atatürk Bulvarı (Boulevard), runs parallel to the sea, and divides the southern, much more touristic side of Alanya from the northern, more native side, that extends north into the mountains. Çevre Yolu Caddesi circles the main town to the north." This passage should be integrated better. Maybe start off with a general statement about the roads, then say "A major boulevard, the Atatürk Bulvarı, runs parallel...." and then "The street Çevre Yolu Caddesi circles..." its just that when I read it, I can't figure out what a "Çevre Yolu Caddesi" is automatically.
  • "Though promoting itself as "where the sun smiles," Alanya has a relatively moderate continental Mediterranean climate." This starts off weird. If it said: "Though promoting itself as "where the sun smiles," Siberia has a bitterly cold, arctic climate" That would make sense. But why does having a moderate continental mediterranean climate disqualify Alanya as a place where the sun smiles?
  • "Though promoting itself as "where the sun smiles," probably should be "itself as a land "where the sun smiles"
  • "The presence of the Taurus Mountain in close proximity to the sea causes fog many mornings, in turn creating visible rainbows many days." many days, many mornings
  • "Seljuk era Tersane" flesh out caption
  • "The 33 meter high brick building" probably should supply both metric and US units.
  • "There remains however a limited number of secondary schools outside of the city center, disadvantaging the rural villages." reword to something like "Rural villages are disadvantaged by having fewer secondary schools." instead of "disadvantaging"
  • "Just as the province is divided up into districts, the Alanya District is divided up into 17 municipalities..." how about "The Alanya District is divided up into 17 municipalities..."
  • "Though Alanya has been part of Antalya Province since the Ottoman Empire, an Alanya Province has been a goal of many local politicians." the phrase "an Alanya Province" is problematic, how about "many local politicians have advocated that Alanya be made its own province" or something like that.
  • "The tourist industry here is worth..." the tourist industry "here"?
  • "baking the worlds longest cake on 2006-04-26" change date to a standard format.
  • After reading through the whole thing, I think you probably do need to add more to the lead to make it better summarize the article. In the lead, remember to not go into excessive detail, and make sure to summarize the main points, it doesn't have to be too detailed, just thorough.

Okay, that's basically it for now. A few more sources would be needed to promote to FA, but it is a fine article! Jeff Dahl 03:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania[edit]

This is a complete list of all current 52 municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, and has two shorter lists of all known former townships, and the eighteen other Pennsylvania counties formed from or containing territory from Lycoming County. The lists are believed complete, but we are still checking on a few points. Our thought is that enough information is present to allow peer review. We would especially like input on the inclusion of the census-designated place in the first table (as it is not incorporated or a municipality). We plan to add a large clickable county map at the end of the list.

We also would appreciate input on the pictures. Since the table is already 100% of the possible width, there is not room for pictures in it. We have instead used galleries to show thumbnail images of 12 sights in the county in three groups of four throughout the list, plus one panorama. The pictures and list follow the model of the Featured List "List of Pennsylvania state parks".

We hope to nominate this as a Featured List after Peer Review. Thanks in advance for all input, Dincher and Ruhrfisch 01:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, the lead has been expanded, the last sections reordered, and others are looking for typos / copyediting. We address the gallery issue here, and do not know of an infobox. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Great list and surely FL material. However, I have some remarks about the lead. I think it would be better if you replace the description of the list and its content with more information about what makes the difference between a city, borough and township and why some municipalities are of this type according to Pennsylvania law. CG 19:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a bit about the differences. Dincher 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks too, I did a further tweak - hopefully it is even clearer now Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro[edit]

Requesting a new peer review now that Rio de Janeiro has been promoted to WP:GA and looking to bring it up to WP:FA status as soon as we can. Any criticism or praise is very welcome and we, the editors of the Rio de Janeiro article, already have some ideas about what to start doing which are at the bottom of Talk:Rio de Janeiro but we need more ideas, ideally in list form. Thank you very much for your time and we hope to hear from someone soon. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Before submitting to FAC consider the following points:
    • There are a lot of lists, where prose is encouraged
    • There is a large gallery, where that is usually shifted to the Commons
    • Famous Cariocas has no references, and it should explain what the relationship between the city and person is (ie. born there, raised there, lived 10, 20...50 years)
    • The Miscellaneous section looks like trivia. If it is important then integrate it into the article, if its trivial then remove it.
    • Watch out for editorializing, like "beach hosts one of the world's most spectacular New Year's Eve parties" and "The Carnival brings a lot of people, good food..."
    • The article could also address demographics, government and what services they provide, or items on infrastructure like fire departments, hospitals, drinking water, sewers, etc. --maclean 20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by

  • Condense the article. It is definitely too long, if there is enough referenced material you could branch into other articles.
  • Cite references for the factual information that is chosen to remain. For an article that is 48 kilobytes long, one would expect more references.
  • Remove the gallery, a small box referring to an image category on commons will suffice.
  • Photographs should not contains sentences, but sentences should refer to summarily named images.
  • Famous Cariocas has to go. Make a separate article if the material has references to back it up.
  • History section: sum it up and possibly fork the content to the history article.
  • Remove broken/red wikilinks
  • When the overhaul is complete, apply the WP:LEAD guideline and write a good introduction.
  • Strategic advice: remove all 90 day stale conversations from the discussion page to revitalize discussion. (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Return of Saturn[edit]

Hoping to improve the article to GA status. There's currently lots of information in the Background and Composition sections, but the Critical reception and Chart performance section seem rather short. Five reviews from major publications seems enough to "address" the topic, but I'm mostly concerned with the information on chart performance. At the moment, it's all about North America since I've only found information about that and select, often minor, other countries. Does anyone know where I could get more information about it or how I might be able to expand the section? 17Drew 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Statements such as "The music of Return of Saturn further explores the No Doubt's New Wave influences, while adding an alternative rock feel and maintaining some of the band's ska and reggae sounds." and "No Doubt experiments with several new styles on the album. "Ex-Girlfriend", which originally featured a Prince-style funk sound, was rewritten and includes rapped vocals over piano and flamenco guitar parts" require citations. This is true whenever you discuss experimentation, style and sound with respect to music. Also, per WP:LEAD, I don't feel it adequately summarizes the article. Wisdom89 07:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    The first sentence is covered by the references in that paragraph, and the second one is cited to reference 12 (since consecutive sentences being sourced to the same reference use a citation at the end of them and not one at the end of each individual sentence). The lead won't be a problem to expand at all, but I was hoping for some help with the Chart performance section before summarizing it in the lead. 17Drew 07:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean in terms of how to expand it? If such is the case, you are not limited to how well it performed on the billboard 200, there are mainstream rock and internet media based charts as well for singles. You could dig around for that information. I'm not sure it would need much summarizing in the lead anyway. A single statement regarding its high/low position on different charts would suffice. Wisdom89 18:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
! That's a great idea. I can't find any other Internet sources since the album is seven years old, but I can definitely add information about the singles, like how only one single charted on the Billboard Hot 100. 17Drew 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleomenean War[edit]

I would just like some suggestions on how to improve this article and help advance it. All suggestions are appreciated. Thanks. Kyriakos 13:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A few comments... Your intro uses the term "ambitious," which seems to break NPOV - if it's worth using in the intro, cite it, otherwise just remove it. Throughout, you also have several very short paragraphs. I'd recommend making sure each 'graph is at least 3 sentences; that seems to be a good guideline. It's probably worth giving the whole thing a good, thorough copy edit... Some instances are simple (Starting with a conjunction: But when the efforts from inside the city failed, Aratus retreated, hoping to remain unnoticed.) but some will be a little harder to catch. There are some weak passive voice sentences, some overly long sentences cluttered with excessive clauses (LOTS of these) and, probably what's worse, prose that is more narrative than encyclopedic. That kind of writing potentially violates NPOV policy (consider, for example, The Achaean League was crushed by this battle. Why use "crush"?).

I'm being a bit vague, so let me give you a specific suggestion too. Under "Battle of Sellasia", I'm a little distracted by the table. Why have one here but none under any of the other battle sections? Should this just be turned into prose? There's also this line towards the end: He ordered that the reforms of Cleomenes be revoked, restored the ephors and did not force them to become a member of his new League which it however did. Not sure what's going on in that sentence. Then there's the last line: Thus died the man who nearly conquered all of the Peloponnese and is described by William Smith as "the last truly great man of Sparta, and, excepting perhaps Philopoemen, of all Greece." Not sure that's good encyclopedia writing. Further, a line like that probably does not belong in an article on a battle, but on the article on the man it's referring to. By the way, it might just be my computer, but the headlines for "Citations" and "Sources" aren't coming out bold for me. My guess is you have some Wiki-coding somewhere, probably under "Notes," messing it up. Anyway, the editors working on this one have done some strong work here, so keep it up! --Midnightdreary 03:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wisden Trophy[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Wisden Trophy/archive2

Just got this page to GA and want to put this through another peer review before I nominate this to FAC Monsta666 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, still needs caps for "first Test" and so forth. I should read it more cerfeully soon. And don't compare it to The Ashes simply because it is an FA. The Ashes is in terrible shape and isn't even a B class really. It became FA in the old old days. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


I want to get this to Good Article. What needs doing? Not much more to say. --Teggles 04:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Everything needs to be expanded except Taxonomy and Conservation. Description needs a compare and contrast of Weka with other rails. Possibly rename to "Morphology". Distribution maps are needed. Do away with the gallery, it only has two pictures.--BirgitteSB 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with all above but prefer Description' to Morphology as other bird FAs follow that layout - taxonomy has gone before description in others. Just call taxonomy and have suheading subspecies. Have a look at Common Raven. I can help with some refs later. Can add description of juveniles, vocalisation can go in description; are tehy territorial, sedentary, what other research. How are they related to other rails? it isn't too far off GA really. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - Is Weka in its native form a plural ? There seems to be some inconsistency in the usage of "Weka are..", "The Weka ... is..." etc. Shyamal 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Weka" appears to be in common usage as a plural. "Weka are" is used 91 times on government websites, while "Wekas are" is used 9 times. Usage of both a plural ("Weka are") and a singular term ("The Weka is") doesn't seem to conflict, featured article Common Raven uses both ("Common Ravens are", "The Common Raven is"). --Teggles 11:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Peer review/Neptune/archive1

Wikipedia:Peer review/Neptune/archive2

This planet is one of the few who is still not at FA-status. I believe that with a few small updates it could reach it. Please help with some feedback.Nergaal 19:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please address my objections from the previous FAC failure. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking at the FA's of other planets, I don't think this article has enough prose, and it definitely has too many images compared to the amount of prose. --HansHermans 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure the amount of prose is indicative of any kind of short coming. Comprehensiveness is what ultimately counts. Wisdom89 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a cursory glance of the article reveals some potential problems - Citation necessary tags are present. Moreover, there are whole sections without citations: Case in point, when comparing Neptune to Uranus. Those sort of things need to be fixed before FAC can be considered. Wisdom89 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Digital divide[edit]

This article is in a very sad shape for something so important. Any suggestions on what can be improved highly appreciated!


 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have generated some auto-peer review comments, but more in depth human review is much needed!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The article should mention something about the "closing" of the digital divide (at least by certain measures) in the United States, and perhaps other developed countries. As the term was first used in the 1990s by the Clinton Administration, it referred to statistics for computer and internet access among minority groups in the country, which was quite low at the time. Because of declining costs etc., there is much less of a numerical disparity today, though there is still a divide in the spread of technical knowledge.--Pharos 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

University of California, Riverside[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... After 2 recent WP:GA reviews and extensive further editing, I think it's ready to go for WP:FAC. I would most appreciate any comments or constructive criticism.


Ameriquedialectics 00:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Berkley Bedell[edit]

Over the past few days, I have worked on expanding this article from a stub to a real article. At this point, I think it is well-referenced and somewhat thorough. I must admit that I am proud of it, but I must also admit that there is room for a lot of improvement. That is why I am posting here - I want input from more experienced editors on how to improve this article. My goal is to bring this article to GA status (and maybe eventually FA.) Thank you to anyone willing to help. Minute Lake 03:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, the third suggestion is, I think, the result of an error. I think it is considering the dates in references. The first two I really wish I could fix, but there are no free-use images of him available (the only chance is if one of his images falls under fair use.) Thanks. Minute Lake 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Toyohara Kunichika

York City F.C. seasons[edit]

I have been doing some finishing touches to this article of the course of this day, and am doing this peer review to see what else can be done for it to go to WP:FLC. Thanks, Mattythewhite 14:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 02:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi, good stuff, some comments...

  • " the 1958–59, after..." - missing "season".
  • While not essential, I'd consider trying to create (even stubbish) articles for the top scorers without articles. Most if not all would naturally qualify for notability simply for appearing in a first-class match or two!
    • Doing... Will get them made. Mattythewhite
      • Yes check.svg Done Articles created. Now I'm knackered. Mattythewhite 11:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure I look the left-align of the FA Cup & League Cup positions, keep it "center" in my opinion.
    • Yes check.svg Done Alignment changed to centre. Mattythewhite 18:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there any point in the Other competitions column with it (currently) being empty? Any success in FA Tropy/DFS Trophy etc you could add here instead?
    • Doing... Would it only be competitions which the team have won in this column? I'm considering placing FA Trophy placings in here, considering there's no League Cup anymore. Mattythewhite 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, for ITFC, that column had placings in UEFA Cup, Champions League etc, Birmingham City put the Anglo-Italian cup placings there, so I think for the level YCFC play, it would be appropriate to highlight, say, QF and beyond in FA Trophy and any other lower league cup wins? Just a thought. The Rambling Man 06:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I've added all FA Trohpy placings (all three seasons of it..). It'll fill in that column and seems fair, since thats sort of the replacement for the League Cup. Mattythewhite 09:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's about it for now, nothing major as you can see. FLC not far away. The Rambling Man 17:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)[edit]

The only thing I can see is a grammatical error in this sentence: "The club was formed in 1922, and later that year they were elected to...." - the subject of the sentence remains "the club", but the verb has jumped from singular to plural. Changing it to "The club was formed in 1922, and later that year it was elected to...." would sound terrible, so maybe change to "The club was formed in 1922, and elected later that year to...." Other than that, it's excellent ChrisTheDude 07:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks. Rewritten to how you suggested. Mattythewhite 10:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Struway2 (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • Might rewrite "Their only play-off victory came in the 1992–93 season, when they beat Crewe Alexandra on penalties, which won the club promotion to the Second Division." as something like "... when they beat Crewe Alexandra on penalties to win promotion to the Second Division." Also wikilink play-off.
    • Yes check.svg Done Rephrased to your suggestion. Mattythewhite 14:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Top scorer column note - might rephrase as Figures include league goals only. (I know it's obvious what it means, but if you don't leave anything petty for the FLC reviewer to pick on, it's less work later)
  • As you've already got the names of the league divisions spelt out in the key, probably best if they weren't wikilinked for every season in the list (this has come up at previous FLCs).
    • Yes check.svg Done Removed most wikilinks. Kept them for the first time the division appears. Mattythewhite 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, i would include York's Associate Members cup/Football League Trophy record in the Other column. Agreed it's not as prestigious as the FA/League cups, but your list is supposed to be a record of York's seasons and the AMC/FLT is a compulsory part of the season for level 3/4 clubs (unlike my Anglo-Italian cup which so exercises our Ipswich-supporting friend ;-)). The information is readily available on York's FCHD page.
    Cheeky...! The Rambling Man 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done I've added AMC/FLC to the "Other competitions" column, but there seems to be one problem. The club participated in the FLC/FA Trophy in the 2004-05 season. They can both be added easily, but what if York had won or was runner-up in one of these? The box would be changed to gold/silver, but this doesn't match how far they got in both competitions.. Mattythewhite 14:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      My initial reply would be have a look at Manchester United F.C. seasons season 1999-2000 - so long as they won something the whole box goes gold. Aston Villa F.C. seasons likewise. Presumably the argument is that the colour highlights a season in which the club won something, rather than the actual competition won. (I don't have enough technical knowhow to do separate background colours for parts of a table cell, though it ought to be possible - try Help:Table or its talk page.) Struway2 | Talk 15:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      That's a relief. Thanks for clearing it up. Mattythewhite 15:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In general, before you put it to FLC you might have a look at the FLCs of previous seasons lists to see if there's anything reviewers have picked out that might be relevant to your list.

hope some of this helps, Struway2 | Talk 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anaerobic digestion[edit]

previous PR

Yotsuba Koiwai[edit]

I've done as much as I know how to improve the article (well, aside from finishing tracking down the unverified fact) and would like any guidance as to what else to do -- especially in the absence of guidelines for character articles at WP:MOS-MANGA. If possible, I'd like to take this to GAC. —Quasirandom 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is currently very short ~700 words. Consider adding more information. Some ideas may include information about the character's Production, the Character's role in the fictional work, etc. G.A.S 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The importance of some of the facts are unknown to me: "She is an excellent swimmer, but not as good an artist as she thinks she is." Why is this mentioned? Does it play an important role in the story? (Be careful not to G.A.S 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Both of those are key in specific chapters. I'd left them in as examples of unexpected competance and incompetance, respectively (and, well, because they tickle my whimsy -- it's as easy, in these things, to get to dry as too overloaded with trivia). Though, be careful not to what? —Quasirandom 03:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops—I seemed to have over typed there—Be careful not to make something seem more important than it is... G.A.S 06:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please explain the importance of those facts in the article (I.e. just provide information about why you gave the example—is it something a reviewer noted?/Major plot item?) Please provide the chapters—it helps to keep an out of universe view; and provides information that it is not necessarily important in the series, as much as in a chapter. G.A.S 06:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The article does not explain why the character does what she does (both in the fiction, as well as why did the writer decide the character does what she (the character) does. If possible, this should be expanded. G.A.S 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding reception: Add, if possible, more details about the character's reception in general. I would prefer the article not mentioning the reviewers' names in the text (Unless the names could be linked to an article about the reviewer—if the reviewer is notable enough). This information can rather be provided in the citation. G.A.S 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The article seems not to appropriately distinguish between fact and fiction; and often it seems to speak about the character as if the character is real. An example of this is "Few details of her life before the series begins are known" which could be fixed as "The series does not provide details of the character's life before the start of the series" (My wording is obviously not perfect, but illustrates the issue.) G.A.S 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The article seems to include original research: For instance "She seems to have no..." G.A.S 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. All good points to consider/work on. —Quasirandom 03:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Architecture of Birmingham[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded this article and improved it significantly. I want to help develop into a Good Article and then a Featured Article, however, I want to know want I (and other users) need to do first to get it to these standards. I think it maybe close to reaching Good Article status but I really do need the opinion of other users.


Erebus555 15:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
4u1e's comments
  • Very short lead. See WP:LEAD for details, but the lead should give a brief summary of the whole article. For an article of this size I'd say it should be 1 - 2 paragraphs (I know, but paragraphs of a decent size - i.e. at least 3-4 sentences!), but really it's driven by what is needed to summarise the article.
  • There's something in the Manual of Style about not wikilinking bolded words, I think.
  • The article launches into St Martin's parish church rather abruptly. I'd expect to see some kind of introduction to the overall topic (i.e. like the second para of the lead, but expanded a little further), and also for the 11th-17th century section to have a one-liner introducing the period.
  • Looks to be well referenced. You need to provide more detail for the web references, including when the web page was retrieved. Similarly page numbers are needed for the hardcopy references. See WP:CITE for more on this. See New York City, History of Saffron and Brabham BT19 for some examples of more detailed refs. You might find it useful to use reference templates to organise the information, but you are not obliged to.4u1e 22:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing on the geography of the city - is this relevant to the architecture in any way?
  • "In 1704, William Wilson is believed to have made his mark in Hall Green when the Job Marston Chapel (now the Church of the Ascension), which is believed to have been designed by him, was completed". Repetition of 'believed' - can this be avoided?
  • I'm not convinced by the reference to the two towers from The Lord of the Rings. The source, from Birmingham city council's website says only 'the pair are said to have suggested the title of the second volume of The Lord of the Rings; The Two Towers', with no indication of who says that. There are two problems here: The first is that that article goes well beyond what the reference says by claiming that the real towers were the inspiration for the towers in the book. The second problem is that even the website's lesser claim sounds dubious, being rather vague and possibly inspired simply by the desire to find landmarks in the city that can be connected to the currently profitable Tolkien industry. If possible, find a better reference, see if WP:M-E can help - there may be something in JRR Tolkien's Letters. If a better ref cannot be found, the claim needs to be toned down to something like: 'Birmingham city council claim that these two towers were the inspiration for the title of the second book of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings'.
Having looked through the index of JRR Tolkien's Letters, the name 'The Two Towers' was only coined long after the book was finished, to provide a title for the second volume of the book, as the publishers had decided to publish it in three parts. It was one of several considered for the second volume and played no role in its creation. It seems Tolkien himself was ambiguous about which two towers it referred to. It was most likely Orthanc and either the tower of Cirith Ungol, as Tolkien claimed in several letters, or Minas Morgul, as suggested by other decisions he made. Barad Dur and Minas Tirith are other possibilities. In the books none of these towers are close to each other, as the Birmingham city council suggestion would seem to require. There is no reference to Perrot's folly in the letters. 4u1e 17:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 'The need to house the many industrial workers who flocked to the city from other areas during the Industrial Revolution led to the construction of many streets and terraces of back-to-back houses, some of which were later to become inner-city slums.' That's a good example of putting the architecture in context, but some parts of the article are missing this context, suggest trying to add it throughout.
  • 'which was completed by his son Frederick Martin after his sudden death in 1883' Whose sudden death, Chamberlain's or Martin's ;-). No real chance of confusion, but could be re-arranged to be less ambiguous. By the way, how did they come to have different surnames? Was Martin a son-in-law?
  • 'The street has retained many of its fine Victorian buildings, providing - above modern ground-floor façades - an insight into how the city once looked. Although, many of the buildings, which had leases of 99 years, were demolished in the postwar period.' Would this be clearer as: ' Many of the buildings, which had leases of 99 years, were demolished in the postwar period. However, the street has retained many of its fine Victorian buildings above modern ground-floor façades, providing an insight into how the city once looked.'

Hope that's helpful. Overall it looks fairly complete and well referenced, but could do with more work on 'telling the story' of Birmingham's architecture, i.e. going beyond listing what is there. Cheers. 4u1e 11:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


I have greatly expanded this article and would like further assessment of its quality and value. --Clhowson 22:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by Doug.[edit]

This is a great start class article. It really needs some references though. I only found a couple of inline references and neither of them showed up in the references section at the bottom. Lots of external links, maybe some would be appropriate for inline references. I have concerns when there is a long article with only one reference listed in the references section. If it were well referenced this could easily be a B-class article.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from DrKiernan[edit]

  • You say "is considered" in the lead. Considered by whom? Please specify.
  • You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system or <ref> notes system detailed at Help:Footnotes. DrKiernan 13:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 12:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Clhowson[edit]

  • Thank you all for your suggestions. I have followed them to the best of my ability.

--Clhowson 17:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinua Achebe[edit]

Mr. Achebe is probably the most important African writer of the 20th century. I have spent the past month taking this article from Start-class to what I hope is near FA-status. For biographical info I have relied heavily on one book, a biography written by Ezenwa-Ohaeto – this is because there is very little info about his life itself. Nearly all of the numerous books called Chinua Achebe are devoted to analysis of his novels. Thanks in advance to those who are able to review the article and offer comments. – Scartol · Talk 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Excellent work and well-worthy of being an FA, at least from my initial review. In addition to JayHenry's insights, which I warmly agree with, two points seem to need further clarification: the last sentence of first Themes paragraph ("Achebe's depiction of Igbo life is an affirmation of the portrayal laid out by the abolitionist Olaudah Equiano in his Narrative.") and the context for the Albert Schweitzer criticism. Good luck with the FAC nomination, and don't forget your promise, ;) Willow 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for your support, WillowW. I appreciate it! (And I never forget a promise. That's why I rarely promise anything, heh.) – Scartol · Talk 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Qp10qp[edit]

I'm delighted someone has taken this article in hand. Achebe is brilliant writer, in my opinion, and I've never read another African, including Soyinka and Fugard, who expressed African dilemmas so vividly and universally. The article is professionally written, give or take a stubby paragraph or two, and I'm sure could make FA tomorrow. May cowrie shells rain on colleague Scartol for delivering such a balanced and readable treatment.

However, praise alone roasts no yams, so here goes with the comments.

  • Some way needs to be found, I suspect, of reducing the lead to four paragraphs, the maximum tolerated at FA. Not that I really care about this myself.
  • Done and done. I moved the Conrad bit up to the second paragraph and shortened that wording. – Scartol · Talk 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Nailed.qp10qp 22:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • combines straightforward narration with folk stories, proverbs, and oratory. I wonder if this reqires clarifying, because Achebe is not oratorical himself; but allows his characters to be.
  • Also done. – Scartol · Talk 19:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Smart.qp10qp 22:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The Achebe family had five other surviving children, named in a fusion of traditional words relating to their new religion: Frank Okwuofu ("New word"), John Chukwuemeka Ifeanyichukwu ("God has performed well", "Nothing is beyond God"), Zinobia Uzoma ("The good path", from an old proverb), Augustine Nduka ("Life is more important [than wealth]"), and Grace Nwanneka. I found this extremely difficult to follow, since the connections are not consistently set out. I am not sure it is worth the effort of trying to anatomise all this in an article about Chinua.
  • Yes, I agree. Removed. – Scartol · Talk 19:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It takes a potential stumbling stone away.qp10qp 22:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • belonged to a group of exceedingly studious pupils who caused the headmaster to ban the reading of textbooks from five to six o'clock in the afternoon. A headmaster who bans the reading of textbooks for an hour a day? I didn't quite understand this. Was it to force them to play sports? Wouldn't they have had compulsory sports anyway? What about other books besides textbooks?
  • It was less about forcing them to do sports and more about getting them not to study so hard. (Kind of like in Japan, where the government sometimes has to force people to take vacations.) Other books were allowed – thus the next sentence "Forced to explore the volumes in the school's library…". I'll try to make this more clear. – Scartol · Talk 19:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Me being dense.qp10qp 22:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • the school was built on what the residents called "bad bush" – similar to the "evil forest" Achebe later described in "Things Fall Apart". I think this needs some explanation. It is significant in showing that the school (what were the "Merchants of Light"?) was built by Christians and represents a challenge to the tribal superstitions. This might be an opportunity to mention, perhaps in a footnote, the story of the twins in Things Fall Apart, one of Achebe's most brilliant encapsulations of Christian ascendancy in the Igbo villages.
  • I've taken a whack at this. Let me know if it still needs more clarity. – Scartol · Talk 19:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that's classy. Not everyone likes substantive footnotes, though, I admit.qp10qp 22:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In connection with that, I think more could be made of the significance of Achebe's parents' Christianity. The Christians had access to the English language and imperial patronage and therefore over a generation or two became the civil service class, which trampled over the village hierarchies; Achebe's immersion in the culture of the English-language novel and its literary tradition stems from that, I believe. Were this addressed, more dots might join up in the article, showing that his path from Igbo village boy to Man Booker prize winner follows an explicable narrative.
  • I think you're right, but I haven't seen (in the seven or so books I've read) anything that advances this theory itself. I certainly don't want to add anything WP:OR, and I think I put in as much about his parents' religion as I justifiably can. Any thoughts on where/how to expand it? – Scartol · Talk 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's an example, I think (p 80). The information is woven into a basic piece of introductory biography.--qp10qp 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Currently the most populous conurbation in Nigeria (in Africa second only to Cairo), in the 1950s the city teemed with life imported from the rural villages. The connection seems forced here; if there is going to be a statement about the size of Lagos, I would have expected its comparative size at the time to be mentioned. If this is not known, I don't think crow-barring its present size in works here.
  • Agreed. Removed. – Scartol · Talk 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
OK.--qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • According to Alan Hill, employed by the publisher at the time.... What as? One gets the impression from later mentions of him that he was a general editor, submissions editor, or publicist. It perhaps needs to be made clear.
  • It annoyed me to no end to find that this was never explained. I was hoping no one would notice, heh. I honestly have no idea what to classify him as; at one point the book refers to him as "a publishing innovator". But this doesn't make anything clearer, and I'm afraid I'm stuck on how to clarify his role. – Scartol · Talk 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hopping around on Google, it seems he was the educational editor when Achebe first sent the book in, but he was later promoted to run the whole of Heinemann, and so it would be different to clarify his position at any one time. I found four different descriptions of his role.qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • He met the poet Sheikh Shaaban Robert, who complained of the difficulty he'd faced in trying to publish his Swahili-language work; at one point he'd had to write a letter of protest to a South African university to get compensation for a book of his poems it had published. I'm not sure I quite grasp this. That the university didn't pay him after publishing a book of his poems doesn't follow from the point that he couldn't get his Swahili-language work published.
  • Agreed. Revised. Vici. – Scartol · Talk 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Much better. I would lose the contraction, though, I think.--qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The bit about not meeting Baldwin seems a little unnecessary to me, particularly as there's so much about Baldwin later on. I sense here and in one or two other spots that we are getting Achebe's own version somewhat, or the official biography version of his student Ezenwa-Ohaeto. Achebe obviously thought it was significant that he was looking forward to meeting Baldiwn and reading up for the big moment, but does this actually amount to much?
  • Agreed. Fixed. – Scartol · Talk 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
OK.--qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The following sounds to me a bit like Achebe spinning a good anecdote, honed upon interviews and speeches: one elderly professor approached him, said: "How dare you!", and stormed away. Another suggested that Achebe had "no sense of humour", but several days later Achebe was approached by a third professor, who told him "I now realize that I had never really read Heart of Darkness although I have taught it for years."
  • Perhaps, but it's a pretty widely-known quote, so I think it belongs. Obviously we don't have anyone else's perspective, which would be good but impossible to find. I try to use anecdotes sparingly, but in this case I think it works. – Scartol · Talk 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I expect my doubts come from the historian in me.qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I was equally narrow eyed about this: During their panel discussion, however, an anonymous voice came through the hotel's PA system, interrupting Baldwin and saying: "I am coming up there Mr. Baldwin.… We can't stand all this kind of going on." Baldwin paused, and his cheerful expression vanished. He replied, "Mr. Baldwin is nevertheless going to finish his opening statement … if you assassinate me in the next two minutes, it no longer matters what you think. The doctrine of white supremacy on which the white world is based has had its hour.… Someone has polished that up, I sense; and it's not really about Achebe. I'd prefer such moments to be summarised rather than told as narrative, but I wouldn't blame you if you balked at the idea killing such novelistic moments.
  • Yes, I agree that this can go. Removed. – Scartol · Talk 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I feel bad now.--qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do we know who Weep Not Child was by?
  • Yes. Added. – Scartol · Talk 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Ngugi.qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Why were Achebe and his wife safe in Port Harcourt and Ogidi?
  • Explained. – Scartol · Talk 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand now.--qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I actually think this one is okay as a wikilink. If you insist, I'll add more, but I prefer to leave it as is. – Scartol · Talk 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
OK.--qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Same with the People's Redemption Party? I tend to think this sort of thing should be explained rather than rely on the link for the explanation. I had to look the page up to find out what the orientation of this party was.
  • This one I did change. I agree that parties should have a brief definition. – Scartol · Talk 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It helps, I think.--qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • He spent most of the 1980s delivering speeches, attending conferences, winning awards, and collecting honorary degrees. I see what is meant, but I don't quite believe this. I mean, winning awards in itself doesn't take any time at all. Had he given up writing? If so, I think that might be worth addressing.
  • He hadn't given up on writing; most of his time was working on essays and the sixth novel. Updated. – Scartol · Talk 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Much better.qp10qp 23:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do we know how the paralysis affected his life? The article accidentally gives the impression that it had no effect at all, which one guesses cannot be so.
  • No, but neither does the bio really go into it at all. (There's one sentence about how Bard provided him with a specially-outfitted house and vehicle.) I tried to find something along this line, and came up empty. Maybe he sees it as an example of things falling apart? – Scartol · Talk 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a dig.qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The character of Obi in "No Longer at Ease" succumbs to colonial-era corruption in the city, a metaphor for his peoples' alienation from the functioning of society. With all respect to your source, that doesn't come over to me as a metaphor. The book is a wonderful, funny novel, as I recall, but it struck me as all too realistic rather than metaphorical, certainly in outline.
  • Yeah, I felt like this was sort of forced. I found a different way to say it with a different reference. – Scartol · Talk 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The point is emerging; those two sentences are still not quite there, in my opinion.qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • By altering syntax, usage, and idiom, he transforms the language into a distinctly African style. If a source says this, I suppose it must pass; but really I didn't notice much of this in the novels, which, with a few stylistic assimilations of local forms, are pretty much written in the language and literary tradition of E. M . Forster, in my opinion.
  • Given that the source is a very comprehensive article going into a ridiculous level of detail analyzing the forms mentioned, I think it's good enough to remain. I think part of what makes TFA so powerful for me is the subtlety of its difference. I notice it, but it doesn't stand out much. – Scartol · Talk 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'm no literary critic. qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This makes Achebe's books easy for English-speaking culture at large to understand and adopt but might give grounds for criticising Achebe; and perhaps there could be a little more criticism of him in the article. For example, there is a point of view that the absorbtion of local proverbs and folk tales into English is a victory for the imperial or global language at the expense of the local.
  • Perhaps. Alas, the books I've read have been almost entirely positive (even sycophantic in places, I might be willing to admit). I didn't go out seeking such a thing; my thought is that, given his central importance as a grandfather to the modern literature of an entire continent, it's much harder to find critical criticism (?). If you or anyone else can offer me some, I'll be happy to take a look and add where appropriate. – Scartol · Talk 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't specifically looked, but I came across certain criticisms while I was hopping about on Google Books looking up Alan Hill. For example, some feminist criticism here.qp10qp 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, congratulations on a fascinating article. I've enjoyed reading it and thinking about it. --qp10qp 23:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind praise and attentively detailed review. – Scartol · Talk 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit[edit]

Kudos to Scartol for countering systemic bias! I, too, think this article is excellent. Here are my nit-picks.

Large-ish issue:

  • As a literary scholar myself, it does kind of bother me to see a great deal of the lit crit citations in the "Style" and "Themes" sections coming out of what appear to be biographies, especially since I see in the "Further reading" what look like some books of criticism. Any way to use these more detailed books? Biographies usually only offer a limited perspective of an author's work and they are usually pretty praiseworthy. I found this to be the case, for example, with Wollstonecraft. The lit crit was far more willing to criticize than the biographies. Awadewit | talk 08:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't know that the article is guilty of this. Although some of the books of criticism I used are named simply Chinua Achebe or some variation thereon, they are actually analytical works. I feel that I used a fairly broad variety of authors for the Style and Themes sections; I specifically veered away from the Ezenwa-Ohaeto bio for these areas. While the critical books are not very critical, I've done the best job I could in presenting the varied perspectives they offer. – Scartol · Talk 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok - I'll alert my colleagues that we need to publish more. :) Awadewit | talk 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Medium-sized content issues:

  • Perhaps more of a distinction could be made between Achebe's reception in Africa and Achebe's reception in the West? I sense it might be a bit different?
  • Boy, I'm going to sound like a whiner here. The sense I've gotten is that, if anything (and I've tried to show this, especially with the reactions to TFA, his first novel), the reactions in the West have been more positive than in Nigeria. Either way, his works have (as best as I can tell) gotten overwhelmingly positive receptions which highlight their worth in challenging colonialist literary hegemony and chronicling the postcolonial experience. Again, I worked hard to present the differences where I could find them, but from what I can tell they're not as severe as one might suspect. – Scartol · Talk 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It was the hints already in the article that made me think there might be more to it, but if there isn't, there isn't. Awadewit | talk 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I felt that most of the literary discussion revolved around Things Fall Apart. Any way to offer a few more examples from the other works in the "Style" and "Themes" sections?
  • Yes, agreed. I'll work on this. – Scartol · Talk 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I spent over an hour working on this, and I think it's as good as I can make it. I was only able to change one instance, leaving Things Fall Apart as the dominant novel referenced, for several reasons:
  1. It's the novel which has been written about most, by a country mile. I've read two books of criticism on it alone, and most of the in-depth essays dealing with, for example, language address it. The essay on oratory, for example, deals with TFA and Arrow almost exactly as that paragraph in the article – focusing mostly on the former and then a bit also on the latter.
  2. Many of the themes and styles which appear in his other novels are very characteristically exemplified in TFA. (Gender roles, for example.)
  3. I've taught it for a number of years, and I feel I have a very solid understanding of it. Thus I feel most comfortable drawing from it. Combined with the other two points above, I feel its prominence in these sections isn't so bad. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Some high school there. Some day I'll tell you about mine. Awadewit | talk 00:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Small-sized content issues:

  • I found the first section of the biography - on religion and naming - a little startling. I was confused as to why we were starting with that, as the lead had not hinted that Christianity was a large theme in his writings or an important part of his life.
  • Given the way his novels (especially Things Fall Apart, his most well known by far) dissect the intersection of tradition and Christian colonialism, it seemed pertinent. I added a phrase in the lead to better prep the reader. – Scartol · Talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe something a bit more explicit? Awadewit | talk 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. – Scartol · Talk 17:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • When a professor named Geoffrey Parrinder arrived at the university to teach comparative religion, Achebe abandoned his study of geography and began to explore the fields of Christian history and African traditional religions. - I thought he was studying English, history, and theology?
  • Indeed. I misread the passage. Fixed. – Scartol · Talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A visit to Nigeria by Queen Elizabeth II in 1956 brought issues of colonialism and politics to the surface, and was a significant moment for Achebe. - Perhaps a little more on why it was significant?
  • Yeah, I thought maybe I should include such a thing, but the book itself doesn't go into it in depth, so I felt like speculation would be OR. Maybe I should just explain who she was and something about the colonial relationship in general? – Scartol · Talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think so. If there's nothing, there's nothing. Awadewit | talk 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If we have to cite "100 greatest novels" lists, must we name Time's? Certainly there must be something a little more prestigious?
  • That whole bit was a holdover from the previous version of the article. I tried to find other lists (the original paragraph listed five or six), but I couldn't find sources. – Scartol · Talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My preference would be to remove the whole thing, but it's up to you. Awadewit | talk 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no deep love for them, so I just got rid of 'em. I think the other specifics about its fame speak for themselves. – Scartol · Talk 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What about mentioning the inspiration for the title of Things Fall Apart as a way to describe its themes?
  • Good idea. Added. – Scartol · Talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I assume your sources mention why this poem was chosen - just so readers know. Awadewit | talk 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • They actually don't. I can't find any evidence that he's addressed it directly, but I have found some speculation. After cogitating on it a bit, I feel like a discussion on the meaning would probably fit best on the TFA page itself. (Going into it a little seems cursory, and going into it in the depth it deserves feels out of place here.) – Scartol · Talk 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the prevailing view that Achebe's view of Heart of Darkness is still controversial? I was certainly taught that the book was racist, even in my (ahem) less than stellar high school.
  • Oh yes, still controversial. I think the strength of Mr. Achebe's language (calling the author a racist, eg) means that some folks will never accept his comments. – Scartol · Talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, prevailing among whom? There are certainly some English departments in which Achebe's views are probably not considered controversial anymore. Joyce Carol Oates has pointed out that Conrad is a deeply sexist man as well, because the female characters in Heart of Darkness don't have names and therefore... But it's part of the bigger (never ending?) debate of whether or not historical context matters. Was Conrad (or, to take another example from the same debate, Shakespeare: with Caliban's "vile race", the whole of Merchant of Venice, etc.) a racist? Or was the society in which they lived racist? To what extent should Conrad be considered a racist for using a metaphor that wouldn't be politically correct in the late 20th century, even though he was an obvious progressive and anti-imperialist in his time? I can't state to what extent this is still considered controversial within English departments; as a broader societal thing it remains controversial, I think Scartol's treatment here is fair. --JayHenry 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I actually think that this is one of the weakest parts of the article. It is presented as shocking and appalling professors, not the entire world. The point is, if you were to research Conrad criticism, you would not find Achebe as a lone voice in the wilderness anymore. The fact that he is included in the Norton speaks volumes - only accepted criticism is included there, not ideas that are outside the mainstream. It is really the emphasis that concerns me - Achebe's talk revolutionized Conrad criticism, but somehow it is still presented as being an unheard voice. Awadewit | talk 22:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This essay, for example, describes Achebe's talk/essay as the dividing line in Conrad criticism - there are two epochs. That is different than Achebe being an outside voice.
  • This chapter describes Achebe as a minority, but again not as a lone voice (this is a companion book, so it is supposed to be an introductory survey).
  • This introduction to the Broadview edition (a good series) is also helpful.
  • Yes, but my intention was to portray the effect his lecture had at the time. (I remember some similar discussion come up in some other article I was peer-reviewing not long ago, heh.) Do you think I ought to explain how his criticism has become ingrained into the mainstream view of Conrad since? Because that discussion seems like it might fit better on the page for the essay itself, and/or might open up a door for more extensive commentary on postcolonial criticism in general. – Scartol · Talk 22:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see that now. I would add a sentence or two about how it has become part of Conrad criticism (the epoch quote is nice). To me the section seemed unfinished because I just assumed that it was implying that nothing further had happened on that front. Awadewit | talk 22:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, will do. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Awadewit raises a good point about the essay's inclusion in Norton. If we can do it in just a few words, it might be worth mentioning the significance of Norton, as this is probably not widely known among non-English majors. On the other hand, if it's just going to drag it into a debate of how canonical is Norton, maybe it's best not to? --JayHenry 23:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find a way to explain the relevance of Norton here. I just added the epoch quote and revised the first sentence to explain the context. I think the quote from Kimbrough does a good job of indicating how important the inclusion is. – Scartol · Talk 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Prose issues:

  • Please include a date for Things Fall Apart in the second sentence of lead (the first time it is mentioned), as well as every other book mentioned in the article - not everyone knows when Pilgrim's Progress was first published...alas.
  • Good point. The worry I have is that the article mentions the prose version of Midsummer and an Igbo version of Progress. Readers might assume the date is for those derivative versions, don't you think? Regardless, I've added them. – Scartol · Talk 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ideally, it would like this (1595; x), (1678; y), right? Awadewit | talk 22:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you mean I should give the date of the original, and then that of the prose version? Because I don't think I can find dates for the latter. I just included dates for the original. – Scartol · Talk 02:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hard to get those sometimes. Awadewit | talk 06:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I am confused why sometimes you use Achebe's last name and sometimes his first name.
  • In most cases – for example the sentence: his older brother Augustine even gave up money for a trip home from his job as a civil servant so Chinua could continue his studies. – it's because I refer to another family member in a nearby sentence. – Scartol · Talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not always the case and would Achebe really be so confusing there? This is a minor point. I just like the consistency. Awadewit | talk 22:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed a sprinkling of informal contractions throughout the article. Could you spell those all out?
  • I fixed all those I could find (about 5). If you see others, let me know. – Scartol · Talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Chinua was born Albert Chinualumogu Achebe in the Igbo village of Nneobi, on 16 November 1930.[6] The crossroads of culture at which their parents stood made a significant impact on the children, especially Chinualumogu. - The "their" may technically be correct, but as its referent comes later, I was initially confused.
  • The crossroads of culture at which their parents stood made a significant impact on the children, especially Chinualumogu. After the birth of their youngest daughter, the family moved to Isaiah Achebe's ancestral village of Ogidi, in what is now the Nigerian state of Anambra. - The "their's" are just all over the place in this paragraph! :) Same problem here.
  • I'm happy with the antecedent-first construction (obviously, I keep using it even though you keep telling me not to), but I'll change it to eliminate potential confusion. – Scartol · Talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In 1936 Achebe entered St. Philips' Central School, a T-shaped building surrounded by mango trees. - perhaps some irrelevant details here?
  • Yeah, I got carried away with the description in the book. Removed. – Scartol · Talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This trained him to differentiate between the written and spoken word, a skill that illuminated the author's task of writing realistic dialogue - Something about this sounds condescending - as he if couldn't tell the difference between the two before. I know what you are getting at, but I think the tone isn't quite right.
  • Agreed. I'll take another stab at it. – Scartol · Talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Lemme know if you think it still needs work. – Scartol · Talk 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps something like "master the subtle nuances between..."? Awadewit | talk 17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I personally don't think the differences are usually subtle, but I like your phrasing (nuance is such a good word), so I've used it. – Scartol · Talk 17:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, I don't think that the differences are subtle either. What I meant was something more along the lines of representation. Somehow your version still sounded like he didn't know the difference. Awadewit | talk 17:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A huge conurbation, the city teemed with life imported from the rural villages. - Do we really want to suggest that people are imported like goods?
  • Good point. Changed. – Scartol · Talk 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Achebe was promoted at the NBS and put in charge of the eastern region of Nigeria - the news about the eastern region?
  • The eastern region of the network, bringing news of the eastern region. Revised. – Scartol · Talk 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Having shown his acumen for portraying traditional Igbo culture, Achebe demonstrated in his sophomore work an ability to depict modern Nigerian life. - I think "sophomore" is not the best word here; initially I thought you meant "sophomoric" with its negative connotations.
  • Agreed. Changed. – Scartol · Talk 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Achebe and the Okike committee later established another cultural magazine, Uwa Ndi Igbo, to document and preserve the wisdom and knowledge of the community. - I'm not sure I understand what this means.
  • Took another crack at it. – Scartol · Talk 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The Nobel Committee has been often criticized for overlooking important writers, such as Jorge Luis Borges, W. H. Auden, Vladimir Nabokov and Leo Tolstoy. - The last sentence seems a bit off since it has little to do with Achebe and more to do with Nobel politics.
  • Yeah, WillowW added this one, and I thought it was odd, too. I guess she wanted to give a little context? I'll ask her how she'd feel if we removed it. – Scartol · Talk 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was conscious of the stilted prose when I wrote it, but nothing better occurred to me just then.  :( I felt that some kind of context-setting sentence was necessary to balance the conjecture of some scholars that Achebe was being actively denied the Nobel Prize; without an alternative explanation, the reader might assume that was true by default. It's certainly possible — didn't Borges say that the Swedish national pasttime was to deny him the Nobel Prize? ;) — but I think we should be careful to allow the reader to consider other explanations. But it's no biggie, and if you'd prefer a different sentence or to get rid of the sentence altogether, that's perfectly fine with me. I'm still rather swamped so I'm just glancing in; it's lucky that I looked in so soon after you sent your message! :) Willow 03:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not the information I have a problem with so much as its placement as the last sentence. I think that the article should end with a sentence about Achebe. Awadewit | talk 05:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean. I've moved them around to end with the quote from him. – Scartol · Talk 17:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But the quote is about someone else (sorry to be so picky!). Awadewit | talk 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it's not. I just worded it confusingly. I've clarified. – Scartol · Talk 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


  • Not all of the quotations have inline citations right after them. For the sake of utter transparency, they should.
  • Agreed. It's on my todo list. – Scartol · Talk 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


  • You know I'm not a fan of infoboxes. If you must keep it, please consider removing the subjective information such as "occupation", "genre" and "literary movement". To describe a writer this way is so limiting.
  • Yeah, I'll trim it. (Someone else put it in, so I'd feel weird removing it entirely; besides, I think they're useful.) – Scartol · Talk 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Done and done. – Scartol · Talk 16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is Chike and the River listed under novels in the "List of works" when the article describes it as a children's book?
    I hopped on and fixed this one. Chike should have been with children's books. Also, "Dead Men's Path" and "Marriage is a Private Affair" were short stories that Achebe wrote as a student, not children's books (they're included in Girls At War as well). --JayHenry 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I dislike split reference lists - it is difficult for those wanting to do research and since the lists are primarily for those people, why not combine them?
    Do you mean just that you'd like the further reading section to be right next to the bibliography section? I think for ease of use it's valuable to separate the references that are used in this article from those that are not. But, if the issue is just moving "external links" down, that's an easy adjustment. --JayHenry 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I mean that all of the sources (whether used for the article or not) should be listed together in one bibliography. I don't think a separate list is all that useful. The notes show users what sources were used for the article and the entire bibliography can help those looking for further reading. It's quite disconcerting to a researcher to jump back and forth between the two lists and very unhelpful, in my opinion, and since it is primarily people looking for further sources who are going to be using those lists, I think we should cater to them. Awadewit | talk 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I can see your point, but my own experience has been the opposite – when searching for the source cited in a footnote, I hate having to wade through books which aren't mentioned in the article at all. What do you think, Jay? – Scartol · Talk 22:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That is why man invented the alphabet. :) Awadewit | talk 22:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it pretty trivial either way really. I don't think it's a significant amount of work to find a book in the footnotes from 36 sources instead of 18. I don't think it's a significant amount of work for the researcher to have the information in two lists. It's a total coin toss for me. I only asked for clarification above because I wasn't sure exactly what Awadewit wanted. --JayHenry 23:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As it is a personal preference, I will say no more after this. To my eyes, though, the split list looks less professional than the single list and we might as well use every tool at our disposal to bolster wikipedia's reputation, even if it is only layout. Awadewit | talk 23:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That's fine. I don't really feel very strongly one way or another, so I'll change it. (Now that I think of it, it does seem silly for me to get nervous when someone adds an item in the Bibliography when it should be in the Further Reading section.) You win again, Awadewit! – Scartol · Talk 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I prefer to think of it as a friendly discussion. :) Awadewit | talk 05:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A bit long. Perhaps, like me, you should aim for 8,000 words? (I counted a little over 9,000.)
  • I asked Qp about this – he indicated it wasn't an issue, and while I agree that it is long, I also feel that he's such an important figure that he deserves a little extra. (Obviously Priestley is too, so I'm aware that I'm hypocritical here. But let the record show that I never recommended shrinking that article.) – Scartol · Talk 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I would just be prepared to defend the length at FAC. (I suppose living African writers involved in revolutions are more interesting to people than dusty old theologians who stumbled across an air that they didn't really understand.) Awadewit | talk 05:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, what about a phonetic pronunciation for his name?
  • Not a bad idea, but I'm completely baffled by IPA. Any idea where I could go to find a simple version of the rules for transcribing such a thing? – Scartol · Talk 17:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely none. :( Awadewit | talk 17:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed they do. Thanks, A. (Is that obnoxious scrolling thing going to be there for the whole fundraiser? I already donated!) – Scartol · Talk 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It just makes me feel guilty. I have to keep reciting to myself: "really, my time is a donation". English graduate students are not paid very well, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
* Really, Awadewit, Wikipedia should be paying you. Anyways, you can turn the thing off by adding div#siteNotice {display:none} to Special:Mypage/monobook.css like I did here. Remember to bypass your browser's cache afterwards. --JayHenry 00:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks indeed, JH! – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting and very well-written - kept me interested and lengthened by wish list. :) Awadewit | talk 08:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed review. You rock. – Scartol · Talk 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Aw, shucks. :) Awadewit | talk 06:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've sanded down all the edges that need urgent attention. I think it's ready for a FAC! Thanks again to everyone for your diligent help! – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll look out for the candidacy. i think we should try to get this put on the main page on November 16. I mean, I know we'll be shouted down because African writers are always appearing on the main page, but I think we should try anyway. :) Awadewit | talk 00:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


previous PR

I welcome any comments regarding things that could be done to the article to improve it. It's a featured article, and has been since 2005, but I'd like for it to keep its featured status rather than go through a FAR in the near future. ~ Sebi [talk] 03:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 12:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles Philippe Leblond[edit]

I've been working on this article for a while since my grandfather's -CP Leblond- death and would welcome any input and thoughts. How should this article be rated? Thanks. Aeternalis 18:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Automated review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, which some editors find useful and others do not. Be aware that not all comments may apply.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 07:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Pilot (One Tree Hill)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to expand the article to achieve Feature Article class. I believe the plot is fine. I think Behind the scenes and Reception sections need to be expanded, but I am uncertain as to how. And, with regards to the Music section (which is a fundamental part of the television series) how could the information be interpreted differently, as it is currently in a list, which is a bit odd..

Hpfan9374 09:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Fellow Wikipedian.

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Great! Thanks. Hpfan9374 21:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter in translation[edit]

I'm thinking of nominating the "List of translations by language" section of this article for featured list. Does the fact that the complete article contains more than just the list itself make it a better or worse candidate for featured list? Should the list be broken off into a separate article?


woggly 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure as to the article/list question, but you need to spend some time turning external links into references (with the <ref> tag) and using citation templates on them. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Ugh. Thanks though. --woggly 08:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Ok, I am effectively closing this because it is largely inactive, but further comments are still appreciated. I will take the comments of Andplus and put them to work in the article some time in future, but I do not have a huge amount of time on my hands at the moment, since school has restarted. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

While FA Featured article might still be a bit of a "Pie in the Sky", so to speak, for this article, I think this has the potential, and I was wanting to know where possible improvements might be made: where the wording might be a bit questionable, which parts leave you hungry for new information, and how the article could generally be improved. Any amount of help with the article would also be infinitely appreciated.


-- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The article definitely has featured potential, and with your recent expansion I think that it might come sooner rather than later. I'll have a thorough read through later with more comments, but I'll just make a few comments now:

  • You've done really well with the image captions (e.g. the one with Claudius, Agrippina, the Nero painting) but with the Galba coin and the Nero figure, the captions could be better.
  • Some dates are formatted with the included "AD" (e.g. 68 AD) and some are not; either style is fine, but whatever you choose it must be consistent throughout the whole article.
  • Is List of poisonings really relevant to the article's subject enough to have its own spot in See also? I can understand Food poisoning and Assassination, but List of poisonings doesn't seem to be of much relevance, IMO.

Great article, you've worked really hard on this and if it does become featured this is something to be very proud of. Keep it up! :) ~ Sebi [talk] 09:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to leave some comments on the talk page, but I assume here is better. I'm afraid this may appear rather hard but I hope these short comments will help you improve the article. It is a rather difficult subject to tackle and I think you may be better advised to deal with the death of Claudius in an article of its own rather than trying to expand the articles of the suspects in this manner. That said:

The secondary sources quoted are of variable quality (1728 Cyclopaedia as source for a substantive argument?) and the conclusions drawn from the primary sources seem to be largely in contradiction to what those sources state. Josephus is less sure that Claudius was murdered, not less sure that he died of natural causes. Though Claudius was voted divine honours, according to Suetonius Nero conveniently forgot about it and then cancelled it. No primary source states Claudius was in Sinuessa.[1] I don't know of a source that states he died on the 12th.[2] Which source refers to herbs as the method of administration of poison?[3] Which sources affords equality in the line of succession to Britannicus and Nero?[4] Tacitus and Suetonius are called "writers of the time" whereas it is likely neither were born in 54.[5] The article focuses on his possible role the poisoning of Claudius while at the same time attempting to avoid an in-depth discussion, overemphasising Halotus' role as result.[6] Some conclusions are pure speculation: It is unknown how he died, or where, but the death may have been related to his controversial past. Indeed, and it may equally have been from an allergic reaction to nuts. Neither needs mentioning.[7] Butler is an anachronism, chief steward would be better if servant doesn't suffice.[8] A potted history of Nero's succession needs to include Claudius's previous sicknesses during which he was encouraged to to name Nero as his successor and his growing interest in Britannicus shortly before his death.[9] No mention of the dinner with the priests of the Citadel as a location?[10] Nero's insults to Claudius were post-mortem rather well-known beforehand (it's not a wise move to fall out with the Emperor when you want to be his successor).[11] What are the primary sources for the later claims that Halotus became wealthy, had his reputation restored and kept his post until his death?[12] Suetonius isn't translated as "important procuratorship" in all versions. Graves's translation states "important post as his agent".[13] All the claims need associating with a source, or else we get a synthesised version of events (look at today's FA Orion (mythology) for one way of handling this or the recent one about the Colosseum for another).[14] In addition, the writing is loose with lots of redundancy, vagueness, repetition and digression[15] (do we need to know about mice being used as food testers?[16]) and the citation style is sloppy (Tacitus The annals of Tacitus, page 145M?[17]). Well, you asked for it! Andplus 11:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

These online versions of Josephus and Cassius Dio be useful if you haven't seen them already: [1] [2] Andplus 12:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take a look at all these things. As you say, you make lots of comments, but most things are minor; I'll take a look tomorrow. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Because of the nature of your comments (all conglomerate), I am going to place refs on things I have addressed, and comment that way:

  1. ^ - yes: Tac. Ann. XII 66, thats good enough
  2. ^ That was my mistake; fixed
  3. ^ Another mistake; fixed
  4. ^ Each day I am working towards implementing more bulk of information. The whole affair with Brittanicus was something I was going to implememnt today or tomorrow
  5. ^ They dont have to have been born in 54 to have written about it; they could have been born a hundred years later and still made accurate comments
  6. ^ I dont understand what you mean by "in-depth" discussion. Halotus' role is the focus because this is an article on Halotus, and the info shouldn't digress far from him, IMO
  7. ^ True, my mistake.
  8. ^ Yes check.svg Done
  9. ^ SAgain, information I was going to implement soon
  10. ^ I never found a source relating to any Ciytadel. If you have one, please implement it yourself, and it would be greatly appreciated
  11. ^ Where did I say they weren't post-mortem?
  12. ^ Tacitus The annals of Tacitus, page 145 states that it was a wealthy procuratorship, and that he was saved by Galba. Wealthy indicates that he became rich
  13. ^ So? What is your point? The translations might vary, but most do call it an "important procuratorship". I can't help that not all translations are the same, can I?
  14. ^ Most are sourced. TBH, this is a fairly well-sourced article for its size, with 1 ref for every 500 bytes. If you can further point out what needs reffing, I would be glad to sort it out
  15. ^ PLease provide examples of fragments of text where writing needs imrpoving. Your comment is very unspecific.
  16. ^ Yeah, I see your point there; fixed
  17. ^ Fixed that particular one up. Any other examples?
I can see this quickly degenerating into a formatting mess, so I'll reply here numbered according to your referenced list:
1)The "he" there refers to Narcissus. The Church/Brodribb translation doesn't make this as clear as Graves but due to the poor referencing I'm unable to see which translation you are using.
3)Herbs have been excised but gruel needs including
4)I will take a look when it is added, but you should consider cutting the existing material rather than adding to the digression.
5)Indeed, but the article doesn't claim that, it claims they were writers of the time. At least put them in context. They may be the most accurate accounts we have, but they aren't eyewitnesses. Josephus was a writer of the time, but not in Rome. Seneca the Younger is closest but isn't mentioned (and quite rightly in my opinion, see point 6)
6)This is my objection to the expansion of this article. The death of Claudius should be in an article of its own so the events around it can be discussed in a balanced manner. Here you focus on Halotus, mentioning Locusta and Xenophon only in passing which gives undue weight to his possible role in the possible poisoning. It speculates about Halotus's involvement with Agrippina, his role in the household, and reasons for his castration. If the FA system demands that you cover the death of Claudius in this depth in this article then, in my opinion, that system is broken. We know only a few details about Halotus, and those are the details that the article should cover.
10)Suetonius: Claudius, 44 (just about any translation, though not all mention the priests)
11)The ease of his succession "can be at least partially attributed to Nero's very well-known opinions of Claudius" (leaving aside the fact that this again seems to be speculation)
12)I'm unable to comment on that because p145 in an unknown edition is too imprecise for me to be able to look it up. That said, if you've based the statements I queried on that fragment, you are at most covering one of them (a wealthy procuratorship doesn't necessarily mean the individual would become personally wealthy)
13)No, you can't, but a discussion of this rather than the digression into Nero's succession and murder of Agrippina would be suited to this article. I mentioned it merely because you tried to make a case for insisting on using "procuratorship" in the GA review on the grounds that it is what Suetonius uses.
14)Tying statements to inline citations isn't sufficient in an article of this type in my opinion. Do look at those articles I linked to see how they handle analysing the differing versions. Where do primary sources agree on a point and where do they differ? Where do different translations allow for differing interpretations? This approach will also focus the article away from speculative arguments. If one source says he was a steward you can avoid promoting him to chief steward and constant companion of the Imperial family.
15)Your writing style is rather verbose and it would be too time consuming to list possible copy improvements. Please get it copy edited by somebody else when you have finished.
17)Most worryingly ref #4 seems to have been lifted wholesale from Agrippina the Younger which I assume is how the wrong interpretation of Josephus arose. #8, #9, #23 and #27 all reference Suetonius. Why not use a single version of the primary source, unless translations differ on important aspects? If that is the reason, then that should be discussed. #13, #14, #16 and #17 all refer to Suetonius using differing styles and without reference to the version. There are further digressions of this type in later refs: 30, 31, 34 and 36 for example. Suetonius is quoted second-hand in ref #26 when you have the primary source available in at least four versions. Why? Tacitus is cited in a number of differing versions (including the mysterious page 145) and is usefully linked to the wikisource version in places but not in others. Scramuzza and Levick are mentioned in a footnote without references provided for their works (again because the footnote has been lifted wholesale from another article, this time Claudius).
Again, I'm sorry if this appears harsh. I'd like to see a good article on Halotus. Andplus 11:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Year Zero (album)[edit]

This has been looking like a very good article. I want to sumbit it as a good article candidate, but it has failed the criteria once already. So I'd like it to be reviewed before submission.


-- Reaper X 03:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance, it appears to me that none of the suggestions from the GA review have actually been addressed. That seems like the most obvious place to start, as all of the suggestions there are very good ones, at least in my opinion. Drewcifer 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually some have been addressed. Lead has been expanded, release dates sorted out, the Promotion section has been redone (so issues with USB drives and Radio subsections were dealt with during that), and a critical response section has been started, and I plan to expand it. -- Reaper X 05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, either way, I'd stil like to help out. Here's a few things I've noticed. I'll try and keep adding more stuff as I find the time.

  • One release date should be in the infobox (the earliest). The flags won't be neccessary if you do that.
  • Alot of the article reads like proseline and recentism.
  • I think the USBM section is kind of unnecessary. The important points could be summarized in a single sentence and put in the promotion section. Along the same lines, the link to the Patriot Act is semi-Original research, and I'd just take it out.[1]
  • Same thing with the thermo-chrome section: could be condensed into a single setnence and put in a better section. The second paragraph of the sentence is especially unnecessary.
  • Same thing with the leak section. Goes into too much detail - it includes information that all but the most hardcore NIN fan wouldn't care about.
  • The intro doesn't summarize the article. It also introduces content that isn't in the article itself (such as the block quote).
  • Alot of the ARG-related stuff could be linked. Such as websitse, phone numbers, organization names, etc.[2]
  • The first sentence of Themes is awful.
  • "doesn't sound like With Teeth" doesn't imply anything to do with lyrical style, nor does "shift in direction".
  • Critical Reception section should be dramatically expanded.
  • The prose in the track listing section is unnecessary. Does anyone actually care about the mini-site and the way it revealed the tracks? And, related question, is it verifiable?
  • it would probably be worth going into a bit of detail about the film/tv project. You can add a main article link to the main YZ ARG page's section on that, as well as steal a bit of content from the page.[3]
  • Trim down the charts section. Add sources to the ones you keep.
  • Don't link to blogs ([1] or forums ( Both of these examples are citations for stuff I recommended deleting anyways, so that might take care of itself.
  • Check all the references. this, for example, doesn't tell me anything about anything.
  • Change the leetspeak in the intro. Again, this isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article.
  • The writing of the article is generally pretty poor. I don't think this is anyone's fault, since this article has gotten alot of attention from alot of different authors. A very thorough copyedit is definitely needed.

Hope this stuff helps. Let me know if you have an questions. Drewcifer 04:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The stuff about the vinyl artwork is unnecessary and (I presume) unverifiable/unsourceable.
  • In general, I'd recommend not putting in-line citations in the middle of sentence, unless a particular phrase is very surprising or significant. In those cases, if such facts are indeed so important, they might warrant their own sentence anyways.
  • The mention of Reznor's opinion of emo comes out of nowhere. I'd say either delete it or lead up to it a little better.
  • Take out the NIN Wiki link.

Drewcifer 18:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've crossed out the items I have or have tried to take care of, and added ref notes to some I wish to argue with. Cheers.
  1. ^ a b Semi-OR? Eric Danton clearly wrote what I suggested in that line, including the mention about the FBI misshandling. I believe since he is a columnist for The Courant, the fact that he wrote his material on a blog should not write off his professionalism.
  2. ^ I think the {{Year Zero alternate reality game}} template does good enough. What else do you specifically think could be linked?
  3. ^ All info from the YZ ARG page has essentially been pasted here, and that's as much as we know about it, because Reznor is keeping it so hushed about it, and it hasn't developed lately.
-- Reaper X 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Good to see some improvements have been made, good work so far. To respond to your concerns:
  • a link between the Beareau of Morality is completely an association based on opinion. And, in this case, only one person's opinion. Since that's a pretty broad association to make, I would either avoid it altogether, or at the very least attribute the opinion to whoever is making it. Taking it out is, in my opinion, highly preferable, since your basically expressing the opinion of an individual in an article where individual interpretations aren't really necessary or expected. But, since you're aiming only for GA status at the moment, either route would be fine.
  • As for YZ ARG linking, i'd recommend linking USBM, the phone numbers, and any websites mentioned. You'd have to do this via article subsections, using the article name, a pound sign, and the subsection, i.e. [[Characters and organizations in the Year Zero alternate reality game#Bureau of Morality|Bureau of Morality]] or [[Websites and phone numbers in the Year Zero alternate reality game#Exterminal|Exterminal]]
  • The film/tv project section looks fine.
  • Also, although you checked off the bullet point above, the references still need to be checked and cleaned up alot. For example, check on #1 (check for an archived version, and if you find one follow the format of citation #25), #22 (dead, check for archive), #32 (three external links? There should only be one, to the source itself), #33 (same), #34 (no publisher), #35 (just a link), and #45 (not sure what's up with that). Also, all instances of similar publishers should be consistent: of example all cases of should have "The NIN Hotline" as the publisher value, same with the few instances of Rolling Stone.
Drewcifer 21:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid C.F.[edit]

I think the article is good enough to be a featured article.Saudi9999 06:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly is the point in just saying that. One example why it isn't: "The club won the European Cup for a sixth time in 1966 defeating Partizan Belgrade 2–1 in the final with a team composed entirely of nationally-born players, a first in the competition". Not properly punctuated. And I am presuming you have read the Featured article criteria? Mattythewhite 09:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
And please take a look at my comments on the previous PR. Mattythewhite 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


A short introduction: this place is not for discussing about featured article, but for requesting a peer review to this article. Here is my PR, in any case.

Use stadiums rather than stadia;
Yes check.svg Done renamed. Saudi9999 03:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Some parts of the article refers to the team using they, some others use it. So, be consistent and use only one of them (I'd suggest the former).
The crest collection's picture looks like a derivative work featuring copyrighted logos (which are usually not allowed to be used in derivative works). I am unsure about its validity in the Wikipedia.
Be consistent also with the season notation: use solely 2007–08 rather than 07/08, for instance.
Yes check.svg Done Saudi9999 03:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Real's kit is currently manufactured by Adidas, which is contracted to supply the club's kit since 1998. Can you please source this?
Yes check.svg Done Saudi9999 03:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Source also the team captaincies.
Yes check.svg Done removed. Saudi9999 03:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Bernd Schuster's picture smells like copyvio. I will have a look at that very soon in any case.
Yes check.svg Done removed. Saudi9999 03:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Format foreign words such as "socios" in italics.
Yes check.svg Done Saudi9999 03:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's all. I hope my suggestion are useful for you. --Angelo 18:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

About Schuster's photo, I was right: it's taken from, and is therefore a copyvio, so I deleted it. --Angelo 21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Parliamentary Assembly[edit]

(Here is the old peer review)

I would like some feedback that could help this article become featured. Thanks, Captain Zyrain 17:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: couldn't, didn't, Wouldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Captain Zyrain 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I was just sitting here, eating my muffin, drinking my coffee, when I had what alcoholics refer to as a "moment of clarity."

Thanks, DCGeist 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Initial comments
  • Hope you don't mind my writer/director fix to the lead. It seems more sensible to me that way.
  • Looks good.—DCGeist 16:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Overvew and Plot should probably be combined. That might go a ways towards alleviating the rigid nature of the plot synopsis (I'm not sure the individual stories need to be so explicitly separated)
  • Just curious: does Tarantino himself describe the film's structure when laid out chronologically as "4a, 2, 6, 1, 7, 3, 4b, 5."?
  • No, not that explicitly in one place.—DCGeist 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Soundtrack should probably be a separate section. I don't see why Cast necessarily needs to be a subsection of Development; by that I mean I'd prefer it be a separate section, but it can work either way.
  • Move Critical Analysis before Legacy and Reputation.
  • I think it's just because I haven't seen the film in years, but doesn't Marsellus say "I'm gonna get medieval on your ass"?
  • Nope. He distinctively says, "I'm 'a get..."—DCGeist 16:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If you could get an image of the Banksy mural that would be more fitting for the section.
  • I don't think so. The mural can be seen in the Wikipedia article on Banksy, as is appropriate. Its source is the scene illustrated here in the Pulp Fiction article. The image of the two suited killers isn't well-known because Banksy painted a mural of it; he painted a mural of it because the image was already well-known. The connection with the Time top 100 list further underscores the significance of showing it here.—DCGeist 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To me adding the Banksy image is more effective because the section is Influence and Reputation, and the image displays the film's influence in a more direct, tangeable way, rather than saying "This image is influential." Plus it's free . . . WesleyDodds 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's free. It's in.—DCGeist 03:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you actually expand the caption a little bit (something you've never had problems with before)? I actually laughed out loud when I read the phrase "Banksy's 'famous' mural." Without context it seems like a sly dig. WesleyDodds 03:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely unintentional. Though as I looked at it this time, I did think, "What a crap excuse for an artist." I'll expand the caption (though, as you can see, I've been trying so hard to be good...).—DCGeist 03:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure the Critical Analysis section should start with a quote. Can you summarize the basic analyses of the film provided first?
  • Quote moved. Section now begins with analysis of connections to various other literary and cinematic genre modes and directorial styles.—DCGeist 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks better. However, the phrase "Referring to the magazine largely responsible for popularizing hardboiled detective fiction in the 1930s" is awkward. I considered moving it to the end of the sentence, or splicing up Tarantino's accompanying quote and inserting it inbetween, but did quite work out. Can you make this less cumbersome? WesleyDodds 08:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In between seems to work best, and the 1930s part of the phrase can be cut--not quite precise (Black Mask was publishing impt hardboiled tales by the mid-1920s) and not quite necessary, given the wonders of Wikilinking.—DCGeist 06:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The list of Butch's killamijigs and its allusions should be converted into prose.
  • Given that the passage in question is largely (over 80 percent) blue links, it seems to me easier to read as a bulleted list.—DCGeist 18:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The repetition of "It was also nominated . . ." in the Awards section is . . . uh, repetitious (sorry).
  • Section reformatted.—DCGeist 08:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That's all for now. I've read the article a few days ago, but I shall take another close read soon. Please mention any areas you have questions about or are struggling with. WesleyDodds 08:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a very sound article to me and is well referenced. This clearly is a potential FA and should reach GA pretty easily I think. Featured articles always have that little bit extra and this is clearly on the right lines thanks to DC Geist's hard work at it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

JK Rowling[edit]

What can be done to get this to FAC? LizzieHarrison 17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies that I don't have time for a full review. This article is well on its way, so my congratulations to the editors who have been working on it. My first suggestion, though, would be to start combining short paragraphs. Single or two sentence paragraphs make the prose choppy. Her early life section originally looked like a list without bullets to me! There's also a reference to a 2001 BBC interview about her heated flat in Edinburgh - is there a source here you can cite? Speaking of sources, at some point a heavy consideration should be put into the sources that are referenced throughout to make sure they are credible (I can see someone questioning the link). That's all I have for now... It certainly looks like a good article and may be worth a Featured Article review - even if it doesn't pass, the close scrutiny will certainly lead to some advice on how to improve. Best of luck! --Midnightdreary 01:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Elsie J. Oxenham[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…Elsie J. Oxenham is a major figure in early 20th-century children's literature, particularly in the field of books for girls. Often seen by non-specialists as a 'school story' author, her range is much wider, and her influence on other writers, such as Elinor M. Brent-Dyer has also been claimed (though not by me in this article, as there has been some questioning of this by EBD's fans). Her books are widely collected, and there are several Appreciation Societies worldwide. I would be grateful for some help in bringing this article to FA, or at least A status,


Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this - points addressed on that page - Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple quick comments. You should probably expand the introductory section (see WP:LEAD) and watch out for POV concerns, unless you cite them. In particular, I'm seeing "best-loved." Though "best-known" seems like an encyclopedic term, "best-loved" is certainly a value judgment. If it's worth keeping so high up, it's worth citing. You should also consider Wikifying this section a bit more. Oh, all your section headings shouldn't be capitalized other than the first letter or in the case of a proper noun. The article also has quite a few long sentences - make it easier on the readers by breaking them up. A great example is the first sentence under "Short biography" - it's a real mouthful. Another awkward sentence comes up in the Australia subheading under "Appreciation societies": In Australia there has been a society since 1985, The Abbey Girls of Australia, which has a magazine, The Abbey Guardian. Can this be written into a more comfortable sentence (or two)? You'll also want to source like crazy. A good rule of thumb (in my personal opinion) is a citation every other sentence. You're definitely off to a good start with the sources you're using; see if you can find more. I'll also recommend that the "Short biography" section really should be a "Long biography." This is, after all, an article about the woman, not about her works. Right now it's very much overshadowed by other stuff, especially the "Books and series" section. Oh, a personal recommendation might be to consider a "Legacy" section that includes the "Appreciation Societies" and the "Seat at Cleeve Abbey" under one heading, maybe using "Place in children's literature" as the main part.

Well, I hope I was helpful. Best of luck in continuing to build up this article!! --Midnightdreary 01:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I've addressed several of your points, will do a bit more over the next few days. I'm very grateful for your input --Abbeybufo (talkcontribs) 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Five Pillars of Islam[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's nearly a featured article but I want to know other ideas before nomination it as a featured article.


Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You could further explain some concepts so that non-Muslim people could understan these better:
The salah must be performed in the Arabic language to the best of each worshipper's ability.
Why is Arabian so important ?
All prayers should be conducted within the prescribed time period (waqt) and with the appropriate number of units (raka'ah).
You could explain a bit more about waqt and raka'ah, especialy because waqt link leads to disambiguation page, which dosen't say anything about this concept.
In Shahadah section there is some text in Arabic, it isn't exactly obvious what it is. If that is the text of Shahadah you could give it in the text before transliteration of it --Xil...sist! 18:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by Jeff[edit]

Pretty good coverage and well written, but a few points:
  • Intro needs to be longer, explaining a little something about each of the pillars in the introductory sentence.
  • Why is there a star at the end of the Arabic text of the Shahadah, and why does this text omit the [I testify] that is present on the Shahadah main page?
  • Explain whether [I testify] is normally spoken and in what context.
  • Might want to point out the alliteration in the Shahadah, and its history.
  • For each of the five pillars, explain some of the history behind the pillar. Why are they pillars? Was it Muhammad himself who outlined, in those words, the five pillars and how? Might include some quotes from Muhammed, in fact I don't think I see even a single Muhammed quote!
  • Explain the fixed times for prayer
  • " well as the place of prayer, must be cleansed." I assume you mean ghusl, which should be explained.
  • "waqt" should explain what this means.
  • Try to use arabic text for the name of each of the pillars once, at the start of each section or in the intro.
  • Explain whether it is possible for someone to do Hajj for someone else.
  • Explain the purpose of the Ihram clothing and the other Hajj activities.

Good work so far! Jeff Dahl 04:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


previous PR

Yes, I know this has been peer reviewed before. However, the article's changed a lot since it was last reviewed, and I feel that it would benefit from another peer review.


şœśэїŝәқιᅥṱᾅἻқᅡ 05:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

First Impressions:

Section Issues:

  • The "Environmental record" title sounds a little POV and the section is too short. Maybe that section and" can be worked into a more general section to balance out the "Criticism" part.
  • The "Criticism" part is a pretty good length. I would say tad bit more on the censorship part, though.
  • The "" section I would move under the "Growth" section.
  • More main headers (too much under "History" - "Growth" may work)


  • Needs more about the search engine. I know it has it's own page, but that's mainly what the company's know for.
  • Needs more on AdSense/AdWords and the advertising side in general.
  • Something should be said about Google's partnership with Mozilla.
  • Google video - YouTube connection?
  • A few more images in the middle would be nice.
  • No reason is given for "Another trademark concern is about Google's Gmail in the UK and several other countries."


  • Inconsistent formats "USD100,000" and "$1.67 billion"
  • IPO is used a few times before it's linked, some might not know what that is
  • "Acquisitions" needs to flow better - not so choppy.

- Rocket000 12:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears[edit]

This article has recently passed GA. As Britney Spears gets so much attention from the media, being one of the most searched names on the internet, and as pop phenomenon, her article should be in top shape, aka FA status. Oidia (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

J Milburn[edit]

Ok, looks like a high-quality article. A few small things that could do with fixing-

  • A number of times, you use the word Spears's. Is this correct? I would spell it Spears', but the article's usage is probably correct.
X mark.svg Not done I've asked about it in the Reference Desk, dicussed it in the talk page. And majority of people agreed that Spears's is the correct term. Oidia (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You might want to add a footnote about that spelling from Bartleby's. — RJH (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The sentence "The album of the same title was released in January 1999, reaching number one on the Billboard 200,[25] and certified Diamond with more than 25 million copies sold worldwide,[26][27] although it received mixed reviews." is horribly clunky. Perhaps it could be broken down a little?
Yes check.svg Done Although that's the disadvantage of using the lead single's name for the album's name. Oidia (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "The success of Spears's music coupled with her controversial image made her one of the year's biggest stars." could do with a reference. Who has said that it was those things that made her a star?
Yes check.svg Done The source phrased it slightly different, but it's obvious that they are saying the same thing. Oidia (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not sure that the tours should be in italics; I think they are just meant to be phrased in normal text. I can't see anything that could include tours on the list of titles to put in italics.
Yes check.svg Done Oidia (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Spears released her third studio album Britney in November 2001. This was the first album where Spears assumed some creative control by co-writing five of the album's tracks." Can we have a reference for this?
Yes check.svg Done I rephrased the sentence, and used the Rolling Stone's review as an appropriate reference. Oidia (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The line "In contrast Rolling Stone said of the album, "Britney" belabors the obvious: "Spears is one month away from entering her twenties and clearly needs to grow up if she's going to bring her fans along."" is a little confusing. Too many quote marks, made slightly worse by the fact I am quoting it here.
Yes check.svg Done Is it better now? Oidia (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "hit a sour note" isn't a very encyclopedic phrase. If I didn't know better, I'd say it was a pun ;-)
Yes check.svg Done Oidia (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "was highlighted by Forbes in 2002" Forbes is the name of the publishing company, and the link leads to that. We have no article for the magazine, but at least call it Forbes Magazine, and remember that, as a periodical, it should be italicised.
Yes check.svg Done Oidia (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's all for now- got to dash for a while. I will review it further either later tonight or tomorrow at some point. J Milburn 15:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, time to finish my review. Sorry for knocking your comment down Jeff, I just prefer to keep all my reccomendations together.

  • "newest single "Someday (I Will Understand)," originally"- I think the comma should be outside the quote marks, as the comma is not part of the title.
Yes check.svg Done Oidia (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "2007: Return to Music: Blackout"- Is there any reason 'music' is spelt with a capital M? Is it a proper noun?
Yes check.svg Done Oidia (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Brunette Spears covering herself with the vest in the music video for Gimme More."- Quote marks!
Yes check.svg Done Oidia (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "successful single in the United States since her debut, ...Baby One More Time."- And again.
Yes check.svg Done Oidia (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "attention and was lauded as her "comeback""- By who? Names, publications, quotes, refs.
Yes check.svg Done I didn't exactly mentioned "who" in the article, but I think 3 sources from 3 different countries all saying it is a "comeback" is good enough. Oidia (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "a media critic noted that Spears seemed confused and disoriented on stage and appeared to have forgotten the lyrics and dance moves to her performance."- Again, who, and who were they writing for?
Yes check.svg Done Oidia (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "On September 18, it was announced that Spears had been dropped by her management company, The Firm."- Is The Firm the name of the company? Why is there no wikilink? Why is it in italics?
Yes check.svg Done Althought not wikilinked due to the absence of an article. Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Single line paragraphs are generally frowned upon; there's a few in 'Film and television'.
Yes check.svg Done Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that" Rather than linking 'our president' to George Bush, I think it would be better to add [George Bush] after it.
Yes check.svg Done I think it's probably better to just remove the wikilink all together. Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "On May 28, 2007, Spears made a cameo appearance on the premire of the E! reality show Sunset Tan. There were rumours that she had only appeared because her then-manager Larry Rudolph is one of the co-owners of the shop; a few weeks later, these rumours were confirmed to be true." Urgently need refs for that, otherwise we have a potential BLP problem. Also, a wikilink to Larry Rudolph would be nice, if we have an article.
Yes check.svg Done I removed all the information about the "rumor" because no source can be found. I did add a ref to it though. Oidia (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "NBC has a show in development reportedly titled Occasional Wife, with Matthew Perry as the lead. This supposed remake of a sitcom of the same name in the 1960's would also star Spears as the opposite since she has tested the role and received positive response."- Refs? Also, I am not sure I like the phrasing of that line, not to mention the misused apostrophe on 1960s.
Yes check.svg Done cited and removal of excess information. Oidia (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Going back to the tours thing- italics are probably not correct, but I doubt speech marks are either. Even worse, some have speech marks, some don't.
Yes check.svg Done Removed italics, but inserted speech marks as they are "names" of tours. Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Some perfumes have speech marks, others don't. Not sure which is more accurate.
Yes check.svg Done Speech marked. Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, single sentece paragraphs in the first personal life section.
Yes check.svg Done Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And in the second section.
Yes check.svg Done Oidia (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's everything I saw on first reading. J Milburn 09:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Dahl[edit]

  • You might try to cut back on the wikilinks, per MoS, which should be used only when relevant or for dates etc. Such gratuitous examples include: actress, dancer, author, film, divorce, advertising, grade school, manager, contractor, gymnastics, solo, actress (2nd time), Catholic, schoolgirl, Grammy (once is enough, we don't need it every instance), George W. Bush|our president, engagement, nude, school uniform, etc. If every single noun is wikilinked, the article becomes nothing but a sea of blue. Jeff Dahl 17:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A thought[edit]

Isn't there some requirement that featured articles actually be about something significant, rather than about drugged-out, worthless, washed up, former pop tarts? Just a thought...

Ha! The answer is, "No." These reviews are based on the quality of the content of the article, not the subject of the article. Sorry. :) --Midnightdreary 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid Baloncesto[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a solid B class article , and want to improve it.

Thanks, Saudi9999 06:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


First of all, I've re-rated it to start on all of the WikiProject's quality scales. It contains hardly any text, for starters.

  • Can the image be used on all of these different articles? The fair-use rationale doesn't even specify which article it shouldn't be used in.
  • The "Major trophies" section needs to includes endashes instead of slashes for seasons and needs more referencing.
  • The "Current squad 2007/08" section should be renamed to just "Current squad" - doesn't really need "2007/08" on the end. The section should give a date so we know how up to date it is. And the source needs to be placed as a reference.
  • The "Famous players" section seems a bit.. blank. Maybe it could give some former players, including a criteria for their addition?
  • The box should be removed from the "Notes and references" section, per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
  • The "External links" section needs cutting down per WP:EL.
  • Then I notice that's all of it. Where is the text? The only text is in the lead. Surely this club has a history!

Needs a lot of work, and the lack of text is why I have downgraded it. Mattythewhite 10:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University[edit]

I am trying to generate more feedback on the article to improve it and ultimately promote it to a good article status. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!

LaSaltarella 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Santiago Martínez Delgado[edit]

-Hi English is not my first language so any grammar correction would be appreciated. I intend to Wikkified all major Colombian artists articles one at the time. (They are all very incomplete. I also have a contact with the Museo Nacional de Colombia to obtain pictures of the artists and their works with the proper copyrights for the use in Wikkipedia.

So lets start by fixing this article Thank you for your help. pgehr(Pgehr 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)).
-Old peer review

Review by DrKiernan[edit]

-*The lead contains too many paragraphs. I should join a few together.

  • Yes check.svg DoneSimilarly, the sections are very short. Can you either expand or combine them? Maybe the middle five sections could be one larger "Career" section with 5 sub-headings?
  • Yes check.svg DonePlease add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Yes check.svg DonePer Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Yes check.svg DonePer Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters such as ampersands (&) in headings.
  • Yes check.svg DonePlease reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Yes check.svg DoneAs done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Yes check.svg DonePlease check the licensing information for Image:Revista Vida 1940 Santiago Martinez delgado.jpg

Thanks, DrKiernan 07:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear DrKiernan great advice I had done what I could. Can you go ahead and make the grammar revisions? Also let me know of any other suggestions. I will be working on other Colombian artists after I am done with this article so don’t be surprise If I come back to you for advice. (Pgehr 13:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)).
-Old peer review

Ace Telephone[edit]

- I know little of art, so have refrained from any edits.

  • Yes check.svg DoneA writer? He's an artist! *Yes check.svg Done"Master Martinez" is bizarre in English. *Yes check.svg Done"Raphael de Urbino" (Italian, Raphael da Urbino) is simply Raphael in English -- and WP (the archangel gets second billing). *Yes check.svg Done==References== or ==Notes== instead of ==Appendices==. English speakers tend to be confused by double barreled last names especially when not hyphenated (he'd be alphabetized as "Delgado, Santiago Martinez"). *Yes check.svg DoneI don't know if Frank Lloyd Wright can be characterized as following the art deco school. *Yes check.svg DoneThe article would be better if it followed the Spanish language original more closely. --Ace Telephone 17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ACE, I had made some changes, as for the Frank Lloyd Wright issue / in the book about this artist by Joaquin Pineros Corpas- used as reference -- it mention that it was at taliesin where Martinez made his move to the Art Deco Style. --- As for the double barreled last name, is because there are other 3 Santiago Martinez paiters. --- Great help, and if you can look in to the grammar, tone and cohesion (Pgehr 19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)).
-Old peer review


-It still need's someone to check: copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and spelling. (Pgehr 22:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)).
-Old peer review


-I think the article is great, you may work on the cohesion, yet it would be nice to work in the other prominet Colombian artists ast the majority are stubs, I hope this article get featured. (Holguin1943 18:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)).
-Old peer review


-The idea is to work on all major Colombian artists; yet I will do one at the time and all the way to GA feature article, so ass soon as this is feature I will move up. (Pgehr 00:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)).
-Old peer review


  • The article needs to be copyedited by a native English speaker; there are many instances of inappropriate comma use, incorrect grammar, and what appear to be awkward translations from Spanish. (Pgehr 14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Yes check.svg DonePlease see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be reviewed to see any problems, qualities, and general comments about the article.


Jonathan t - c 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

List of York City F.C. players[edit]

I've just done some more work on this list, and I'm wandering what else should be done to help get it to FL status. However, I can only use league appearances for the players on the list, as I cannot get all competitions data from the period 1990-1996. Thanks, Mattythewhite 23:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Two minor points:
  1. the last two sentences in the lead should be rewritten, as starting a sentence with "although" in that manner is incorrect. Maybe try "Appearances in non-league football from 2004 to the present are included, however, as a source is available for this."
  1. You have both "An asterisk (*) next to a name denotes that the player had more than one spell at the club." and "An asterisk (*) next to a name denotes that the players stats account for the league." - which is correct?
  • Yes check.svg Done I've removed the latter - this should have been removed before, as it applied to the old format I used. Mattythewhite 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't see any problems other than that. will have the missing cup data but you have to pay to subscribe - personally I think the list is OK without the cup data...... ChrisTheDude 15:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first of its kind and covers an important period in the history of Southern India. The article describes South India in the wake of the decline of its last great Hindu Empire in 1565, the struggle for independence from British rule by an offshoot Kingdom, the influence of English language and British governance on local customs and administration, the development of classical Carnatic music, Kannada literature, Kannada drama and stage, Mysore paintings and Indo-European architecture before and during the British Raj. The article is well referenced. Please provide constructive feedback on the content, its style and presentation. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 12:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
DK Reply. Thanks. I will look into the automated review suggestions and make appropriate changes.Dineshkannambadi 14:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The article has been copy edited several times and the requirements in the automated PR has been addressed. Several sub-articles have been created to reduce the size of the article.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Some comments
  • Lot of images that are creating a few blank gaps.
DK Reply I will try to solve this.Dineshkannambadi 01:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
DK Reply Done.Dineshkannambadi 14:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How come there is no history or military history sub-articles? I found some bits very intresting that I would want expanded upon such as the apparent "pitched battle" Shivaji refused.
DK Reply My source does not give details. As such, the overall size of the article makes it prohibitive to add all that info in the main article. However, that bit a detail could be dug up and added to a page created for the specific king. I have added see also article for Anglo-Mysore wars, Tipu Sultan and Haider Ali.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some questions about the history section, if you wish I would be glad to look over the rest of the article.

  • I'm a little puzzled as to what was happening in the region before the Wodeyar family. Did the kingdom start of as a village or it was an already established region when the family came to power? I think a sentence worth mention of the state this kingodom was in when it was administered by/conquered by/joined (another point of uncertainty) the Vijayanagara Empire.
DK Reply The Mysore region was entirely under the Vijayanagara Empire, with Srirangapatna as the governing centre. The nearby Mysore region had its own chieftain Timmaraja II, also under the Vijayanagara Empire, when Vijayanagara Empire fell in 1565. This is already mentioned in the history section. Details about how big Mysore territory may have been in the 1560 time frame is mentioned in the Origin of Kingdom of Mysore. In the main article, the sentence goes like this The first mention of the Wodeyar family is in 16th century Kannada literature from the time of the Vijayanagara king Achyuta Deva Raya, while the Mysore kingdom's own earliest available inscription is from the rule of the petty chief Timmaraja II in 1551.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "The origin of the brothers" you're talking about their birthplace right?
DK Reply Yes Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "prompting claims that he was the most important of Mysore's early rulers" claims by historians?
DK Reply yes. the citation is from "Kamath (2001), p228".Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "the king gave him the title "Nawab Haider Ali Khan Bahadur"" the title means?
DK Reply The term Nawab generally equates to "royalty". Bahadur means "brave".Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "like their immediate predecessors, were kings in title only" meaning? Pardon me if this is explained previously in the section.
DK Reply Meaning they held the title of king and were officially coronated, but the real power was in the hands of Haider Ali, who most sources say "usurped" power.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • From the paragraph devoted to Haider Ali as I understood he became king, although I'm not sure it is stated.
DK Reply Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan were never officially the kings of Mysore. They were never coronated. In fact, from 1796-1799, when Chamaraja Wodeyar VIII died in 1796, the thrown was empty and Tipu kept it empty. As a Muslim in a predominantly Hindu Kingdom, he would have found it difficult to obtain legitimacy, despite his achievements.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The kingdom role in the Indian independence?

Thank you, and if you don't mind me asking, any plans of taking the subarticles to FAC? 22:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply By 1900's, Mysore did become one of the centres of independence movement. But due to article size constraints, I have not been able to dwell on this topic. The kingdoms role in independence can be covered as a seperate subarticle as such. Each sub-article that exists can be made into a FA, time permitting. I plan to create a FA at some point on the "Architecture of the Kingdom of Mysore", since that would be more eye catching.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
DK Reply Thanks for your comments. I will answer your quesions in detail, but please do log in. That really helps.Dineshkannambadi 00:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
DK Reply Hope I have answered your questions. If you have more concerns, please post them next week on the FAC discussion page.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Nehru not Head of State

Nehru (first Prime Minister of India) doesn't really belong at the bottom of the list of Kings of Mysore; they were heads of state, sometimes in a more or less ceremonial capacity. He was a head of government. If you must put a modern Indian politician on the list, you should list the first President of India, Rajendra Prasad, or, to be even more historically precise, the first Governor-General of independent India, C. Rajagopalachari. Writtenright 23:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

I will change it to Rajgopalachari, the first Governor General. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
DK Reply Done Dineshkannambadi 01:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)[edit]

Article was recently made a GA. I doubt it could become an FA until the DVD is released, but if reviewers think the article looks fine right now and don't think the DVD release is subject to make the article unstable, then I'd be interested in sending it to FAC. Thanks, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Okay I may as well make my suggestions about how to get this page to FA here, rather than on the talk page, so it will at least have some form of a review (unlike some of the articles I've submitted in the past, which received no comments at all...) Anyway, obviously I don't think the page can get to FA until at least the DVD has been released, and probably not until after the major awards ceremonies at the start of next year, but anyway.

  • Yes check.svg Done Okay first of all... the lead - It may need to be expanded at some point, but its okay now. I'd lose the cites in it though, unless there citing info that isn't mentioned anywhere else, they aren’t needed. For example the Goldenberg/Kloves source, which is mentioned again in Production, isn't needed in the lead as well.
  • Yes check.svg Done The infobox - Only problem is the flags, I trimmed a load earlier this month but I can easily see someone at an FAC finding six flags for the one day a problem. Maybe just UK, US, AUS and NZ? But I think this could slide.
    • I think all the flags there now are legit -- US, UK, AUS, NZ, Ireland, South Africa, Canada.
  • The plot - Possibly too long, but I can't see what you really could cut.
    • I know what you mean -- perhaps we'll set that aside for later.
  • Yes check.svg Done Production - Some prose issues. As they use the same source, the fact that both Newell and Nair turned it down could be mentioned in the same sentence. "David Yates was chosen to direct the film after both Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire director Mike Newell, and Mira Nair turned it down." Or something like that.
  • Yes check.svg Done Filming - I'm concerned that a trailer and a TV spot are being used as sources. (Refs 34, 35)
  • Yes check.svg Done Casting - This section is great, but I'd merge the sentences one Bellatrix to: "On 1 April 2006, McCrory announced that she was three months pregnant and had to withdraw from the film, Helena Bonham Carter was cast as her replacement." I'd also merge the Theo Walcott sentence to one of the bigger paragraphs as it seems out of place on its own.
  • Yes check.svg Done Differences - Very nice.
  • Distribution - Release is fine, but Marketing could be expanded. There was a line of action figures, plus a load of other stuff, so it might be a good idea to mention some of the merchandise, as only the video game is mentioned currently.
  • Yes check.svg Done Everything else - is fine, but I'd remove the German box office number one template, as this is the English Wikipedia after all. Gran2 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Gran, thanks so much for replying. It is nice to receive some comments, even from a regular page editor like you. I agree, we should wait until the DVD -- though I guess the British editors of the page will have to update the article with that info, as it comes out a month earlier there than here in the US. In any case, I'll be sure to attend to these concerns soon -- I agree with everything you said, though as I totally ignore all the Marketing news on the fan sites (like Legos, action figures, etc.) I might need some help with that section. Thanks again. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll try and dig some stuff up over the weekend, and if there's anything good on the DVD (should be), I'll add it when it comes out, because I'll get it pretty soon. Gran2 06:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Please take a look. I'd like feedback on the design & execution of the entire article. Thanks, Alcmaeonid 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A better map of Egypt, I can modify to show specific cities/closeups
Interesting topic because of the cultural boundaries between Egyptians and Greeks during the time this city was flourishing. Reading the article I get the impression that it is just a summary of all the available information. For example, it tells us what Herodotus said, then what Petrie found, etc. This doesn't make for the strongest article. An article should summarize information, yes, but it needs to have a structure dictated by the need to explain the subject, not by how the information was acquired. So what does this mean? It means: tell us the history of the city in all its aspects. Don't just summarize Herodotus. Then tell us about its geography, its demographics, its economy, its legacy. Don't let the archaeological excavations dictate the layout, let the prose call upon the archaeological evidence for support. Some more specifics:
  • We don't need a background section, the whole article is supposed to be background.
  • "Archaeological evidence suggests..." This is a weasel word, instead of telling us that "Archaeological evidence" say what evidence. Pottery shards? Ostraca? Papyrus documents?
  • "...its two great river civilizations of Mesopotamia and the Nile." Mesopotamia is a region, the Nile is a river. How about "...civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt"
  • "...treaty-port..." what is a treaty-port? Avoid jargon.
  • "...45 mi (72 km) SE of the open sea and the later capital of Ptolemaic Egypt, Alexandria." this sentence is self conflicting, either Alexandria was the later capital or Naukratis was the later capital.
  • How about trying a different map...I can easily modify mine to show a close-up of the region and important cities during this period of history, let me know if/what you need.
It needs a rewrite from a different perspective, and some expansion with more material. Seems to focus too much on archaeological details/process rather than on the interesting things going on at the site, where Greeks were living in tenuous(?) contact with Egyptians. Jeff Dahl 05:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Henry Flewett[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first lengthy contribution. Also having worked with the man for over ten years, I am concerned about objectivity. I would like reviewers to read it and let me know what they think. Thanks, GrahamColm 18:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Flewett's contribution to virology was great." Instead of telling us it was great, tell us what was great and why. Avoid vague sentences. Jeff Dahl 05:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, yes of course, I'll work on this this.

GrahamColm 17:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because this is an important topic in several religions and needs some suggestions to take it to the next level.


TheRingess (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Calgary Tigers[edit]

I've significantly expanded this article after finding a couple of extremely good books on Alberta's hockey history. My goal is to get it to good article status at least, and hopefully to featured article status, if I can find some good images, which is quite difficult given the time frame of the Tigers' existence. My biggest concern is the quality of the prose, as I tend to be much better with lists than prose. All feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Resolute 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Alan Kulwicki[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to improve this article until it meetsFeatured Article criteria. I have improved the article to where I believe that it meets at least Good Article criteria (without listing it for review yet).


Royalbroil 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AlexJ's Comments[edit]

  • I'll give it a full going through later when I get the chance, but my initial thoughts were "Alan Kulwicki's a trophy?!" I know you'll have tried really hard to get a freely licenced picture but the article really needs a photo of some kind. Because he's dead, and seemingly no free photo exists you'd probably be able to claim fair use on a publicity photo of him (e.g. The Ford publicity shot on this webpage [3]. AlexJ 18:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to use a fair use image - I'd rather use none. I'll move the trophy since it could be taken wrong. Royalbroil 18:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, the full PR:

Firstly, the coverage of the article seems pretty good. One of my main concerns is about the citations. Citing is all about getting the balance right between verifiability and readability. The article is leaning too far towards the former IMO at present.

There's a tendency to overcite throughout the article. Where a fact is uncontroversial, just use one citation (whichever you consider to be the most reliable). For material which is likely to be challenged, two is the maximum needed. "With one car, two engines, and two full-time crew members, he won Winston Cup Rookie of the Year award.[14] [11] [9] [13] [33]" is overkill.Yes check.svg Done

He had competed in 23 of 29 events.[32] He had four Top 10 finishes, three Did Not Finishes (DNF), and an average finish of 15.4.[32] He finished below 30th place once.[32]Yes check.svg Done

Here we have the same citation being used at the end of each sentence. As they are simple facts, with no quotes etc. one citation at the end of the paragraph would do the same job. Otherwise the article can start to take the form of Fact-Citation-Fact-Citation-Fact-Citation which can become quite boring to read.

Some more examples:

His father, Gerald, was an engine builder[9] for USAC cars.[10]

Ref [10] states "His father, Gerry, was too busy building engines for United States Auto Club stock-car racers to offer much help." I'd suggest this also covers the first half of the sentence and therefore the midsetence cite [9] can be removed.Yes check.svg Done

Alan graduated from Pius XI High School, a private Roman Catholic high school in Milwaukee.[10] After graduating high school, he went to college and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1977,[11][9] which helped him better understand the physics of a race car.[10]

Ref [9] - "Kulwicki was one of the first drivers to complete college, graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1977, with a degree in Mechanical Engineering."

Ref [10] - "Simultaneously, Kulwicki attended the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, from which he earned a degree in mechanical engineering that helped him understand the physics of a racing car."

[9] and [10] cover the entire paragraph so I'd take out [11] and move [9] to the end of the paragraph to avoid an unnecessary mid-sentence cite.Yes check.svg Done

Heading wise, I'd be tempted to combine the 4 pre-Winston Cup headings into one heading as they seem a tad bitty at the moment. I'm not sure if there's any scope for exapansion - is it known if Kulwicki had any success at karting for example?Yes check.svg Done I'd also take out the Race team... sub-heading under the Death section.Yes check.svg Done

I'm not sure whether you've considered having a complete Winston Cup results table like the one on Juan Pablo Montoya's article.Yes check.svg Done (replied)

In the local dirt racing section there is "He started racing late models in 1974 at Hales Corners.[16]" A bit more explanation of what late models are could be useful for the unfamiliar reader.Yes check.svg Done

In the 1980's section far too many sentences begin with "He" and the whole section just doesn't flow well. This may in part be down to the over-citing mentioned earlier. Vary things up a bit and don't allow the article to become too constrained by the cites. Yes check.svg Done

I hope that that can be of some help to improving the article - in general the scope is good but there's room for improvement in the way it's written. Of course, feel free to query anything I have (or haven't) brought up. AlexJ 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review. It is very helpful and appreciated. I will address all of these issues. I recently improved a different article to Good Article criteria, and I had to cite things that I didn't think needed citing. I overcompensated, marking everything that I encountered. I'll back off quite a bit. Overuse of "He" is also a problem for me to work on. As for the headings, I asked someone else to review the article, and they put them in. I think they should stay as is. I ask anyone else who reviews this article to comment with their thoughts. About karting: I took pictures in Kulwicki's trophy room. I took a picture of a karting trophy that said that he finished second in the season points. Is that enough to include "He finished second in the season points"? About full Winston Cup results: at WikiProject NASCAR we have discussed adding a full career results table, and could not reach consensus. NASCAR seasons are around 30 to 35 races long, and the table gets very cumbersome and wide. I don't like these tables for NASCAR (they work well for most other racing series). I thought a short bulleted list would be enough. I could make a 2 column table, or remove the list. I may or may not get these items done before I leave in 24 hours for a 3 day vacation. Royalbroil 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing (and this is more a general WP:NASCAR point) - the infobox gives Kulwicki's "Nextel Cup statistics". Of course, it was the Winston Cup back when AK was racing, so the article gives no mention of this Nextel Cup thing. It would be fairly trivial to add a switch to Infobox NASCAR Driver to allow the title of the stats section to be set to the correct title for the era of the driver. AlexJ 17:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Would you bring up this topic at WP:NASCAR? There have been 4 different names for the series, and the fifth name "Sprint Cup" will happen in 2008. Many drivers have driven in the series under at least two names. Royalbroil 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

4u1e's comments[edit]

NASCAR articles being reviewed by European race fans...oh dear! ;-) Here're my comments, in no particular order:

  • Lead: "He arrived at the NASCAR scene" Should that be "He arrived on..."? Is "NASCAR scene" suitably formal for encyclopedic format? I assume you're implying that he didn't go into the Winston Cup immediately, but started in one of the lower divisions: "first entered the NASCAR XXXX minor league" or similar? Yes check.svg Done Reworded. He raced only a few races in any lower division, basically he started in the highest division.
  • Over use of 'he' and 'his' - what Alex said. Vary 'he' more often with 'Kulwicki' and other terms. Look for related sentences that can be joined to make longer ones, occasionally. For example, the lead could become:
"Alan Dennis Kulwicki (December 14, 1954 - April 1, 1993) was an American NASCAR Winston Cup racecar driver. He arrived on the NASCAR scene in 1985 with a borrowed pickup truck, a racecar, no sponsor, and limited budget. Despite this, he Kulwicki was a perfectionist, and liked doing things his way: his scientific methodology approach to NASCAR racing inspired the way teams are currently run. He Kulwicki was the 1986 NASCAR Rookie of the Year, and won the 1992 Winston Cup by the closest margin in NASCAR history. In 1998, five years after his death in a light aircraft accident, he was named one of NASCAR's 50 Greatest Drivers and was inducted into the International Motorsports Hall of Fame in 2002. He was nicknamed "Special K" and the "Polish Prince" Yes check.svg Done
I've moved one sentence up a bit and linked it to the preceding one with a colon to connect the ideas of perfectionism and scientific methodology. In this case that doesn't get rid of 'his', but sometimes it will. I've added detail on Kulwicki's death because it seems of interest for the lead, but it also has the effect of moving 'he' further away from the start of the sentence. I'm not saying add words just to do that, but varying the structure of the sentences can break up the repetitive effect as well.4u1e 12:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done
  • Avoid use of first name on its own: I know it can sound a bit weird if you're talking about his childhood, but it helps with the encyclopedic tone. 4u1e 12:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Yes check.svg Done
  • Avoid single sentence paragraphs and definitely avoid single sentence, single paragraph section titles! See if you can join up very short paragraphs and sections to other pieces of text. I would suggest that the 'Memorials' section doesn't need any sub-sections and could probably be joined into only two or three paragraphs. The first three or four sections of 'Racing career could probably go under one heading and in three paragraphs. See Damon Hill, Tom Pryce and Alain Prost, which all take a similar approach. Yes check.svg Done
  • You specifically asked about section headings. I suggest that the article is currently using section headings to do a job more normally done by paragraphs, that is to divide the prose up into related topics (See wikisource:The_Elements_of_Style/Principles, which is a general style guide, not a Wikipedia one). Consider whether backing your divisions off by one level (i.e. using paragraphs where you currently use section headings and perhaps starting fewer new paragraphs) would make the article flow better. Hope that makes sense!
  • Don't use the name of the article in section headings ('Kulwicki subject of feature film' can be simply 'Feature film'). There's something in the MoS about this. Somewhere. 4u1e 12:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Yes check.svg Done
  • Background: 'Several blocks away'. Not a major point, but this is largely an American usage. Obviously the article should be written in American English, but perhaps an alternative like 'grew up very close to' would be more widely understood? And sound slightly more formal.Yes check.svg Done
  • 'Alan learned to be independent'. This sentence sort of hangs - I'd expand on the point slightly and use a direct quote from Kulwicki. 4u1e 12:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Yes check.svg Done
  • It would be nice to know how Kulwicki originally got into racing - I know the sources are a bit tricky for this one, though.X mark.svg Not done what to do?? 4u1e to expand comment
  • It would be useful to have more background on what stock car racing is. Consider this general point for all racing terminology (Late model, feature race, chassis twist etc. I assume the latter means torsional stiffness - consider using this as a less colloquial term. Where possible avoid specifically stock car terminology. Where not possible, consider introducing it briefly (as you have for Busch Grand National series).Yes check.svg Done??? Anything missed?
  • What is the significance of moving from dirt tracks to paved ones? X mark.svg Not done don't know what to do. It's just a different surface. The move was essential because it enabled him to move up to NASCAR, but I doubt that was on his mind at the time.
  • A brief overview of the stock car scene in the 1970s might be useful to situate all the different races and series.Yes check.svg Done?? - 4u1e to review
  • You've occasionally got what sound like quotes written directly into the main text ("He was also described as kind of a loner, real quiet, very studious, hard working, and no-nonsense", "for they understood what he was going through: racing with no sponsor, doing it yourself, long hours, and a very limited budget",etc) I suggest either giving them as direct quotes or making them sound a bit more formal and detached.Yes check.svg Done ?? 4u1e to review
  • In the '1980s' section, I'm not quite clear what the purpose of the anecdote about the CBS interview is, it kind of feels like it's missing its punchline. Maybe make the point clearer, or consider removing.Yes check.svg Done
  • Nice description of how the 1992 Hooters 500 panned out, but I wasn't so clear on how Kulwicki got to that point in the season - perhaps review and give a fuller explanation of how the season went for him up to that point.Yes check.svg Done 4u1e to review to see if more is warranted, but information is difficult to find.
  • Plane crash - is it possible to give a one-liner on what happened? Engine failure, pilot error etc? Just feels slightly incomplete without it.Yes check.svg Done
  • Sorry that all sounds very critical - I think you've done a great job of pulling together material from the sources available. It amazes me no-one has written a biography of this guy - he lived a great story. 4u1e 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • Hi. You said you were concerned about the prose, not the technical bits, which is good for me. Here goes:
  • "He was a second grade child when his mother died." could be, "He was in the second grade of school when his mother died". Link to second grade, because non-US readers are unfamiliar with the American school system
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • "He was a second grade child when his mother died. His father, Gerry, moved Alan and his brother in with his grandmother. She died when Alan Kulwicki was in seventh grade, and Kulwicki's hemophiliac brother died a year later", and the rest of that section has short stubby sentences making it seem almost list-like, and may flow better as "He was in the second grade of school when his mother died. In order to survive, his father, brother and he had to move in with his grandmother, who died when Kulwicki was in the seventh grade. A year later, his brother died of a Haemophilia-related illness.[8] Kulwicki attended Pius XI High School, a private Roman Catholic high school in Milwaukee, [9] and went on to receive a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1977. Heworked for two years as an engineer after graduating from university,[10] and his knowledge of engineering helped him better understand the physics of a race car, and is often believed to have contributed to his success.[11]"
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • If you don't make the change suggested above (and you don't have to, of course), right now ref [11] is placed after a space, instead of right after the punctuation.
  • "He first raced on area racetracks as a hobby while in college, but turned professional in 1980" What is an area racetrack, and can you think of a different phrase instead of "turned pro"?
    • "area tracks" means tracks in racetracks relatively near to his home (in this case it means within a 1.5 hour drive). I see what you mean - what is the "area"? Changed to local racetracks.
      • Yes check.svg Done Changed to "He first raced on local racetracks as a hobby while in college before becoming a professional full-time racer in 1980."
  • "Given that his father's work involved travel, he was unable to help Kulwicki at most kart races.[12] When Kulwicki would ask his father for advice, he would end up doing most of the work himself.[8] "I showed him how," Jerry Kulwicki said. "And he said: 'Why don't you do it? You can do it better.' And I said, 'Well, if you do it for a while, you can do it better.' "[8]" again has a lot of short sentences, and reference 8 is overused. Consider as one alternative, "Given that his father's work involved travel, he was unable to help Kulwicki at most kart races,[12] and as a result, Kulwicki's resourcefulness was often tested trying to get his kart to the track. When Kulwicki would ask his father for advice, he would end up doing most of the work himself. "I showed him how," Jerry Kulwicki said. "And he said: 'Why don't you do it? You can do it better.' And I said, 'Well, if you do it for a while, you can do it better'."[8]
  • Note that the first spelling of Jerry is with a G, and each time after is with a J. Just double-check which spelling is right
    • Yes check.svg Done used the spelling that the newspaper source used in Gerry's obituary (listed on the article's talk page).
  • You might want to move "Jerry Kulwicki built engines for Norm Nelson and Roger McCluskey's USAC race cars.[1]" from the "Background" section to the "Early raching career" section. Use the USAC's full name before using the acronym, too
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Not sure "Many American racetracks host their own local-level championships." adds anything to the article
    • It was added to give perspective to readers who are not racing fans.
      • Yes check.svg Done Changed to "Many local-level American racetracks host their own season championships."
  • "Late Models" is over capitalised (right before ref [15])
    • Yes check.svg Done One of several locations that needed fixing.
  • In "1980s", Milwaukee is already linked, so don't bother doing it again
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • I would link to the actual racetrack, and then link to the cities and states of Charlotte, Bristol, Daytona, Richmond, Rockingham, Pocono, etc etc, for readers unfamiliar with the racetracks/cities
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • " comparable to Triple-A baseball." Only helps baseball fans to understand how minor the Busch Grand National is/was. Either find something more accessible-to-all, compare it to another racing type, such as Formula 2 or Formula 3000, or simply remove it.
    • Yes check.svg Done The comparison to Formula 2/Formula 3000 appears to be valid to me (I'm not a Formula One fan).
  • Don't overlink Charlotte, or Richmond Speedway
    • Yes check.svg Done reviewed article for overlinking to names, tracks, and NASCAR series
  • "Kulwicki could not find a ride with another owner, so he fielded his own Winston Cup (now Sprint Cup) racing team after purchasing Terry's equipment" It's already mentioned in a previous paragraph that the Winston is now Sprint, so this doesn't need mentioning again.
    • Yes check.svg Done Fixed in several locations
  • "Kulwicki made his first career Winston Cup start...." links to the same Sprint Cup link used previously, so no need to use it again
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • "Kulwicki finished fifteenth in the Winston Cup points for the season, with nine Top 10 finishes, eleven DNFs, and an average finish of 18.2 in 29 events[37]" needs a period at the end of the sentence
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • "The final race of the 1992 season, a 500- mile race sponsored by Kulwicki's sponsor Hooters" overuses "sponsored"/"sponsor". Also you should use {{convert}} for 500 miles, to help the metric readers
    • Yes check.svg Done reworded
  • "Kulwicki lost first gear" what does this mean?
    • Lost use of the first (lowest) gear, which makes it quite difficult to get the car started. I'll think on how to word more clearly.
  • "Kulwicki overcame the 278 point deficit in the final six races of the season[52] to claim a 10 point victory...." "...and the Wood Brothers[34])"references should follow punctuation, per the MOS
    • Yes check.svg Done removed, the second reference takes care of it
    • Yes check.svg Done stacked all of the citations at the end of the sentence
  • What's the difference between a "Polish victory lap", and a normal victory lap?
    • X mark.svg Not done It is explained in its own sentence when it is first used (see next bullet) and in its own article (which has since been merged into a section in the victory lap article despite my objection).
      • After the race finished, he turned around his car, and made his now famous "Polish Victory Lap" by driving the opposite way (clockwise) on the track with the driver's side of the racecar facing toward the fans.
  • "Kulwicki did not change his spending habits after winning the 1992 championship." I may have missed it, but what spending habits?
    • X mark.svg Not done It's one of the themes of the article: low money. There are numerous phrases about how he was a low budget racer scraping by with no money: "racing with no sponsor, doing his own car maintenance, working long hours under a very limited budget", "Kulwicki began the season sponsorless, paying expenses out of his own pocket"
  • In the "Death" section, add the states to Knoxville, Blountville and Bristol, so readers unfamiliar with the cities know where they are, unless they're linked to already
    • Yes check.svg Done Added a sentence noting that the flight was a short flight across the state of Tennessee
  • Don't overlink Polish victory lap
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Can the ISSNs be linked in the references, similar to how ISBNs can be?
    • Yes check.svg Done Found it! Converted to {{Cite journal}}, which includes ISSN.
  • Don't attribute the url in the references for publisher, just use the title, so would just be Speedway Media,, Racing Reference. BTW, is the aol homepage a Reliable Source for reprints? Try looking at the Wayback machine for the original, or simply don't link at all
    • Yes check.svg Done names changed with the exception of and since one word sounds wrong.
    • Doing...
  • Reference 51 has the date surrounded by [[]]
    • Yes check.svg Done

That's all from me for now. Let me know if you want a re-review, followup, or have any questions. I'll keep this page watchlisted, but if you contact me direct I'll be sure to come back here. -- αŁʰƏЩ @ 20:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

African American culture[edit]

I'd like to see what's remaining to get this good article up to featured article status. Thanks. CJ 00:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How do we do this? futurebird 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It might help if I finished setting up the peer review. Oops. CJ 12:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

John Steinbeck[edit]

I am attempting to get the article to GA status and I know it has many faults. I am looking for editors to review and list the articles faults - places where improvements, references etc are needed. I am also looking for input on areas of the article that might need expanding and any other information that would help me edit the article to GA.

Many thanks, LordHarris 12:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Awadewit[edit]

Two quick comments. You need to dig in and do the research. I noticed that almost all of your references are from the internet. The best work on Steinbeck is going to be in print - you need to find good Steinbeck biographies written by Steinbeck scholars as well as literary criticism on his works by scholars. Second, the section on Steinbeck's works needs to be greatly expanded - Steinbeck is notable because he is a writer - readers will want to know about his writings! Check out some of the FAs on writers like Balzac and Mary Wollstonecraft to get a sense of what is possible. Awadewit | talk 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've ordered two biographies which should be with me next week. I will use them as much to expand per your comments. LordHarris 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! I look forward to reading revised version in a few weeks or months! Awadewit | talk 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Quick comment: There are a lot of instances of really short or single-sentence paragraphs. Try combining some of them together to make the writing stronger. The subsection on Death, for example, could probably be a single paragraph, possibly two. I try to aim for three sentences in each 'graph. As far as references, I agree that you need more, but also consider what you already have. I don't believe IMDB is a reliable source for a biographical article. For web sources, you should have more than just the year they were accessed. I'll try to drop by again in the next day or two with more suggestions. Glad to see someone working on an article on such a great important American author! --Midnightdreary 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

University of Dayton Ghetto[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working to overhaul an article that needed a lot of work over the last few months, and I've taken it from a sourceless mess to the point that I need some external input to continue any improvements. The article is about the most prominent feature at the University of Dayton, the Ghetto, and I'm looking for as high a rating from WP:UNI as I can get before I move on to my next project. Of special concern to me are any sections that need to be expanded upon so that the topic of the article is clear to a reader with no experience with the topic.


Newsboy85 04:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Hello, just stumbled on the article so I thought I would leave some feedback.

  • Is University of Dayton Ghetto the most commonly used term to describe the neighborhood? If it is not consider retitling the article as well as limiting the references to ghetto. While I am familiar with the concept of and the terminology student ghetto, the term ghetto, in general, regardless of what is referring to is usually considered pejorative.
  • Eliminate any external jumps in text, confine them to the references or an external links section.
  • At GA or FA the inclusion of a list in an article is highly discouraged, see WP:EMBED
  • Eventually, you will want to format the references properly. At the very least, they should link the title to the web page (if it is a web source), provide author, publisher, date published, and date of access (for web sources). I use the footnote method, but there are templates that supposedly help with this (I don't use them myself but some like them) at WP:CITET, also see WP:FN, and WP:CITE.
  • Context: While the street names are good to include, where is the neighborhood in relation to the city of Dayton, and any major interstates or other landmarks that might be easily recognizable by a non-Daytonian.

IvoShandor 05:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC) These are just some initial comments, I would be happy to provide more in depth commentary, and, when you are done, a copy edit. Good work so far. IvoShandor 05:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Ghetto is the most common term - the university is aware of the pejorative nature, hence the drive to rename it the South Student Neighborhood, but the students simply don't use the term, just like they didn't take to the last two university suggestions, the Village and the Triange. There's been discussion about the name, but consensus was reached four months ago with the last move. I wasn't aware of the policies on embedded links or lists, so I'll address that. And good suggestion on interstates and landmarks. Newsboy85 05:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Name situation sounds good to me, I was unaware of the discussion, but it is something that might be brought up, so be prepared to back it with sources. I also meant to mention, an article such as this might merit a section on and discussion of architecture within the neighborhood. IvoShandor 05:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There are Dayton Daily News and USA Today articles that include the fact that Ghetto is the student term, so I'll be sure to include them as sources. As for architecture, I'll see what I can do - the university office of Residential Properties may have some information available. Newsboy85 05:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Are there any historic properties in the neighborhood? If there are they could be local landmarks or registered on the National Register of Historic Places, designations such as these require meticulous research and writing for the nominations and the forms are excellent resources for this type of information. IvoShandor 06:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The Darkside is adjacent to both the South Park Historic District and the Woodland Cemetery Gateway, Chapel and Office. Holy Angels is adjacent to St. Mary's Hall. However, at least according to the national register online information system, none of the houses themselves are considered historic. However, they should date to the same time as the South Park houses - it would be worth looking into. Newsboy85 06:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

North Dakota State University[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I would like to help develop a better article that will be of use/benefit to a broad range of people; while remaining accurate and informational.


NDState 22:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


I had a look through the article and a few thoughts came to mind.

  • REFERENCES. The article is lacking references/citations in any substantive amount. Take a look at WP:REF. In order to develop a better article it is essential that readers have access to references. Take for instance the main building information The main campus sits on 258 acres (1.04 km²) of beautiful, well landscaped land and consists of over 100 major buildings - where is this information from? (also beautiful and well landscaped is pov). It needs to be source to proove its verifiability and allow readers to explore further. Furthermore its generally helpful to stick to one system of reference - I noticed that in the lead for example there is both a note system and an open web page reference tag.
  • Lists! A lot of the article read like a list. For example the academics, libraries, construction sections are all in list forms. In this case most of the text can be incorporated intro prose. Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style for more information.
  • News? Reading though the article it doesnt seem a very active university, at least nationally or in the news. Try incorporating news articles and major successes, such as research or projects etc. For example the athletics section must have some achievements that feature in the news, or have sources from elsewhere - try incorporating these.
  • Wikify. The article needs wikifying for grammar, style and links. A lot of the article is non linked text. Try wikilinking with brackets words of the text. Take a look at Formatting.
  • Images. I would expand the image captions, see Wikipedia:Captions for more details.

Good work though on what you have done already! Any questions feel free to ask. LordHarris 12:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


previous PR

East End of London[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently undergone a stringent GA 2nd review. The article passed that, and I know a couple of areas need to be developed to provide a comprehensive view of the subject. It would be helpful at this stage to get other (wiser?) and wider opinions on where the article needs to go to meet the criteria for FA, and whether any of the existing material needs further revision to both meet the criteria and not represent a completely parochial viewpoint.

It should be noted, I already performed the automated peer review.


Kbthompson 12:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Death of Edgar Allan Poe[edit]

The death of Edgar Allan Poe was a branched off article from the main Edgar Allan Poe page that's been brewing and improving for several months. There's definitely still some work to be done (there are a couple citation needed tags that I added; those sources are forthcoming) but what I'd really like to know about is overall content, quality of writing, if it maintains NPOV, and if there's a shot this could pass a good article nomination. Any help or advice is certainly welcome! --Midnightdreary 03:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, the article seems to have a decent amount of information, pictures, refs etc. A great start. My main concern with the article is the prose. For example the opening "The death of Edgar Allan Poe on October 7, 1849 has some element of mystery to it." This is far too vague, and a weak opening sentence.
  • "Poe finally died on Sunday, October 7, 1849 at 5:00 in the morning." This partially repeats what is said earlier, and is confusing for the reader. Earlier it says he was found and taken to hospital early on sunday morning, and this sentence says he finally died on Sunday morning.
  • "After Poe's death, a person calling himself "Ludwig" (in reality Griswold)..." What's a Griswold? Sure there is a wikilink, but the prose is weak. Should read something like: "After Poe's death, a person calling himself "Ludwig" (in reality Rufus Griswold, American anthologist, editor, critic, and Poe enemy)..."
  • "Many parts of it,..." vague
  • "...but it was the only biography of Poe for several years." How many years?
  • ...was unmarked for several years." how many?
  • Picture captions, esp the Poe photo. Instead of just the name, try "A daugerrotype of Edgar Allan Poe taken in 1904, etc" and so on.
  • "Poe was in Richmond, Virginia making his way to his home in New York, having left on September 26, 1849. " Another weak lead sentence.
After reading just the intro and a little bit of the body, this is what I see so far. Remember that the intro should be able to concisely summerize the entire article and be able to stand by itself to explain the content. Write specific information (no vague references) and write complete thoughts. Keep up the good work though, lots of good info in the article to work with. Jeff Dahl 03:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! I'll jump into these suggestions later today. Quick question, if you don't mind, some of the editors were concerned about a lack of NPOV in the Griswold section. I think its current version is fine, but an outside opinion is welcome! --Midnightdreary 14:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
To me, the only concern that I have with the Griswold section is whether or not the character assassination was justified. If it was, it wouldn't be an assassination of his character. You might be able to find some other primary sources (relatives, publishers?), besides Griswold, that attest to his character. A few other quickies:
  • I see a [citation needed] tag, you'll want to take care of that.
  • Keep away from weasel words/phrases, such as "A commonly held belief is that..." which doesn't say who held such a belief or how commonly. But lots of good work here, good citations, etc. Jeff Dahl 16:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"Whether or not the character assassination was justified"? I'm not sure what you mean by "justified" here. It's character assassination, regardless of what sparked it or if Griswold had a good reason to be a jerk. :) If you mean, is what Griswold said true? The answer is no, which I can make clearer in the prose there. I'm still working on that one citation needed tag (I added that myself as a reminder). Oh, and I know I'm horrible with weasel words! I'll get back to this tonight. Thanks again! --Midnightdreary 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Have done quite a lot of work on this article over the last six months, and would like to see it promoted to GA-status. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. -- Exitmoose 23:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A really good start! I really like the steamboat woodcut, it's just outstanding and very relevant. Now for the comments:
  • The intro seems a little short, and needs to adequately summarize the entire article. Should be written in more fluid prose and give a concise summary capable of standing by itself.
  • "...and is a part of the Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto metropolitan sprawl..." probably needs a better choice of words.
  • "It was one of the first cities to open for trade with the West, in 1868, and as such it is known as a cosmopolitan port city." Say something about who they were trading with. Was it tea? Ceramics? Something else? BTW I know the Dutch were trading with japan in the mid 17th century, so might want to check facts on whether Kobe was really one of the first cities. And "it was one of the first cities (in Japan you mean?) to open for trade with the west..." try being specific here.
  • "...and as such it was known as a cosmopolitan port city." Again, needs rewording to make it flow. It is not entirely clear why a port city would be cosmopolitan. (Should insert something about how outside influences were transmitted by trade routes, and Kobe was city to be exposed to these changes first) and might say what kinds of changes were brought and by whom.
  • "...a number of companies" how many? avoid the vague.
  • "Kobe's history dates back to the 8th century when..." you mean AD, right?
  • The history section needs a better lead and needs to copyedit to make it a coherent whole. Seems too short.
  • Keep the woodcut picture, but I don't see why the Weathercock house img is important here. Also try a better caption on the woodcut, pointing out the steamboat as a vessel of trade.
  • "Following the Meiji restoration..." flesh out this section more.
  • "The history of Kobe is closely tied to that of the Ikuta Shrine, and..." you just talked about the history in origins, which didn't mention this, so move up to history.
  • "...It was one of the most costly natural disasters in modern history." better watch out with a statement like this, esp not cited. Isn't every natural disaster nowadays "one of the most costly in history?"
  • "Kobe has a population of 1,530,295..." in what year?
  • "...the longest suspension bridge in the world." mention the length
  • "...encapsulated in the Japanese phrase, "If you can't go to Paris, go to Kobe." why not give the Japanese version followed by English translation?
  • "...residences from the 19th century (see History)." inelegant phrasing.
  • "Most of the movie Sayonara takes place in Kobe." why not "Most of the 1957 romantic drama Sayonara takes place in Kobe." and mention what scenes, what parts of kobe, and how does that choice of locale impact the plot of the movie.
  • Is this the standard map used for Japanese city infoboxes?
Otherwise good content, just needs to be more focused and emphasize more details about what kind of trading went through Kobe historically and how that shaped the city. Emphasize how Kobe being a port city made it more cosmopolitan and mention the impact on the city. The history section probably needs fleshing out too. Otherwise, an interesting article. Jeff Dahl 04:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Jagadish Chandra Bose[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review under multiple wikiprojects because I'd like to get some creative feedback to take this article to GA status. Thanks,

Arman (Talk) 05:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Automated review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, which some editors find useful and others do not. Be aware that not all automatically generated comments may be applicable.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]Yes check.svg Done
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]Yes check.svg Done
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 12 Meter, use 12 Meter, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 12&nbsp;Meter.[?]Yes check.svg Done
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]Yes check.svg Done
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] Yes check.svg Done
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), realise (B) (American: realize), isation (B) (American: ization), signalling (B) (American: signaling), program (A) (British: programme), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).Yes check.svg Done
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”Yes check.svg Done
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The suggestions from the automated review have been incorporated in the article now. Arman (Talk) 10:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tacita Dean[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…it recently had huge additions added to it (pasted from elsewhere under GNU). I'm unsure of the NPOV (editor is known to the subject), I am also unsure of the tone and style. The editor didn't engage in any discussion regarding the additions and now has disappeared. I don't wish to simple revert the additions as some point are valid. Guidance most welcome.


Artlondon 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Henry College[edit]

We recently reached GA status and now we want to make it even better. All constructive criticism is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Professor Davies 18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed you had this, so I'll leave one or two quick thoughts I had. The introduction could be reorganized into three paragraphs. And more info can be included in the infobox. The history section mentions the number of founding students twice, which is awkward. Also there are many one sentence paragraphs under history which could be combined and shortened. Perhaps the history section could have a subsection on the founding and events leading up to it. Also the rest of the section should be chronological. Image captions could be much more informational, providing info about the place, and not just what it is, like the captions under Student life. The Student life section does need some citations. Is there a school paper yet that might describe more about it? Otherwise, just keep putting in more references when you can.--Patrick 00:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New Peer Review Request: 10-4-07[edit]

It's been a few months since the last peer review and I think we've made most of the improvements suggested in that one. So I'd like to request a new peer review of the article in general with the goal of preparing it to be nominated for featured status. I think we've made some good improvements just since reaching good article status and are just about there. Thanks for any suggestions that could help give this article the quality needed for featured.--DebateLord 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Seattle Mariners[edit]

I'm hoping to get this article to good article status pretty soon, and I think it's almost there. I would appreciate any input anyone has. The article had some NPOV and lack of referencing issues in the past, but I think I've dealt with those; however, there may well still be instances of either or both that I and other editors have missed.

Thanks a lot for your time,

Elmer Clark 05:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A few comments[edit]

  • I think the quick facts section could be reworked. "Founded", "Playoff Appearances", and "Local Television" can be directly found elsewhere in the article. I think the other facts could be worked into the article without having to resort to just listing them. It kind of reminds me of a trivia section where random facts are just grouped together.
Yes check.svg Done Facts that weren't already within the main body redistributed throughout and quick facts section removed entirely.
  • I don't think this statement should be included without a citation: "Many die-hard Mariners fans can still recite the Voice of the Mariners and game commentator Dave Niehaus' call on the play". Maybe find a better way to lead into the call.
Yes check.svg Done Reworded, ref added
  • The listing of Mariners' radio stations seems excessive.
Yes check.svg Done Split to List of Mariners Radio Network stations
  • The writing style in some sections could be improved. - Mattingly23 16:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you elaborate a little? I'll give it a thorough look-over sometime today or tomorrow, but if there are any sections you found particularly poorly written, please let me know.
Thanks a lot for your comments. I think excising the station list and the quick facts section made a significant positive difference. -Elmer Clark 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Claims to be the fastest growing religion[edit]

The star article of Wikipedia is here. It's time to put it on our front page.--I told you 12:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The article seems fine to me overall. The lead includes an unsourced referenced to " and rumours...urban legends." This is a personal opinion, unless verifiable sources provide debunking of such "claims and rumours." List "non-religious" as a religion seems weird to me. VisitorTalk 16:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the content of this article. I think it's rather well written. However, I am a bit bothered by the lack of citations in all sections except "Claims to the fastest growing religion", and the lack of them in certain parts of the aforementioned section (I'll put in a few "fact" requests around there). I think that is something that will need to be fixed before the article is FA-quality. -- Rei 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you should standardize on a preferred citation format. I saw several and didn't know which to follow. -- Rei 22:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

One obvious problem is the lack of a discussion of what should count as a "religion", as opposed to a "denomination" for this purpose. In particular there is the issue of certain very fast-growing charismatic Christian sub-groups, that have often made claims of this type. Other than that, I think the article still needs a lot of more general work, and is still incredibly far from FA or even GA.--Pharos 23:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra Has a Cold[edit]

I've listed this good article for peer review because I want feedback on how to go forward. It's a bit of an odd subject—an individual magazine article (although one of the most influential of all time). I'm mostly interested in what sections people think this article should have if it were to become a featured article. Other comments are of course welcome, but I'm really hoping to get some guidance on the structure. Thanks, --JayHenry 02:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "...the greatest profile ever written of Frank Sinatra[2] but one of the greatest celebrity profiles ever written. The profile is one of the seminal works of New Journalism and is still widely read, discussed and studied. In the 70th anniversary issue of Esquire Magazine in October 2003, the editors declared the piece the "Best Story Esquire Ever Published..." " Instead of telling us how great it was, explain why it was discussed and studied. What literary devices did the author use that makes this a good piece of literature? Add this material to the intro and use this to support the assertion of why this article is so famous. Jeff Dahl 17:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because…it was demoted from FA status to B Class. I feel that improvements have been made since March, and that it should be relisted as a featured article. I just wanted to see what others think before I do that.


Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! Let's go Lightning! 23:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • One thing you need to do is to reference the feral cat section. Also you need to shorten the article. One suggestion I have is to focus on what makes domestic cats different from other felines. If all felines are carnivores don't spend a great deal of detail describing how the house cat has a mouth adapted for eating meat. Move the details that hold true of all felines to the Felidae article and concentrate on how this species is unique within it's biological family. Don't compare this species physically to dogs but too other felines. It would be appropriate to compare this animal to dogs in the "Interaction with humans" section but not in the more general areas of the article.--BirgitteSB 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Need to combine stubby paras and there should be alot more refs. Try alternating the images left/right down the page for a more pleasant layout. I'd put the taxonomy and etymology sections up top like other animal FAs. It is a monster article. Good luck. Can be tricky where to draw the line - I just nominated lion successfully but it was probably at its maximum prose size..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Villa Park, England[edit]

Currently a good article, it is requested that this be reviewed with WP:FAC in mind. Thanks. The Rambling Man 10:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As The Rambling Man has said this is part of the ongoing improvement of all Aston Villa articles by me and Woodym555. We aim to get this article up to WP:FA. Thanks Everlast1910 10:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of brief comments:

I agree, I don't know how to do it can someone sort it out for me :) Everlast1910 22:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Records section - the since 1947 presumably refers to post-Second World War seasons. Highest since 1947 makes it sound like 1947 had higher attendances. 1949 season and 1986 season are ambiguous, as the English football season spans two calendar years. Use 1948–49 season instead.
Done fixed it to post war instead of the year.
  • The first paragraph of the Future section is a little crystal-ballish, consisting of uncited speculation.
Removed it, it was added just before while i wasn't on, i have reverted back to how it was.

Oldelpaso 19:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Everlast1910 22:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Norwich City F.C. Players of the Year[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to take it to Featured List candidates.

Please note there are two major drawbacks to the article that I am aware of and will address before it gets to FLC, namely I have no RS (as yet) for the list of winners (quite a problem, that!) and I have no source (reliable or unreliable) for the additional 10 Hall of Fame inductees from 2006, that may include some of the more recent winners of player of the year.

I welcome all your comments and suggestions, even if they mean lots of work for me.


Dweller 08:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would recomend List of Norwich City F.C. players of the year and Captains of Norwich City F.C. (and possibly Norwich City F.C. Hall of Fame although this includes managers) be merged into one article such as Norwich City F.C. players, the two sections can be placed under sections. I created Leeds United A.F.C. players and although I know it is no-where near FAC, I just feel it is better to have all purely player related information regarding one club on one page. This is just my personal opinion and a suggestion though. Chappy God's Own Country TC 12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem you then prompt is POV inclusions of "notable" players. I think that for FA quality, a single-purpose list is best. A list article of all NCFC players isn't necessary, as we already have a Cat (Category:Norwich City F.C. players). Furthermore, these single-purpose articles work better with the FA main article. It'd be nice if I could get all of them to decent quality, making it a featured topic. --Dweller 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting you create a long list comparable to that on Leeds United A.F.C. players. I just thought it maybe an idea to merge the two articles solely about Norwich City F.C. players into one article of that name that way users can read different information on the same subject in one place, however with the notability of each article they are easily notable enough to be their own articles. As I said this is just a suggestion from my viewpoint. Chappy God's Own Country TC 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. Cool. --Dweller 16:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 12:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

NB The article has been renamed, following a suggestion at my talk page, to make the capitalisation more rational and consistent. It's now List of Norwich City F.C. Players of the Year. I see no need to rename this PR page, as the redirect works fine, but if someone disagrees, they're welcome! --Dweller 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Describing Dave Stringer as the Only future manager of the club to have won the award doesn't look right when he is now a former manager of the club.
  • by submitting a paper slip to the club's Carrow Road offices, by email or by text - how do you submit a paper slip by email or SMS?
  • The list is introduced with Since the first award of the trophy in 1967, then proceeds from the 2007 winner, putting the 1967 winner last. That introduction would be better suited to a chronological list. Oldelpaso 08:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Think you might have misunderstood the "by submitting" statement Oldelpaso. It's meant to indicate that you do one of the three things after each by, however I can see where the confusion comes from, minor re-write probably best to ensure other users don't mis-understand. ChappyTC 13:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Useful comments. I also liked your amend to the article, Oldel. --Dweller 10:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who participated. This PR is now archived, as the article has gone to WP:FLC --Dweller 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

All Blacks versus France at rugby union[edit]

This has recently been promoted to Good Article status and I would like to get it to Featured Article status now. Would like any feedback on how to achieve this. Thanks. - Shudde talk 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)matt whitton is the best player in the world (just legendary)
    • The content is already quite good, you should add an image or two to illustrate the article, for example one of All Blacks who toured in Europe at the begining of the 1900's. For L'essai du bout du monde/The try of the century , see here. The largest victory for the All Blacks is indeed in 2007, but somewhere you could explain that a B team played for France as the tour happened as the best teams in France played the finals of the Top 14. Next Saturday there will be something more to say... repetition of the World cup 1999 ? Dingy 15:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the comments Dingy. I do hope next weekend is not a repeat of 1999! - Shudde talk 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Well here we go...

  • Hate the title of the article. Hate it. But, as is usual for me, I can't suggest a better one. Maybe this is how Wikiproject Rugby Union say it should be? " rugby union" really grates... This is more likely to be a featured list... I need to think about this.
  • Not sure the lead needs to include all the records, you're kind of giving it all away early. It's not a huge article so perhaps just limit to two paragraphs and highlight, well, the highlights...
  • "The 1954 match was won 3–0..." - was that when scoring rules were different or is that an example of the rare result settled by either just a pen or a drop kick? Or 3 points for a try?
  • What's the difference between a "tour" and a "full tour" in the lead?
  • "A first series win in New Zealand was achieved by France in 1994 when they won two Tests, and in 1999 the teams again met in the World Cup." - surely the win in the WC wasn't a "series win"? Slightly confused flow.
  • "1905/1906" - prefer "1905–06", same with others.
  • "northern hemisphere" - ought to be capitalised I reckon.
  • Again, the early scoring system may need to be explained - 10 tries and winning 38-8, how?
  • My usual bugbear - "World War Two" - Commonwealth/European article so let's use Second World War?
  • "France next faced the All Blacks when they toured New Zealand in 1961. They toured before any of the home nations did.[7] " - flow these short sentences together.
  • Check placement of citations, per WP:CITE, immediately to right of punctuation.
  • "(where France finished last)" - remove parentheses.
  • "Frances'"? Surely, "France's"?
  • "All blacks" - copyedit for consistency.
  • "bombing" of Rainbow Warrior? It was blown up but I'm not sure bombed is the best description.
  • "In 2003 the try was voted the fourth best rugby try (of either code) ever by The Daily Telegraph readers[27]"
    • Missing full stop.
    • "(of either code)" will need explaining for FAC.
  • "November 11 1995" - correctly wikilink per WP:DATE, so November 11, 1995.
  • "(both to Jonah Lomu)" - remove parentheses.
  • Consider colour coding the table so it's clear whether NZ or France won each encounter.
  • Also, consider an overall tally of matches won, drawn, lost, for, against etc. at the end.

Those are my starting comments, hopefully they're of use. All the best. The Rambling Man 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fact-wise, it looks pretty comprehensive, but a punctuational copyedit is in order. There are quite a number of tiny punctuational things that need a fix (there are too many semi-colons and not enough commas, to start with!) I've gone through the first couple of sections (up to the start of "full tours") working on the punctuation, and also fixed a strange detail where the article said the Fred Allen coached a match. Oh, and to Rambing Man, yes, a try used to be worth three points. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - I'm pretty sure the author's name is Ron Palenski, not Polenski - better double-check. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from GordyB 16:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this opening line:-

In rugby union, France's national team and New Zealand's national team (known as the All Blacks) have played each other in Test rugby since 1906.

I would suggest

France and New Zealand's national teams have been playing each other in Test rugby since 1906.

I would remove the entire second paragraph which just states the results of each match. THe summary of the results in the third paragraph is sufficient.

Early meetings[edit]

British Isles - this phrase is somewhat controversial as a lot of Irish people object to it as implying that they are British. Home nations is less controversial and Britain & Ireland is neutral.

threequarters - feel that this should be hyphenated

Post war[edit]

hope that the wind taking it over the posts - grammar "hope that the wind would take it..."

France first toured New Zealand in 1961 — before any of the Home Nations — and the All Blacks won all three Tests. - I think the reference to the Home nations is unnecessary

Full tours[edit]

In 2003 the try was voted the fourth best rugby try (of either rugby union or rugby league) ever by The Daily Telegraph readers.

Awkward wording and IMO unnecessarily so. Is there such thing as a non-rugby try?

In 2003 the try was voted the fourth best ever scored in either rugby union or league by The Daily Telegraph readers.


This article has been certified as a Good Article, and personally, I think it's the best article that I have been involved in. What is needed to bone this up for FAC? MessedRocker (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work. For example, the sections pharmacology, clinical uses, and effects have a lot of duplicate material and I get no feeling of organization. I actually considered applying a cleanup tag to this article because after the lead, it is basically a disjointed list of facts, some of which are repeated several times. This material needs to be written in paragraphs which explain the content to the reader. The article is way too short; it probably needs at least twice the content it has now. Some more specifics:
  • Fill in the Smiles and other fields in the infobox
"It has a similar, but lesser, effect to caffeine, making it a lesser homologue."
  • Be more precise here, specify the similar effects and their severity. I know what a homologue is, but what is a "lesser" homologe? The article mentions that theobromine stimulates the heart more than caffeine but the CNS effects are lower. So why is it a "lesser" homologue?
  • Using clarifications, such as "vasodilator (a blood vessel widener)" you don't have to put clarification in parenthesis after a term, that is what a wikilink is for. Same for "edema."
  • Redundancy, for example "Theobromine is an isomer of theophylline" which is mentioned at least twice, and "Theobromine is categorized as a dimethyl xanthine" which is mentioned at least three times.
  • "Theobromine was first isolated from the seeds of the cacao tree in 1878[10] and then shortly afterwards was synthesized..." How shortly afterwards?
  • Remove redundant words: "It is in the methylxanthine class of chemical compounds,[3] which also includes the similar compounds theophylline and caffeine." How about "It is a methylxanthine, like theopyhlline and caffeine"
  • "Theobromine is known to induce gene mutations..." bad phrasing. Usually when you hear the phrase: " known to..." or "...was shown to be involved in..." it means that a single study found a correlation; if many studies confirm the same result writers will not use this weak phrase. I wouldn't take a single study like this very seriously, but if you include in the article you should at least tie it into the rest of the article instead of just laying it out there.
Not to discourage you, but the article really needs a lot of work. Jeff Dahl 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Not to sound harsh or anything, but I'm not sure how this got GA status, because I don't really think it meets all of the criteria. Many of the sections seem too short and the article is not very well organized. It might help to review wikipedia's medical manual of style for guidelines on how drug-related articles should be organized. As an additional note, if you want some collaborative help, you might consider nominating this for Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week. Dr. Cash 02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's a B class article that could use some input to take it to the next level


TheRingess (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sai Baba of Shirdi[edit]

This article has already been nominated for FA and failed and I have made significant improvements. Please inform me about stylistic mistakes, too few sources cited (if such a situation occurs) and other mistakes. I would also be grateful if you told me how much you think is necessary to bring the article to GA and then to A class and FA status. Kkrystian 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am restarting the peer review. The article is currently at GA status. Please review article with an eye towards bringing it to A status.TheRingess (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Erik Chisholm[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is better than a stub article. I would like to improve the article as I feel that it has the potential to become a good article. Some input would be appreciated on how to take it to the next level and what to edit and revise. Thanks, --10:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Cazo3788

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Too Much (Spice Girls song)[edit]

Requesting peer review on this article. It's a 1997 song by the Spice Girls. It needs to be edited, revised, and improved by another editor. Pretty much open to any suggestions, comments, and what-have-you.


Frcm1988 07:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

2 Become 1[edit]

previous PR

Adrian L. Peterson[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is close to being a WP:GAC and would like additional edits/comments it to that level.


RyguyMN 16:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Viva Forever[edit]

Requesting peer review on this article. It's a 1996 song by the Spice Girls. It needs to be edited, revised, and improved by another editor. Pretty much open to any suggestions, comments, and what-have-you.


Frcm1988 05:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because it's a solid B class article, and is such an important concept in several religions that it could benefit from some suggestions on how to bring it to the next level.


TheRingess (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Transportation in Omaha[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to carry it through to featured article status, which I've never done. I would also like to use the reviews here to help hone my editing skills, which after I've created 300+ new articles I think need honing. Any suggestions about content, writing style or anything else are greatly appreciated.


Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm concentrating mainly on the highways in these comments.
  • Was the Lincoln Highway built or designated in 1913? Often the construction of the road has nothing to do with its designation as part of a longer route.
  • You might want to mention some of the controversy with the North Freeway.
  • There are probably too many subsections; consider grouping some of them. I also note that highways, while mainly for automobiles, are not exclusively for them; "automobiles" is probably not the best title. It might be best to use mode rather than time as the main way of sorting.
I'm not very familiar with Omaha; sorry that I can't give more advice. --NE2 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks NE2. I took all your advice and incorporated everything as best as I could. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 14:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

One Night Stand (2005)[edit]

Article currently at "B" level, with the intention of nominating it for GA after the peer review has finished. Thanks, Davnel03 15:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through and made a few changes. The biggest concern I have so far is in the final "Background" paragraph. It's not very clear which sides the Dudley Boyz and Maven are on. They're not listed as ECW Originals or RAW Invaders, so it's a little confusing. GaryColemanFan 22:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a little. Davnel03 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Carrying on...

-What is a Whipper Snapper? A reference in the text would help. Also, it's spelled as one word in the text and two words in the results section. It should be consistent.
-Some context would help explain the reference to Matt Freakin' Hary.

The reason I inserted the reference is because it might be considered "material that could be challenged" - especially if this one day heads for FA - thats why its there. I don't want to really go into detail over why its important, otherwise I could head off track. I'd go into detail about that probably only in Hardy's own article. Davnel03 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

-"entered the picture" sounds a little colloquial and doesn't really explain what happened. Did they enter the ring? Appear at ringside?

Changed picture to ring. Davnel03 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

-"Nova plays with WWE"...this should be past tense, right?
-"Sandman shouted for a beer repeatedly" is an abrupt ending to the paragraph. Could something be added? Did he get any beer?

I've actually gone and combined the two paragraphs. The paragraph about the last match, and the last segment. My reason being is that in the actual event, there wasn't a break as such between the match and segment. The end of the match led into the last segment. I hope that doesn't make the paragraph too long now! Davnel03 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall, another great article. I made some changes, but this is all the rest that I came up with (and I just fixed a couple of these, so they're crossed out). GaryColemanFan 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

*Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC) - I have the tool this is no use to me. Davnel03 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • There is a list of books with the relevant pages that mention One Night Stand here. This should help add some reliable sources. Ignore the books that have nothing to do with wrestling. Nikki311 19:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Reparative therapy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to FA status, and think I'm almost there.


Fireplace 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is outstanding, at least A-class and probably a good candidate to be featured. All of the statements are backed up by references, and the general layout of the article seems logical and coherent. Ironically, in the course of trying to cover every detail, the article may have grown too long. It would be wise to look for redundancies and say once what is in some cases said two or more times. I saw a sentence in the 1939 to 1969 historical section about what reparative therapists tend to do; it seemed out of place and redundant with coverage elsewhere in the article. Shalom (HelloPeace) 15:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Florida Atlantic University[edit]

I've listed Florida Atlantic University for peer review because I am trying to get it to WP:FA status and I think it is close. Before heading over there I wanted to make sure it was up to snuff.


KnightLago 20:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by Dylan[edit]

  • Quotations should be embedded in the prose, not left out on their own. Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 02:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • /Profile section: "It offers a rigorous liberal arts education in the platform of a public institution." "Rigorous" is slightly POV, in that it promotes the program as particularly comprehensive or challenging. Can this be attributed to someone, like the school itself? "It offers what it refers to as a 'rigorous'..." I know that's a mouthful, but it is a point of view characterization. Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 12:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "The average age for first time in college students is 18;" -- what does this mean? First-year students? Something's wrong grammatically in there. Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 12:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • /Research section: "This ranking is the result of a campaign Florida Atlantic has undertaken to bolster its research standing." There's no citation. Has that causality been established? Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Next sentence: "This has resulted..." -- what has? The ranking? I found this unclear. Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • /Rankings section: "Florida Atlantic has been ranked among American universities by a number of publications throughout its history." Is this necessary? At least in the context of American universities -- and this isn't to say that broadening the reader's context is a bad thing -- virtually all schools are ranked, aren't they? Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 12:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • /Rankings section: "For the 2004-2005 academic year, the university was ranked sixteenth in the United States among traditionally white four-year academic institutions for conferring bachelor’s degrees to African-Americans." Rankings by who here? Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • /Rankings section: "During this period, FAU conferred a total of 1,407 bachelor’s degrees in all disciplines for all minorities and ranked 37th in the nation, up six percent from the previous year." Three things about this sentence:
  • During what period? The 04-05 school year (as mentioned a little earlier)? If so, why not "that year" instead of the more vague "this period"? Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What rankings are we talking about now -- the same one as in the last sentence? If so, I don't really understand at all the purpose of this sentence. Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How can a school rise in rankings by a percentage value? I imagine that must refer to the number of degrees awarded, in which case it's arranged very confusingly. Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 13:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • /Athletics section: "Due to this effort, in 2006 the athletic department was ranked 79th in the nation by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA)." Again, is the causality there actually established, or is that an editorial conclusion? Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • /Athletics section: "This game provides bragging rights to one of the South Florida teams until the next game is played the following season." -- uncited and sounds kind of folksy/non-encyclopedic. Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Some general comments:
  • There were a lot of missing commas (I filled it what I saw, but I'm sure I missed some).
  • There was some slight overlinking (e.g. linking to USD at every $; same with square kilometer at every km²). Don't link common words.

Overall, my impression is that this article is in very good shape. All you can see, most of my suggestions are isolated fix-this-here problems; I don't see anything systematic or paradigmatic that needs addressing. Good job! I'll look forward to supporting this on FAC. Dylan 03:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by Taxman[edit]

  • In general it's pretty good. There are still some short paragraphs that need to be either merged with related material, exanded relative to their importance, or removed because they are not important enough to justify space. Also the article suffers from the same problem all University articles seem to - that of including exceptional information whether it's really important or not. For example does it really matter that "the first university in the nation to offer only upper-division and graduate level courses"? Perhaps it does, it's possible it could be argued and supported. But it almost certainly wouldn't rise to the level of importance to justify it being in the lead. That's just an example to point out what I'm talking about. I do note that's the only NPOV problem I can find since otherwise it's a remarkably NPOV article. The only "first", "only", etc type comments that can be justified are those that can be shown to be independently important. Another concern is that an awful lot of the citations are to FAU itself. That's generally not a good idea as it's basically a self published source. For things that aren't really important that may be acceptable, but third party sources are much more valuable. - Taxman Talk 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by Bobanny[edit]

All Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 02:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Just a bunch of nitpicky technical/style things:

  • “Partner campuses” sounds odd to me. Satellite campuses, perhaps?
  • “serve a seven-county region which has a populace of more than five million people” –comma after “region,” or better yet, “region with a populace…”
  • “By 2007, enrollment has grown…” – change “By 2007” to “As of 2007
  • “On campus housing for students” should be on-campus
  • make photo captions all full sentences with periods
  • “ It offers what it refers to as a 'rigorous' liberal arts education…” – double quotation marks around rigorous
  • “Under FAU's Commercial Music program…” – I assume “program is part of the program’s name, and should therefore be capitalized.
  • “which upon completion will operate out of a 364,000 square-foot, state-of-the-art research facility focusing on basic…” – comma after square-foot is unnecessary.
  • “While the headquarters is being built…” – change to “While its headquarters are being built…”
  • According to this, “The” is not part of Torrey Pines’ name and should therefore be lowercased.
  • “The university is the home of two Centers of Excellence” – not a proper noun in this case and should be lowercased.
  • “research universities including the University of Florida and Florida State University for the initial money…” – comma before including and after FSU.
  • “both centers have engaged in academic and industry partnerships combining expertise in ocean engineering, marine biotechnology, functional genomics, proteomics, and bioinformatics.” – either a comma after partnerships or change “combining” to “to combine.”
  • “the centers specializes in digital imaging research…” – specialize, not specializes
  • “offer this technical concentration.The NASA Imaging Technology Center” – need space between sentences.
  • “located in Deerfield Beach, and Boca Raton, respectively” – no commas there.
  • “enabling them to interact with the University community and its facilities” – lowercase university here.
  • “The incubator works to foster the start-up and growth of technology based businesses associated with FAU” – technology-based
  • “The owl prefer the campus because there are few predators due to the university's proximity to the Boca Raton Airport, and the fact that the campus was originally cleared of vegetation when operating during World War II.” – Maybe change to “Owls find the campus appealing…” because “prefer” begs the question, prefer to what? Also, add “as an airbase” between “operating” and “during” here.
  • “These include "state-of-the-art labs and classrooms” – need another quotation mark, or better yet, remove the one that’s there.
  • “The main campus serves approximately 19,533 students or 71% of FAU's student body offering…” – comma before “offering”
  • “the university is working with KUD International to develop an "Innovation Village". – period goes inside quotations here.
  • “renovation of the Burrow, the university's multi-purpose arena. [41][42][43]” – no space after period.
  • “…currently occupies approximately 45 acres (0.18 km²) with 18 buildings totaling more than 333,000 square feet…” – the metric isn’t in the quote, so should be enclosed with square brackets, and the same should be done for 333,000 square feet.
  • “The Dania Beach Campus, also known as SeaTech, was founded in 1997 as "a state-funded Type II research center, the institute is part of Florida Atlantic’s Department of Ocean Engineering."[45]” This doesn’t work as a sentence: commas can’t separate two clauses. I’d suggest removing the quotation marks and making it two separate sentences.
  • “and food services for students..."[47]” – change the ellipses to a period here.
  • “The union will also include a student health center that will provide a medical center, and a health counseling center” – don’t need that comma
  • “ initiatives focused on Everglades restoration".[48]” – period inside quotation marks
  • “This merger is currently in progress.[52]” Avoid time-sensitive words/terms like "currently"; could do away with this sentence entirely since it's implied by the context anyway.
  • “Florida Atlantic's 18 varsity sports teams, known as the Owls…” – don’t need “known as” here; just “the Owls” is cleaner.
  • “the men's basketball team was noted as "one of the Sun Belt Conference's top offensive teams", with a "scary offense" – comma inside quotation marks
  • “Since that time, the group has grown and been reorganized…” – Would be more elegant to just say “The group has since grown…”
  • “As a home game the competition takes place at Dolphins Stadium, as an away game, the bowl is played at FIU Stadium in Miami” – should be a semi-colon after Dolphins Stadium.
  • “As of fall 2007, a total of 2,691 students live on-campus at FAU, with 1,700 of those being freshmen.[60]” – link As of 2007 (see: WP:AO)
  • “The highpoint of Greek life at Florida Atlantic is 'Greek Week'.” – double quotation marks for “Greek Week.” Only use singles for quotes within quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobanny (talkcontribs) 01:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by bot APR[edit]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 15:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by RossPatterson[edit]

  • Lead
    • "Although Florida Atlantic provides for the educational needs of commuter students, in recent years it has undertaken an effort to increase its academic and research standings while evolving into a more traditional university." - the "New admissions standards: good for FAU, bad for Florida" reference, while not complimentary, suggests that FAU is trying to rise not up to greatness but rather up from mediocrity.
I agree and added more information and references to backup this statement.
    • "These efforts have resulted in not only an increase in the university's academic profile, but also the elevation of the football team to Division I competition status, plans for an on-campus football stadium," - these claims don't seem to be supported by the reference that ends the sentence.
Fixed, and added new references.
  • History
    • "Main article: History of Florida Atlantic University" - That article is pretty short, and the FAU section ought to be merged into this article, after cleaning up the somewhat casual prose. The rest of that article should be merged into Boca Raton Army Airfield.
Will work on it. Yes check.svg Done
    • The second paragraph in Expansion and growth contains a couple of disagreements of voice (e.g., "would again recognize ... by designated", "would establish ... in 1997"). Yes check.svg Done
    • The List of Presidents of Florida Atlantic University article should be merged into this section - it's too small to stand on its own, and isn't likely to grow very quickly. Yes check.svg Done
    • Does it matter that Brogan was in the Jeb Bush administration? It doesn't sound particularly notable. Yes check.svg Done
  • Academics - All Yes check.svg Done
    • The second sentence is a fragment.
    • The Second Paragraph Has A Lot Of The's That Detract Its Content :-)
    • Calling the liberal arts program "rigorous" is puffery, and unnecessay. Unless, of course, it's a description that others have applied to the program, in which case it should have a citation.
    • The "Notable programs" reference isn't necessary as each item is backed up in a following referenced statement, and it only backs up one of the claims.
    • "As a result of this research, in 2007 the university and Lockheed Martin ..." - The reference might support the claim of causality, but there's no way to tell because the web page doesn't exist.
    • "The FAU Imaging Technology Center is developing a curriculum for digital imaging and processing, thereby establishing Florida Atlantic as the only university in the nation to offer this technical concentration." - That needs a reference.
    • "Florida Atlantic also operates two Research and Development Parks" - The link on R&D is unnecessary.
    • "ranked FAU 37th in the nation, up six percent from the previous year" - Perhaps you mean up six places?
    • The "Diverse" mention should ideally have a primary reference, not the secondary one that it currently has. It's not critical, but if you're going for FA it will be.
  • Campus All Yes check.svg Done and I added more on the 2nd choice point
    • The "... the region is home to ..." phrase sounds out of place here.
    • "The university was officially designated in 1989 as the lead state university to serve Broward County by the Florida Legislature" - How many other state universities in Broward? It sounds like press-release text.
    • "These include "state-of-the-art labs and classrooms, suite-style housing for students plus athletic and recreational facilities."", "offering, "a broad range of academic programs, activities, and services."", " "currently occupies approximately 45 acres [(0.18 km²)] with 18 buildings totaling more than 333,000 square feet: eight classroom/office buildings, a library, a 500-seat auditorium, two residence halls, a dining hall, museum building and central utility plant."", etc. - These quotes are unnecessary, the same words would be just fine on their own, and quotes from promotional brochures aren't very helpful.
    • "In an effort to create a more traditional, first-choice college atmosphere" - This is a very telling statement, one that doesn't jive with the rest of the article. There's no indication other than this that FAU is a second-choice school.
  • Athletics
    • The Traditions description of the "prOWLers" reads like self-promotion on someone's part. Unless Rick Smith is someone of note, I'd leave him out. Yes check.svg Done
  • Notable professors and alumni
    • The gallery is unnecessary - there's nothing visually interesting about these particular folks (and I'm a Zimmerman fan!). Yes check.svg Done
  • Notes and references
All Yes check.svg Done and I am working on the references. Some of the references you pointed out as broken were not broken just require registration after you log in to a few articles.
    • There aren't any notes here, just references.
    • The "New admissions standards: good for FAU, bad for Florida" reference hints at controversy surrounding the school's mission. The article doesn't cover it at all - that's not good.
    • What is "Legacy"? Who publishes it? Can it be found online?
    • Several of the links are broken:
      • "Florida universities grow in number of students, but not in faculty, data shows"
      • "Florida Atlantic University and Lockheed Martin to Develop Autonomous Mooring Buoy System for Military and Scientific Use"
      • "FAU Celebrates Groundbreaking of Office Depot Center for Executive Education."
      • "FAU Constructs Student Union at Davie Campus"
      • "About FAU in Broward"
      • "Work begins on merger plan for Harbor Branch and FAU" - this works, but it doesn't go to anything called this.
      • "Jaguars seek to rebound against high-scoring FAU"
      • "Weeks of welcome: What's happening on your campus"
      • "Some traditions continued, new ones started"
      • "Homecoming Listings"
      • "Student Government Page"
      • "Greeks Ask: Where Have all the 'Rushers' Gone?"
    • "Dashboard Confessional: Youth culture sings along with Chris" and "Philip Zimmermann's Home Page" links are crossed up.
    • There are a lot of references, but more than half of them (49 out of 84) are from the university itself. References from the subject of the article are difficult to get through an FA review, and this article depends on a lot of them.
I got this down to 51 from FAU out of 101.
  • Overall
    • There is a lot of clumsy text. Watch out for that "something includes the following: ..." style - you'll get nailed for it during an FA review. Yes check.svg Done
    • Don't use pull-out quotes from references when the quotes are just words that and editor might have written. If the reference supports the statement and the exact words of the statement aren't critical, replace the quote with words that fit the paragraph better. Yes check.svg Done
    • The article is entirely positive. Expect to be challenged during FA review to write about the darker side - every topic has one. Yes check.svg Done
Working on this.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RossPatterson (talkcontribs) 01:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

KnightLago 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by SandyGeorgia[edit]

  • See WP:MSH regarding capitalization, is Palm Beach County Campuses all supposed to be capitalized? Yes check.svg Done
  • See WP:MOS#Captions, only full sentences have punctuation at the end, sentence fragments do not. I think this is Yes check.svg Done
  • See WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT, words commonly know to most English speakers that don't provide specific context for this article need not be linked (example, World War II, mascot, there are many more; overlinking should be reduced so high-value links are useful). Yes check.svg Done
  • See WP:DASH regarding the difference between hyphens, endashes, and emdashes, example: Jupiter - John D. MacArthur Campus, Dania Beach - SeaTech, 2006-2007 Quick Facts. Arcadia Publishing, 12-13,15. ISBN 978-0-7385-0614-2. (endashes on page ranges)
Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 01:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikify full dates in the date parameter on cite templates for consistent display according to user prefs, example: Bandell, Brian (2007-09-18). Inconsistent date formats when date parameter isn's wikifed, example: "Weeks of welcome: What's happening on your campus", The University Press, 2004-08-12. Retrieved on July 22, 2007.
  • I did a few samples for you; more to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done KnightLago 01:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Dates are needed on citations when available, example: Reality TV show to feature porn stars. Retrieved on November 25, 2006. Yes check.svg Done
  • See Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s exercises to reduce redundancy throughout, example: As of 2007, a total of 2,691 students live on-campus, withincluding 1,700 of those being freshmen.
I worked on this, but I am sure I missed some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightLago (talkcontribs) 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article has potential however I'm not sure what else should be done to it. I would like contributors to read the article and then make suggestions on the talk page of the article, or alternatively try to improve it themselves.


Wikidudeman (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Review by User:Midnightdreary Considering the nature of this topic, this is certainly a well-done article! Here are some suggestions.

I like the choice for the main image; I wouldn't be able to think of anything better. My personal preference, though, would be to have the caption in smaller text. In the intro, consider making the first paragraph a little less wordy. After that, get into more specific terminology. I think your second paragraph is a little rough. The first line there seems to suggest that all those who are skeptical believe in selection bias or whatever. It's also a very long sentence. A more appropriate intro to that 'graph could just be: "There is much skepticism about the validty of precognition." It also helps because it introduces skepticism before explaining the reason for it.

History and research could probably be expanded further. Additional references will probably reveal more information to add in. I'd also recommend more footnotes (here and throughout). As always, the more sources and citations in an article, the better. I'm also wondering if there are earlier references to precognition in history. There certainly must be notable historical figures who were precognitive (Nostradamus, for one).

The Skepticism section is a very important section for this article and I was glad to see it! Even so, I'm sure there is more skepticism that could be added. Again further sources will help expand this. The entire section is also very wordy. Consider using simpler sentences or breaking up. For example: The existence of precognition is disputed by some who believe that there is a lack of scientific evidence supporting the existence of precognition and who contend that examples of what are commonly thought to be precognition can be explained naturally without evoking supernatural abilities. - That's a mouthful.

For further expansion, I wonder if there are sources out there talking about rationalizing "true" precognition (i.e. brain studies of alleged precogs or some scientific study that actually lends credence to claims of precognition). The studies that are mentioned in the Research section don't really show one way or the other.

My only comment about "In fiction" is to consider more mythological references. I'm sure ancient Greek folklore has some stories.

Well, great work moving this up a notch. Keep up the good work! --Midnightdreary 23:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1. What do you mean caption with smaller text?
2. Most of the info that could be added to this article edits in the Psychic article and adding any new information would likely be redundant between the two. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Psychic visions are only those obtained though the use of psi by the viewer. Precognition may be through other means as well. the entry on psychic should be limited to that which falls under Parapsychology. Precognition can include other things such as accounts in mythology. - perfectblue 15:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
perfectblue is correct. Precognitin can be perceived via dreams and hypnosis. BRiCKDuDE102692 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Review by Perfectblue

Okay, firstly, the history section is rather too brief. It mentions that there have been claims made and experiments done, but it really could do with going into more detail. There is a lot of material out there that could be used but isn't being touched. Also, the history section doesn't start until 1927, whereas there there are accounts of precognition going back millennia. How about some information on Nostradamus, or the Roman Oracles? What about Biblical prophecy - Seven fat years, seven lean years, anybody? They aren't even given a wikilink, let alone a sentence or two.

There should also be something about precognition in popular belief in the modern age. Countless members of the population at large have made claims about precognition, yet not one of them even gains a mention. How about including some of the best known ones. What about the people who claim to have predicted 9/11 or to have gotten off of planes/boats that were famously lost? How about some famous debunked claims? The article could also do with correctly putting belief in precognition into perspective. For example, the results of a survey showing exactly how many people actually believe in it. Do 99% of American's believe in precognition, or do 99% think that it's bunk?

The skeptics section also lacks credibility. It has only 2 citations. One of which is from Carrol whose primary area of experience is social psychology, not parapsychology or scientific skepticism. How about some more sources. How about some alternative ideas. For example, selection bias is all well and good, but it is only a small factor in things such as engineered hoaxes etc.

The fiction section also reads like a trivia section. It needs to concentrate on some well known examples and to explain the part that they play in their particular fiction.

What is also missing is any real explanation of the mechanism behind precognition. There are pleanty of cranks and loons out there, plus some physicists too. Are people viewing a parallel universe that's slightly ahead of our own, or are they experiencing delusions?

perfectblue 15:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You make many good points. It has been stated that for every action that is taken, there are many parallel universes that take a different action and are created by the action. This is a very confusing concept, but this sense of alternate realities explains how many authentic clairvoyants predict a future that does not happen. It seems that the mind can hurdle into the future and past, if only for a moment, and across the universe. BRiCKDuDE102692 02:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludwig Ernst von Brunswick-Lüneburg-Bevern[edit]

Any suggestions for bringing this article up from B (which it easily reached) to GA? Neddyseagoon - talk 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


A few suggestions:

  • Expand the intro by one more paragraph so it summarizes in slightly more detail the entire article.
  • Instead of using "he" to refer to the article's subject as often, try using Ludwig at least every other time, and especially at the beginning of a section.
  • I think you could change the "family" section title to "origin" or "birth" so that it will appear that you have more information on his early life.
  • I think you have too many one paragraph sections. Whenever possible sections should contain at least two paragraphs. Perhaps some of them could be combined.
  • I would suggest having a citation in at least every paragraph, preferably at the end of the paragraph, even if it's the same citation for the following paragraph.
  • The grammer needs going over again, there are some problems. For example, "according to some with the intention restraining William's older sister Carolina" and "It is not impossibly that Ludwig had an influence in bringing prince William V"

All in all, very good work on the article. Cla68 23:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger Davies[edit]

My concerns echo Cla68's. The biggest current problem is the inadequate referencing, which is an absolute bar to further progress. (You will see that it fails B-class for the same reason.) Otherwise, a comprehensive and broadly well-written piece. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A.F.C. Wimbledon[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to see how high it could get on the quality scale.


Sunderland06 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC) My comments

  • YesY done please refer to football clubs as either 'it' or 'they' and stick to the same throughout
actually what you've done isn't what I meant, having the name of the club sometimes is good. I was refering to statements like 'The club places great emphasis on its role' & 'The Dons' success in 2004-05 was not limited to their senior side'. There are lots more. You can either refer to the club as a single entity 'it' or as a collection of people 'they' but if you keep flitting between the 2 it gets confusing. JMiall 23:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • YesY done 'agreed to allow the owners of their club to relocate' - could this just say 'agreed to allow Wimbledon FC to relocate'? at present it is slightly confusing
  • YesY cited done 'their traditional local support dried up almost immediately in a ground-swell of popular protest against the move.' - this is potentially POV and so needs a citation. There are other statements like this, some work definitely needs doing on improving the referencing
  • YesY done 'leaving AFC Wimbledon as the sole bearer of the "Wimbledon" name' - what about AFC Wimbledon Ladies?
  • YesY done 'the ground they shared with Kingstonian' - 'share'?
  • sort out minor typos
  • YesY deleted pre honours done why are the Wimbledon FC honours in the article? Those honours do not belong to AFC Wimbledon, they are not the same club, they are a new club with many of the same supporters from the same area. JMiall 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In a similar vein, the multiple dates of foundation need to be removed, AFC Wimbledon have no legal claim to having been founded in 1889 ChrisTheDude 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • A lot of work needed on the manual of style, e.g. WP:DASH should be visited for advice on how to use the en-dash for scores, year ranges etc. See also WP:HEAD - for section headings.
  • YesY done I don't like the season-by-season break-down - look at other club articles for guidance (e.g. Arsenal F.C., Norwich City F.C.) and base you article on those, even for GA.
  • See WP:CITE for where to put citations, and try to use {{Cite web}} which provides an easy template with free, consistent formatting of data for each citation.
  • YesY done replaced with relatively "...astonishingly ..." - avoid Point of View terms.
  • YesY done "Enfield Town 2-1]];[14] " - copyedit required, stray pair of brackets.
  • A heading like "Why "AFC?"" isn't appropriate - it'd be better to add that information into a History section or similar.
  • YesY done Why are some players red linked? Are they any more significant than those that aren't? If not, remove linkage.
  • Club records need to be written as prose and cited.
  • YesY done Scrap 90% of the external links per WP:EL.

Hope they help. The Rambling Man 11:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ann Bannon[edit]

After including, quite literally, all information compiled in a single place about this author (in print or on the Internet), getting her personal approval in its content, and scouring every reference I could find, I think it's time for a peer review. It's currently rated at a B class (by me, you know...) and would like to know if it could be rated higher. --Moni3 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Nice job on digging up the sources! Footnote 36 has some more that might help you out. I'll give the article a proper review in a few days. Awadewit | talk 04:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I used that source, as well as all but three of the sources listed. I'm not going to stop looking, but those are print sources from 1983 that don't seem to be national publications - I haven't been able to get hold of them yet. I'll continue to work on it, though!--Moni3 11:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Comments from Awadewit[edit]

  • This article does a nice job discussing Bannon's writings, but I feel that it is thin on biography. As it is supposed to be primarily a biography article, this needs to be rectified.
  • More information in this article needs to be cited - I added some fact tags to potentially controversial claims.
  • I would suggest moving many of the plot details on the Beebo Brinker Chronicles to those books' pages and summarizing more here. Discuss the writing of the books in relation to Bannon's life - discuss her as a writer rather than the books themselves.
  • Laura ends up marrying her best friend Jack, who is also gay, and Bannon illustrated the mind-boggling details of the relationships of people who were gay in the 1950s - Watch out for phrases like "mind-boggling" - that appears to be POV.
  • There are quite a few long quotations in this article - can you paraphrase a few more of them?
  • The article needs a copy editor - someone who hasn't spent hours poring over the prose - to fix some of the awkward sentences and pick up the dropped words.

This article is a good start and I have confidence that with a bit more work it can reach GA and eventually FA. Awadewit | talk 11:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your feedback, thank you. Regarding a more rounded biography, I have thought for a while Bannon's article would not get past a B class since she let a very private life apart from the books for many years, so where I might want to add information about her early experiences, there are not references describing those. If you know of a way to overcome this I'm open to suggestions, but I accepted a while ago its limitations.
  • If there is scant info, there is scant info. Other biographies have still made it to FA, such as William Monahan. I think that you have adopted the best policy to overcome this limitation - discuss the works. Awadewit | talk 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I will check out his article and see what I can do with Bannon's. I did add some more personal info from her early life, especially regarding the inspiration for the stories, reaction to the re-release and her "obsessive fantasizing." Thanks for the direction. --Moni3 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
  • I'll cite the areas that need to be cited. There is one tag that asks for a citation about "the handful of books were published with lesbianism as a subject before the 1950s" in "Longevity". Should I note this at the bottom (I have no notes section as of now) listing the books that were published with lesbian characters until 1950? There would be eight of them (to which availability would be quite limited). How do I quantify that statement?
  • You don't need to cite the works, you need to cite a work that makes the claim that there were only a handful - a secondary work in other words. It sounds like that shouldn't be a problem for you, though. You seem to have read about this material.Awadewit | talk 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. --Moni3 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
  • Because the content of the books is quite groundbreaking in light of their 1. uniqueness to popular literature, 2. availability to a very wide audience, 3. atypical characters, 4. impact on the concept of a lesbian identity, and 5. positive portrayal of homosexuality during this extraordinarily repressive time, I think the very brief synopses do belong in the article to give the later impact statements a context for readers. The individual books' articles have much more detailed summaries.
  • I think that the points you have just outlined are far more important to emphasize to the casual reader than the details of the plots (and it sounds as if your sources make that claim as well). I would structure the section around those five points and use the plot details to explain them. Awadewit | talk 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • All right. I can do that. In doing so, I might be able to take care of the next point. --Moni3 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
  • I will work on rephrasing some of the phrasing and quotations (although I challenge anyone to read the descriptions of Jack and Laura's marriage and not find them mind-boggling).
  • That adjective is just rather extreme. Awadewit | talk 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the article might benefit from a copyedit from someone who hasn't read it as often as I have. Thanks again. --Moni3 14:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Response to Awadewit[edit]

I've restructured the section under The Beebo Brinker Chronicles so as not to depend on the plotlines so much - yet still keeping the information that was essential to the understanding of the aforementioned 5 points, incorporated more personal information, and rearranged some of the quotes to make it make a bit more sense. I've added more references, and will continue to do so as I can. I appreciate your suggestions. I would very much like to see this as a GA, but have no aspirations as yet beyond that. First things first. --Moni3 03:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Corey Holmes[edit]

I am requesting a peer reveiw for this article to see how high it could be rated. --Sunderland06 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


I want to get this to Good Article status, but I'm not sure on the specifics. It obviously needs references, but what else? Thanks for your help. --Teggles 09:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Perreault[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because a debate has been going on at User_talk:RGTraynor#Gilbert_Perreault regarding

RGTraynor edits,
TonyTheTiger partial revert,
RGTraynor revert,
TonyTheTiger line by line item by item revert (see edit summaries).

We have taken the article to the talk page of both WP:HOCKEY and WP:WPBIO with no response. We need some opinions on the level of referencing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated review[edit]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


  • A picture of him would be helpful, but I do not know if it is easy to find one.
  • "Blessed with an uncanny ability to stickhandle in close quarters, he was regarded as one of the most gifted and skillful playmaking centers ever to play the game." Hmmm ... "Blessed with" etc. tend to be a bit POV IMO.Yes check.svg Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Anything about his personal life?
  • Per WP:MOS, do not wikilink single years ("In 1969 and 1970"), only full dates.Yes check.svg Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Try not to have uncited paragraphs like the second in "Professional career".
  • The two templates you have after Statistics go at the end of the article.Yes check.svg Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Trim as much as you can the "See also" section, incorporating links in the main text.
  • I did not follow all the debate, but I tend not to agree with the opinion that "Items of readily provable fact, such as that Perreault is a Hall of Famer or the years during which he was named an All-Star, are already cited in the general references and the external link and do not require a cloud of jarring inline citations." I am from Greece, and I know nothing about him, so this stuff for me is not "readily provable fact". I need verifiable sources, convincing me that everything you state and assume is accurate.--Yannismarou 11:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bath Abbey[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd just like some feedback before going to WP:GA.


Vox Humana 8' 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The history and architecture sections have no references. --Cheesy Mike 10:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A few inline images, appropriate to the text they accompany, would be nice. Not all images shoudl be consigned to the gallery - it isn't an all-or-nothing thing. --Cheesy Mike 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Territorial claims in the Arctic[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have no idea about the direction I should take this article in, and I would appreciate some more feedback on it's current status. Mainly, I have revamped this article to include blurbs about the Northwest Passage, Hans Island, and the Beaufort Sea. Whether this is appropriate/necessary, I am unsure. Feedback on the talk page has been okay, but I would like to see more. Any other review items such as format etc. would be great too.

One million thank yous,

-- Reaper X 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 47 nm, use 47 nm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 47&nbsp;nm.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), recognize (A) (British: recognise), program (A) (British: programme).
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: can't, isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Twigboy 17:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Twigboy[edit]

  • Inline citations could use consistency and expansion with the {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} templates.
  • Footnote 1, 12 and 16 have broken links, as Yahoo news does not keep articles for long. If they were Associated Press stories, there may be alternative sources.
  • Footnote 24 uses name="disputes" which is a nonexistent name and an empty reference.
  • The "North Pole" headline should probably be "North Pole and Arctic Ocean" because claims, such as the 1926 USSR claim include a large wedge of the Arctic Ocean, including the North Pole.
  • Canada's reaction to Arktika 2007 comes before Russia's North Pole claim (due to alphabetical section order). Therefore the reader has to click the link and get the context of Arktika 2007 before the quotation makes sense.
  • I think the section heading "Recent claims" might be better written as "21st century claims". 2001 may not be seen as recent by some, and the passage of time makes "recent" history.
  • Other than Russia, the subsections under Recent claims are short. Suggestion: present this section chronologically, rather than sectioned by country.
  • Hans Island section needs more references. The border drawn by the treaty (127 points) especially should be sourced.
  • The first mention of the US not signing the Law of the Sea is under the headline "Beaufort Sea". This might be significant enough to merit an earlier mention in the article, perhaps even in the lede.
  • Beaufort Sea and Northwest Passage are a bit short. It seems that Northwest Passage" should be the first section; to me, this is historically the most significant Arctic claim.

Twigboy 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Using citations in proper format will come. I took you up on your suggestion to present the North Pole section chronologically, and renaming it to "North Pole and Arctic Ocean". It just needs some serious reworking/tweaking/expansion/updating. As for Beaufort Sea and Northwest Passage, I have kept them short because they already have their own articles. Shouldn't we keep it short for that reason? -- Reaper X 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway[edit]

This became a featured article back in January 2005. A new book about the politics of the construction recently came out, and the article needed some general updating due to rising standards. I would like to know if I did a good job, especially with the sections that deal with the design of the bridge and the labor issues, both areas I'm not well acquainted with. Thank you for any input. --NE2 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the revisions kick ass, for all of me. It looks better and "feels" better, and that image of the bridge kicks the old plaque image across the street. - Denimadept 01:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for Featured List status.

Thanks, GaryColemanFan 18:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury[edit]

Review for "good article" criteria.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's great that the article has so many references. That will be a positive going into GA. That aside, however, there are big problems with the general structure and particular sections. First off, the lead is too short. It needs to be expanded and written in paragraphs (preferrably two or three), not isolated sentences. The Legacy section needs to be written in summary style, meaning get rid of the poll lists and write them out in paragraph style. Also I don't see why this section needs four subsections. Those subsections seem to be too particularized to have any significance anyway ('The world's first Indian and Persian rock star' can be mentioned, but it doesn't need a stubby subsection).
I think you also need more information about how he started in the business. Basically, talk about some of the early years. After the Early life section, the next section begins with the sentence, "Widely considered as one of the greatest vocalists in popular music, Freddie Mercury possessed a very distinctive voice." Yeah agreed, but you shouldn't write this so soon in the article. Information like that belongs in the Legacy section. As a general note, there's a lot about his impact and why he was special, but not enough on what he did. There needs to be a little more chronological history there. The Quotes section should be deleted. It is unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. Overall though, a fairly good job. I'm sure this will reach GA once these concerns are addressed.UberCryxic 16:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, The article has been improved a lot since the last review. In the first place, the introduction paragraph was expanded in order to better explain why the subject is of importance. The awkward Legacy section that once consisted of a series of bullet points has also been incorporated into an actual series of paragraphs. We also did a lot of work in order to better explain what this individual actually accomplished in terms of live performances and solo work, for instance. These issues were barely addressed at the time of the last review. As was suggested, the new article also has a couple of sentences dealing with the formation of Queen and involvement in earlier bands. As was suggested by UberCryxic above, the Early Life section was largely expanded.

I am now interested in further suggestions for improvement. In the first place, I want to ensure that the page reads like an encyclopedia article rather than a fan page. I also want to make sure that it is not too biased (that is very difficult for a fan!) In particular, I wonder whether there is enough criticism. I also wonder whether the article appears to have a neutral tone. Hope to hear some good ideas here. 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the value added by the 1964 picture, as his face is hard to see and looks about the same as later in life.

The Axl Rose quote should be moved to the legacy section.

There's a picture of Mercury playing the guitar, but no mention of his guitar playing in the Instrumentalist section of the article. How much did he play the guitar?

"Over the years, rare albums..." should be moved to the Legacy section.

"They nevertheless remained close friends": Austin or the record executive?

Is Collins's quote on promiscuity notable?

The inclusion of Roger Taylor in the stamp is a controversy about postal service decisions, not the band, unless there's evidence that the band lobbied for a stamp breaking the policies. If so, that should be discussed in an article about the band, not about Mercury.

Is the list of instruments used worth including in an encyclopedia article? The main portion of the article already refers to "various keyboard instruments" and "extensive use of synthesizers."

Good luck with your revisions to an already fine article. VisitorTalk 16:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Great to see your advice here. I think that you have a lot of really good points. I am trying to incorporate some of these things. In the first place, I completely removed the stamp controversy, the Phil Collins quotation and the discussion regarding the value of solo albums. We will have to see if other users put them back in. I also changed the sentence that was not clear regarding "the two remaining best friends." User:|]] 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident[edit]

Request for a peer review of this article, which has come a long way. A fair amount of work and cooperation has gone into this article, which the main editors feel still may have some issues, and would seek critical evaluation as to its merits (or otherwise), with the aim of submitting it for GA or FA. Thanks,

Ohconfucius 01:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Wisden Trophy records[edit]

This is a list page which I feel is close to FA standard for lists. Any helpful pointers in improving this page would be greatly appreciated. Monsta666 12:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Myles N. Kenyon Cup[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I think as a relatively historic competition it should have an article of some quality on it and as I am the sole contributor would like a second opinion.

As it's not too long I would like the whole article reviewed if anyone thinks they could


BigHairRef | Talk 07:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Say You'll Be There[edit]

Requesting peer review on this article. It's a 1996 song by the Spice Girls. It needs to be edited, revised, and improved by another editor. Pretty much open to any suggestions, comments, and what-have-you.


Frcm1988 06:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • You've done a great job at maintaining it, it looks great. I'd recommend extending the lead section a bit more, say another paragraph at the least to ensure that the lead summarises the whole article. I can also see a bit of inconsistency in terms of formatting references; the little <ref> tags must be placed at the end of a period and after a comma or semi-colon. You might consider moving the ref tag to the end of the sentence when it's attached to a particular word, e.g. "[...] where it reached number one in Finland[3]and the top ten throughout.", move [3] to the end of the statement. Sebi [talk] 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll try to work on that.


  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

University of North Dakota[edit]

I've recently spent quite a bit of effort working on this article. The biggest thing that I have tried to do is source the article. I would like some feedback on any areas that could use improvement. I hope to see this article become at the very least a Good Article and hopefully a Featured Article. --MatthewUND(talk) 05:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Statler and Waldorf: From the Balcony[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working to put all the information on this important and entertaining webshow together on Wikipedia and I want to see what else needs to be done to improve and polish this article to get up to FA status.

Thanks, -Statler&Waldorf 00:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Salvia divinorum[edit]

I intend to nominate this article as a featured article, so please leave comments about what this article needs to reach FA status. I feel the article is complete but not perfect, so even minor comments would be greatly appreciated. There is an old peer review archived here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salvia divinorum/archive1 Jolb 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Erbert & Gerbert's[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the page is in far better shape then previously, and is well sited with relevant information. I would like to see what areas are in need of improvement.


Colslax 05:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Path 66[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I need ideas and suggestions on how to improve this article further. To me, it seems like the article is the best it could be for something that is written by a non-expert on the subject matter.


Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Path 26[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I need ideas and suggestions on how to improve this article further. To me, it seems like the article is the best it could be for something that is written by a non-expert on the subject matter.


Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Path 15[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I need ideas and suggestions on how to improve this article further. To me, it seems like the article is the best it could be for something that is written by a non-expert on the subject matter.


Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 23:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Council of Europe[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it deals with one of the oldest and largest international organisations (currently 47 countries) and seems to cover its broad scope rather well.


RCS 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Ok then, when I started the work on the article it was in a hideous state with no references and quite a messy context. I have managed to add seven references and clean up the article to a better state and I was planning to take this article on to Good article status however I don't think it is quite ready yet so I would like this article peer reviewed so I can fix any problems which may hold the article back.

Thanks, The sunder king 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Some comments:

  • The information from the sentence starting "The term possibly stems from either ship building.." is only included in the led and not in the rest of the article. The information should be removed or moved into the main portion of the article. See WP:LEAD.
  • Sentence starting "Often people from.." doesn't finish with a full stop.
Still no full stop.
  • The "Theories of origin" section could do with more references. For example, the paragraph starting "The term could equally be a reference.." doesn't give a single reference.
  • The "Famous Mackems" section is very subjective, POV etc. Needs a criteria or should be removed.
Still opinionated and subjective.
  • The references should give more info, e.g. title, date, accessdate etc.
One more reference needs more parameters adding.

Hope this helps. Mattythewhite 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Completed mostly everything that's mentioned above. The sunder king 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, what relevance does the bridge have? Mattythewhite 18:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well the bridge is basically a part of Mackem life. It's sunderland and I thought adding a picture would brighten up the article so it didn't look boring. The sunder king 18:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just done a general cleanup of the theories section for grammar and weasel words. I didn't see anything requiring cleanup in the rest of the article, but I may have missed some, of course. The article could use some more references, but otherwise it looks good. I will now take a look at the list of Mackems to address the POV concern. Peace, The Hybrid 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, the list of notable Mackems looks fine to me. If we could perhaps be provided with some more specific information about why exactly it is opinionated and subjective, then we would be more successful in addressing the problem that you see. Cheers, The Hybrid 23:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New York University[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was just listed as a good article and I'd like more feedback so the article can achieve featured article status. I would like comments and/or contributions on references, pictures, and structure of the article. If you have any other related concerns that would help the article achieve FA status I would love to hear them!


Noetic Sage 20:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Green tickYPer Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Green tickYPer Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 01:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts from JayHenry[edit]

  • This article's looking quite good. If you haven't already, I suggest looking at the other university FAs at WP:FA#Education, particularly Georgetown University and Texas A&M University. Here are some scattered thoughts:
    • I'd like to see clarification of the founding. "The city's landed class of merchants, bankers, and traders" -- all of them?
    • "Many artists and intellectuals such as Edgar Allan Poe, Mark Twain, Herman Melville and Walt Whitman contributed to the artistic scene near NYU. As a result, they had notable interaction with the cultural and academic life of the University." What does this mean? Were they professors? Did they just walk around the neighborhood? Have affairs with students? These are important historical figures so it's okay to take an extra sentence or two about their connection to the school, particularly if their connection lent prestige to the university. Also in the paragraph below, where it talks about Ginsberg and Dylan. Did they just live there? Did they clash with the university about expansion?
    • I think we need a bit more about the history of the university. Anything noteworthy happen after Dylan?
    • "NYU is ranked #1 in Italian, finance, mathematics, and theater" are these graduate programs? In general, academics needs more flesh. Look at the other university FAs and see what sections might be good to add here.
    • Tisch is a really important and influential school. You can certainly have a whole paragraph about Tisch, instead of just a sentence.
    • Green tickY Admissions can be a sub-section of academics.
    • Isn't NYU a particularly liberal and activist-minded campus? If it is, this should be mentioned.
    • Green tickY I'd lose the bit about "New Ivies" from the lead. This was just a gimmicky-thing used to sell some copies of Newsweek, it's not a term that has any significance. Dozens and dozens of schools like to boast about the one time they were labeled a "Catholic Ivy" or a "Southern Ivy" or the "Ivy of Boise" or whatever.
    • We mention football in the lead, so it'd be worth saying why they got rid of the team in the 60s. Generally, anything in the lead should be explained further in the article.
    • Green tickY Why is "the Bun" mentioned in the section on notable faculty?
  • I'll give another read in a couple of days, but those are some ideas on where to work. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions. I'll add this review to my watchlist. --JayHenry 02:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cathedral School for Boys[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have worked quite a lot on this article and I am proud of it. I have put much effort into referencing it, establishing notability, copyediting and so forth. I would like to see if the Wikipedia community thinks of it as a quality school article. Thanks,

Marlith T/C 17:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Danner[edit]

I just recently expanded this page from a single paragraph to it's current status. I think it is nearly "Good Article" (GA) class, but I want to get other editor's opinions on what can be done to improve the page further. I personally think the lead needs to be expanded, but I'm horrible at summarizing things. I would like it if someone could help me with this in addition.


Ghostexorcist 07:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One Rincon Hill[edit]

Link to old discussion here.

I've re-listed this article for peer review because I have cleaned up the article greatly after the last peer review. Unverifiable material has been removed, certain sections have been cleaned up and organized and an infobox has been added. However, I would still like to know how this article could be improved and I am also wondering if this article meets GA-standard.


Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A lot of the articles in red links I see will probably not be notable enough to receive their own article, so sift through the current red links and determine whether the link is worth keeping or not.
  • Is it possible to expand the lead section a bit more? The lead section must summarise the whole article sufficiently, so one could read the whole lead section of an article and have a good understanding of what the subject is about.
  • "[...] entrance will be located on the sixth floor, and the "first" floor will be [...]"; "first" is in quotation marks, "sixth" isn't. Decide whether it's neccessary – marks or no marks, it must be consistent throughout the whole article.
  • When discussing gallons and litres, or metres and feet, remember to link the unit of measurement. The same principle applies when discussing currencies; use USD$100,000 (and future instances use USD$100,000 without the link) instead of just $100,000.

Other than that, it has proved quite a bit since I last had a look through. Good job at finding sources, and generally improving the article. Another thing I might suggest is find another editor at a relevant WikiProject or another editor in the San Fransisco area to collaborate with; taking on a project by yourself can be fun, but working with others can vastly improve the article and it makes it easier to spot errors and make changes if someone helps out. Sebi [talk] 05:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - removed redlinks, quotation marks, formated units. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - also did a minor rewrite of the intro; how does it look? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Gillingham F.C. players[edit]

Obviously I realise there are still quite a few redlinks on this list (33 as I write this, I believe), but I'm working my way through creating those articles. In the meantime I thought I'd bring this article to PR to see if there's anything else I need to do to get it to FL status.......


ChrisTheDude 09:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • This'll be why you were asking about pre-1960s positions then. Is there some missing information preventing you from including cup appearances too? Nothing else stands out as being amiss. A strict grammarian might dislike the use of "whilst", several style guides (or at least the Guardian one I use) discourage it. Oldelpaso 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't include cup data because Neil Brown's site doesn't include it and neither does Roger Triggs' book (Soccerbase does but this is obviously only any good for players in the last decade or so). I've just taken out a one-month subscriptions to, which does include cup data, so if I have time I will rejig the page to include it..... ChrisTheDude 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually there is some info I can't obtain - whilst while does list cup appearances, it only does so for the seasons during which the Gills were in the Football League. Some players on the list, such as Jock Robertson, also played for the club while they were in the Southern League and Kent League, and, whilst I could justify leaving out their matches in these competitions due to them being at a non-league level, they probably also played in some FA Cup matches during that time, but allfootballers does not record these, nor does any other source I can find. Therefore, to avoid including data which I can't guarantee to be 100% complete, I'd prefer to restrict it to league stats only........ ChrisTheDude 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey, nice work so far. A couple of comments...

  • Personal preference but I'd prefer the names and nationalities left justified, as in List of Aston Villa F.C. players. Just looks a bit neater.
  • I'm no expert but when using the {{Cite book}} template repeatedly for the same book I don't think it's necessary to add all the information such as ISBN, etc.
  • Consider adding club record holders as a categorisation within the table, e.g. most appearances, top goal scorer, most international caps whilst while at the club etc..
  • I'm curious why a select few player's records have citations. Do you intend to add a citation for them all, or would it be simpler and neater to reference the book only?

But otherwise it's nearly up there with the FLs... The Rambling Man 08:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • "I'm curious why a select few player's records have citations. Do you intend to add a citation for them all, or would it be simpler and neater to reference the book only?" - I used Neil Brown's site (which is ref'd in the column heading itself) as my primary reference for a couple of reasons - firstly it's online, so anyone can check it to confirm the numbers, and secondly it shows all the club's players since 1950 on one list, so people can see that I haven't missed anyone out. However, it doesn't include any pre-WWII players, which is why I have referenced them separately using the book. Would it be better, IYO, to reference everyone's apps/goals from the book but include the site as an "external link"? ChrisTheDude 08:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Probably, that's what I'd do. I understand now why you've done it but it just appears a little odd to have citations for just some. I'd leave the citation in the heading and remove the others, but it's a drastic move so I'd look for some consensus before just going on my opinion! The Rambling Man 08:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, thinking about it, I'd still need to reference certain players separately, as the book only goes up to 2001. So maybe it would be best to simply reference each line separately..... ChrisTheDude 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps then it's nice to add a "Notes" column for the citations rather than place them next to the stats themselves. The Rambling Man 09:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, that's what I'd do if I referenced each line separately. I'll get on to that later. Cheers for all your input! ChrisTheDude 09:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Of course, as always, you're welcome! The Rambling Man 09:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Weird Al" Yankovic[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the content is excellent, but the structure isn't particularly clear. There are many small sections, with a lot of facts that don't seem to "gel" very well. I think that this article needs changing somewhat.


Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • NOTE: Article is already at FA status and has been for over 10 months. --Michael Greiner 13:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. But I don't want to take it to FARC just yet. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this FA needs work, and Ta bu shi da yu did the article a favor in requesting a peer review rather than just listing it at WP:FAR, since that provides time for the editors to correct the deficiencies. The TOC is rambling and the article needs better organization. There are WP:MSH, WP:MOS#Captions and WP:DASH problems. References are not fully and consistently formatted (for example, there are many missing publishers, see WP:CITE/ES). A section heading of "Biography" on a Biography is redundant. There are a few throw-away sentences that don't belong in an encylopedic entry (example: An exhaustive list of television shows on which Yankovic has appeared is available on his official website.) I hope the regular editors will take some time (say a month) to clean this article up to FA standard so it can avoid WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version is nicely comprehensive. The mention of UHF should refer to its (admittedly thin) plot of a struggling TV station as the justification for the variety of styles, skits and parodies in the movie. Is Donny Osmond the only music star to appear as himself in a Weird Al video? VisitorTalk 18:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is organized well. It also reads well. My only question is whether the "Misattribution and Imitators" and "Weird Al Star Fund" sections really belong there. They seemed a bit trivial to me. I also thought that the intro was not quite uptight enough in tone for an encyclopedia article. It is as though Weird Al himself wrote the intro! Other than that it looks good. 01:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Weird Al Star Fund, I was considering expanding that to include the "Make the Rock Hall Weird" fan campaign as well. I guess the "Misattribution" section could be reduced and placed under the "Music" section. I can't really devote much time to the article at the moment thanks to a heap of uni work. But in mid-November, if nobody else has worked on the article, I can do all that. Thanks to everybody for their input so far! I was worried it was going to be a much more critical peer review. ~~ Gromreaper(Talk)/(Cont) 12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro is pretty good. The first paragraph of "Early Life" is out of order; it starts with Al being born, and then goes back to his father's earlier life, and then on to what is father taught his son, and then ends with Al being born. I'd lead in the "early fame" section with playing the accordion at coffeeshops, since that seems less impressive than the Dr. Demento bit, and they're presented as occurring at the same time. Either that, or I'd clarify that the coffeeshops element came later. The part about him not being Jewish feels rather out of place; it doesn't follow from the paragraph that it is found in. Two sentences on the "Wikipedia/YOU SUCK" issue seems like a bit much; one seems more appropriate. I agree that "Misattribution and Imitators" doesn't seem worthy of being in the article, at least in as big of a form as it is -- same with the star fund. I wouldn't mind shorter mentions of them worked in. -- Rei 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, thanks for the good suggestions and if nobody else works them into the article, I shall in November. ~~ Gromreaper(Talk)/(Cont) 12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


previous peer review


Requesting a new peer review now that Manchester has been promoted to WP:GA and looking to bring it up to WP:FA status as soon as we can. Any criticism or praise is very welcome and we, the editors of the Manchester article, already have some ideas about what to start doing which are at the bottom of Talk:Manchester but we need more ideas, ideally in list form. Thank you very much for your time and we hope to hear from someone soon. and-rewtalk 12:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dihydrogen Monoxide's comments[edit]

I'm feeling far too lazy to do a full review, so here are some quick notes, and another auto-pr (if anything has changed!).

  • I'm surprised to see there are no co-ordinates (Template:Coord) showing in the top right corner of the screen.
  • I think there are too many images - do we really need that many?
  • All those templates at the bottom of the article make it look ugly...
  • Could just remove the see also section, there's only one item there.
  • Sport section needs more referencing.
  • So does transport section.
  • Image at start of Landmarks section is far too big, IMO.
  • Expand the World War II section, if possible.
And now for the auto-PR!

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • it is claimed
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The article looks really good. But here are some comments (mostly on getting the right wording down):
    • In History, the "The devastation left by the IRA bombing." image could use a little better description of what we are looking at.
    • In Geography, "163.3 miles (262.8 km) northwest of London" - for such large distances, the 0.3 and 0.8 are overdoing it.
    • In Geography, the last two sentences are a little vague.
      • "not a common sight" - once every couple years? once a year? a couple days a year? are there any hard figures (measurements) on this?
      • "can be closed" - first, why (treacherous terrain, snow drifts, lack of road maintenance equipment, etc)? second, this makes it sound like it happens a lot. if that is true then fine, but the reference only describes one snow event
    • Great climate graphic.
    • In Demographics, "It boasts the second largest Jewish population in the country[50] and one of the largest Muslim populations in Greater Manchester." - so...what's wrong with Christians? Reserve the term "boasts" for when somebody is trying to promote something or for when there is a clearly undesirable alternative.
    • In Demographic, "it is now estimated that Manchester's black and minority ethnic population has..." - who estimated that?
    • In Economy, "However the city has now switched to a largely service-based economy..." - "switched" makes it seem like it happened rapidly. If so, why? Or how about 'Since 19xx, the city has developed a more service-based economy...'
    • In Economy, "The city is a growing centre for business and has recently been ranked both as the best place,[4] and the second best place to do business in the UK,[55]." - "growing centre for business" in terms of what? number of jobs, office space, GDP? It is fine, but I'd be interested in a more clear statement with who/when ranked it, why it got the ranking.
    • In Economy, "...that will serve as home to..." speculation. How about "is designed to serve as..." or just state the facts and let the reader draw that conclusion.
    • In Economy, "The city boasts large numbers of shops..." - boasts? is this hype or does it really have more than a similar-sized city?
    • In Landmarks, "...although recently there has been an upsurge in interest for building more." and " an example of the new surge..." - what does that mean? It isn't backed up in any references. So they built a highrise, doesn't seem to be abnormal there.
    • In nightlife, the "(see main article on Culture of Manchester)" is not needed. It is already in the main-template above it. (or you can hide it behind "several key roles")
    • There are two external links in Literature.
    • Further ideas that could be developed: dominant plants/trees, utilities (water/sewage/electrical), police/crime/emergency services. --maclean 00:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Artemis Fowl (novel)[edit]

I think that this article is quite near to qualifying for GA, but I usually overestimate these things, and I expect that further improvement is needed. For this, I'm asking for some help from more experienced article writers :). Any comments/criticisms welcome. Ale_Jrbtalk 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's actually quite good, dear, and faily accurate, however:
Mistake #2 & 3: The books suggest that Artemis would not know much about Butler's past, or shouldn't, rather, according to tradition, (which, btw, Butler has breaks by telling Artemis his name, I believe. Sorry, it's been ages since I read them) Juliet trains somewhere in Asia, something we find early on in the 3rd book when Artemis reaches her by calling Madam Ko-- a phone number he shouldn't have, but I suppose we're supposed to write it off to his genius. Anyway, based on the fact that he's not supposed to know much about Butler, I suppose you could assume he wouldn't know if Butler's sensi was alive. But that brings up other plot contradictions.
I also suggest you access: There is a thread with a great many other major plot holes that might be valuble as well. (and the people are experts, and very nice, and I'm sure would be glad to help you. I'm pretty sure the majority of the members have the book memorized) I'm not sure if there's a subpage about it, but you might also mention it has a small, but very loyal and active fandom, as is evident through the before mentioned site, and Artemis Fowl Confidential. justice 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The mistakes section was actually added while I was inactive; I'm not sure it should be there (too triviaish for my liking, personally). What d'ya think? Ale_Jrbtalk 06:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
For wikipedia, it may be, I'm not sure. There really are a great number of mistakes, such as Artemis's birthday, and things like that... I'm not sure. I would definitely keep the mistakes section small, however. Other than that, I would say the article looked good. However, just because there was nothing glaringly bad about it doesn't mean its absolutely wonderful. I'm not sure I have any great ideas for making it sparkle, unfortunately. Sorry. If you need help with anything, leave a note on my talk page. justice 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Green turtle[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm seeing what else is needed before I go forward with the crucial FAC. I know there are still a couple of citation needed tags in the article towards the latter part but I'll deal with those before I dunk it in FAC. Patterned the article after my first successful FA:Hawksbill turtle. I hope there isn't too much stuff to do with this one.


Shrumster 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

  • The title of the article is "Green Turtle", but it is generally referred to in the article as Chelonia mydas, its scientific name. Is there a policy at the Amphibians and Reptiles Wikiproject which states that this is policy? Otherwise, it seems better to use the common name, considering that it is the article title.
  • " is lightly-colored all around"- all around where? The body?
  • "It is illegal to collect, harm or kill individual turtles" - green turtles specifically or turtles in general?
  • "...has a dorsoventrally-flattened body"- some readers might not be familiar with the term; it should be linked or explained.
  • "denticulation"- same thing.
  • "The carapace of the turtle is known to have various color patterns that change over time." -The green turtle specifically, or all turtles?
  • The distribution map looks a bit odd in the center there.
  • You'll need a ref for the first sentence of the Atlantic subpopulation section
  • "the distinct Hawaiian subpopulation"- this is a subpopulation of the Indo-Pacific subpopulation?
  • "shallow waters with lush seagrass beds." get rid of the redlink. Maybe just link to Seagrass?
  • "specifically, tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) are known predators..." No reason to link the scientific name, as it leads to the same location as the common name, which is also linked. Also, I don't think it's necessary to include the scientific name.
  • "Pacific green turtles are known to willingly crawl onto secluded beaches"- only Pacific ones? if so, might be interesting to include reason why.
  • "Green turtles reproduce in the typical way that marine turtles do so." which is?
  • "Female turtles control mating; males cannot force females to mate" How do females control mating? Explain in the article.

Hopefully these comments are helpful to you. Cheers, Jude. 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


I've listed this article for peer review because I've got it to Good Article status, and i'm trying to get it to featured status. Basically, I want to know if something's missing, and if something seems inadequate in the article. Thanks, Gak Blimby 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 47 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: Can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Other reviews[edit]

Well done article. I have only a couple of minor comments:

I don't see a mention of who did the voices for Pinky and the Brain.

OK, I'll write that in. Gak Blimby 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC) - Yes check.svg Done

Did Richard Stone play all the instruments, or use synthesizers to create all the musical tracks? VisitorTalk 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Animaniacs had a 40-piece orchestra, with music composed by Richard Stone. It says so in the article. Gak Blimby 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC) - Yes check.svg Done

Kenwyne Jones[edit]

I am requesting a peer reveiw for this article to see how high it could be rated. --Sunderland06 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.[?]
  • This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 20:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


  • YesY done Turn an external jump I see into proper citation.
  • YesY done "He has represented his country at every level, and is considered a tremendous athlete." "Tremendous athlete"?! POV.
  • YesY done Make your citing more consistent.
  • In general, all the articles you have submitted need further expansion, in order to become more comprehensive; otherwise, a peer-review cannot be very useful.--Yannismarou 11:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nyron Nosworthy[edit]

I want to make it as good as it can be. --Sunderland06 14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated review[edit]

The following suggestions were partly generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.

Thanks, DrKiernan 15:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Can somebody please rate this article. --Sunderland06 22:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD.
  • "Sunderland" is full of choppy paragraphs making the prose choppy.
  • Second half of "Sunderland" is incoherent and full of trivia.
  • How many articles did you submit for peer-review? Are you sure you can work on all of them at the same time?--Yannismarou 11:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jack Pelter[edit]

I am aiming for this article to be considered as a Good Article?. --Sunderland06 21:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program:

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 07:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Comments: Firstly you need to remove all of this, as it is not written in a NPOV tone: "An athletic, tall centre back, Pelter made the position his own for Canterbury with a string of fantastic displays in the 2005/2006 season, his pace, ariel ability & reading of the game make him a very difficult opponent to come up against". YesY done Then you need to move the final one-sentence paragraph saying he played for Canterbury to before the bit that says he won Canterbury's defender of the year, as otherwise it doesn't make coherent sense. However, that'll still only leave you with at most three sentences of text plus an unsourced infobox, so I think the article is still a long long way from GA status..... ChrisTheDude 07:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello can i just ask what you would rate this as after the changes by user my-dog-is-shep and i, --Sunderland06 17:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That's immeasurably better, although you still need to remove the description of his footballing abilities, or at least re-write it in a more neutral fashion. Also, can I ask where you found the photograph, as I'd be surprised if it is copyright-free.....? ChrisTheDude 20:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I found it on google but i put it on to see if it would be allowed, thanks. --Sunderland06 19:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


The article needs work:

  • YesY done The prose of the lead is problematic. Three choppy phrases?
  • YesY done Date of birth in the lead?
  • Any free-use photo of him?
  • "Pelter spent the summer of 2007 on a trial at Sunderland and featured in the 1-0 defeat against Scunthorpe he then played some reserve games for Sunderland featuring against Berwick Rangers and Hebburn town. He then later signed a 12 month deal with Sunderland." Prose issues again in this stubby section.
  • "His pace, ariel ability, and reading of the game, make him a very difficult opponent to come up against." Verbalist and uncited.
  • Club and National Carrer have no citations.
  • YesY done Note 4 is inconsistent stylistically compared to the first 3 ones.
  • YesY done Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
  • In general, add more cited info about him.--Yannismarou 11:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Edward Low[edit]

I've listed this article about the notorious pirate Edward Low for peer review because I would appreciate a few extra pairs of eyes to look over it. It seems fairly comprehensive (in as much as it can be, where there are four conflicting stories on how he died, and very little is known about his early days). There's plenty of good sources out there, though, on the piratic section of his life, so that is the most detailed. Opinions and suggestions would be welcomed.


Neil  14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Anything else? Neil  20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006)[edit]

Article currently at "B" level, with the intention of nominating it for GA after the peer review has finished. Thanks, Davnel03 15:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC) DTGardner Note: not much that the program came up with, very nice article, i will gladly go through it by hand if you would like, just leave a request on my talk page. once again, good work.

Comments by Nikki311[edit]

I just fixed some of the comma and grammar problems in the article. You want to avoid saying things like "he overcame the odds" and "this is notable" because it begins to sound weasel-y or peacock-y. Also, one more small a previous GA review (I forget which one) it was mentioned that adding parenthesis around words like kayfabe was un-encyclopedic, and that just writing out the word without the parenthesis was fine, and actually I took those out, as well. Nikki311 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments by GaryColemanFan[edit]

I think the article is well-written. I do have a few thoughts, though:
(1) I split up the first sentence because I thought it was a little awkward.

Yep, OK. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(2) the reference to PPVs becoming tri-branded in the first paragraph - Nikki added an internal link to give some clarification, which helps. I might take it a step further and say "before their decision to include wrestlers from RAW, SmackDown! and ECW on all of their PPVs."

I've added that little part, but kept "therefore making them tri-branded" on the end. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(3) I don't like passive voice, so "which was won by Lashley" sounds a little weak.

Can't think of a way to reword that at the moment. Maybe add a little onto the end of the sentence to make it: "which was won by Lashley after hitting a spear on Show". I'd like to know other opinions on that before I insert it. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"which Lashley won after hitting Show with a spear" should work. The Hybrid 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed. Davnel03 07:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(4) Is "buyrate" considered jargon? Even if it is, the end of the sentence clarifies it pretty well, so I don't know if it's an issue.

Not really an issue; even if it was; I don't consider buyrate jargon. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(5) I changed "Outside of its normal broadcast" to "Outside of the weekly broadcast" because the "its" was a little vague.

Yep, sounds better. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(6) I don't fully understand why the main feuds on RAW and SmackDown! matter. Could a line be added to explain why this is significant?

It shows that the ECW feuds weren't getting exposure on "higher rated" shows, therefore it was holding the storyline back. Also shows that the other two shows had different storylines going on at that period of time. I think it adds nicely to the background. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(7) "Rob Van Dam decided to cash in this championship opportunity" sounds too in-universe...maybe the addition of "kayfabe" before "decided"?

"Rob Van Dam kayfabe decided......." your version - personally I think that sounds weird, like the tone is completely changing. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

::"Rob Van Dam was granted the storyline spot of challenger for the WWE Championship, kayfabe cashing in his MitB Opportunity." The Hybrid 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, he wasn't going for the WWE title, and secondly he wasn't cashing in his MITB opportunity! I think you're talking about One Night Stand 2006! :) Davnel03 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC) - Mistake by Hybrid. Davnel03 09:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(8) "5-on-5 Survivor Series match at Survivor Series" sounds redundant...maybe "5-on-5 match at Survivor Series"? I changed this to "5-on-5 elimination match at Survivor Series.

OK. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(9) The last two sentences in the second "Background" paragraph: I'd split up the first and make it "Meanwhile, CM Punk faced Test..." or "Later in show, CM Punk..." And I don't understand the reason for the "however" in the final sentence...could it be removed?

Changed dramatically to: "On the final episode of ECW before December to Dismember, Van Dam defeated Sabu. Later in the show, CM Punk faced Test, but both men were counted out in their match. In the main event, Big Show was disqualified in his match against Lashley as Test and Heyman's............" Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(10) In the sentence that begins with "Unlike the Extreme Elimination Chamber rivalry..." the word "between" seems out of place (unless I'm reading it wrong...the sentence is a little confusing).

Yep, it does sound a little confusing. I've reworded the sentence. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(11) The reference to it clear enough that this is Degeneration-X? It might be.

I came accross a similar situation while in GA hold situation with the Randy Orton article. DX was written like "D-Generation X" twice, and the reviewer pointed out to me that it should be spelled out the first time, in this case at the start of the background section, then abbreviated subsequently, like I have with "D-Generation X" the first time, but there after used "DX". I'll take another example with Rob Van Dam. The first time I mentioned his name, I mentioned it fully. There after, I just simply put it as Van Dam, removing the Rob. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(12) The sentence that begins with "The fans inside the James Brown Arena..." They chanted during which match? The Elimination Chamber match? If so, should this be moved to the discussion of that match? Or did the squash take place in the same arena?

Ah, I guess your talking about the part where it talks about Sabu getting taken out backstage? If so, that is a huge error on my behalf. I've changed "match" to "segment" - it was a segment in which Sabu was taken out was a match. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(13) The sentence that begins with "When Lashley's pod opened..." There's a grammatical error in "he used the table that was with to..."

Again, another massive error on my half. I've missed out an important point that evolved during that little part (Heyman's Security Force stopped Lashley's pod from opening), so I've changed that section. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(14) Instead of " announced", it might read better to say "WWE announced on their official website that..."

Changed. might sound a fansite to a non-wrestling fan. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(15) Is the James Brown Arena "the building of the taping"? If so, the sentence might flow better as "Heyman had even been escorted from the James Brown Arena and sent home"

Nope it isn't. Instead, in your example, I've changed it from James Brown Arena to North Charleston Coliseum (which was the site of the next days taping). Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(16) Why does "pulled" have an internal link to "legit"? I don't get it. Maybe two lines later for "legitimately"?

What would I do without a thing called peer review? Thanks, another big massive error of mine! Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(17) "McMahon was attempting to" might be considered weasel words or POV (or something like that...I don't speak Wikipedian).

Is it POV? I don't think it is - after all, it is backed up by a source. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you're under no obligation to listen to any of this. Just my thoughts, but again, the article's great. I'm just picky. GaryColemanFan 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Many, many thanks for that. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I would like opinions on the general state of the article. I have added myself some {unreferenced} and {fact} tags for people to reference if they can. Also I have added a section (Traditions) that is empty for now. But except for these, what do ppl think of the article? Thanks Nergaal 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Old review

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 12 meters, use 12 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 12&nbsp;meters.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), harbor (A) (British: harbour), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), colonize (A) (British: colonise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), enrolment (B) (American: enrollment), cosy (B) (American: cozy), mold (A) (British: mould), molt (A) (British: moult), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • “In the year [of] 2006”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 11:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is too long. The details should be branched off into subarticles, see Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Chicxulub Crater[edit]

An important crater, one of several guessed to have lead to the last extinction event on Earth. Would be great to get general feedback on all aspects of the article. Thanks, David Fuchs (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "The crater was discovered by Glen Penfield, a geophysicist who had been working in the area." When???
  • "Investigations suggest..." weasel words. Directly state what pieces of evidence were used to date the impact.
  • "Thus the meteorite associated with the crater is implicated in causing the extinction of the dinosaurs as suggested by the K-T boundary, although there are critics of the idea." Try rewording to make it less vague. Try not to start sentences with "thus."
  • "(image courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech)" this should be stated on image description page, not in the caption.
  • In the second paragraph under impact specifics, try to avoid the chain of "would have...would have...would have...would have..." Reword so it sounds less clunky.
  • "...creating a harsh environment." statement is too generic.
  • Extinction of the dinosaurs section needs a copy editing to make the prose flow smoothly. Avoid vague references.
  • "...published the results of the research in the scientific press" why not state the journal name in the paragraph instead of using the vague "scientific press"
  • " an international geological conference" which one? when?
  • Article states that there are "critics of the idea", so what is their explanation of the crater?
  • The discovery section is written in a strange way, for example one paragraph leads of with the awkward combination of sentences: "No crater was known to exist in the Caribbean basin. However Hildebrand and Boynton also reported their findings to an international geological conference, sparking substantial interest."
Jeff Dahl 00:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You raise some good points

The article could mention the detection of Chromium in sediment samples, which indicates this was a CM2-type carbonaceous chondrite impactor and indirectly links it to the Baptistina parent body.[4]RJH (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You both raise some good points. However a few nitpicky things: "(image courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech)" must be used in the image caption, as noted on the discription page. David Fuchs (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek)[edit]

I am the main contributor to this article and would appreciate any comments, feedback, or suggestions on how to improve it. I will make brief articles to take care of the red links, but thought I could start the peer review process and work on those at the same time. The article follows the WikiProject Rivers guidelines and uses as models Larrys Creek and White Deer Hole Creek, which are both featured articles. I plan to submit this to WP:FAC when the peer review is done. Thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is remarkable. The amount of research put into the article is quite impressive. The sentence about the general store, gas station and bed and breakfast could be rearranged. The wording is kind of confusing. I am not sure if all three businesses are at one location or if the b and b is independant of the store/ gas station. Dincher 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much - I have tweaked the sentence in question and hopefully made it clearer, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Much better. Dincher 23:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Another idea. Could you add a scale to Image:Plunketts Creek Map.PNG ? Dincher 23:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I have added the scale to the map (may have to WP:BYC to see it). Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I have copyedited it, but will see if I can get another pair of eyes to look it over (only suggestion in this semi-automated peer review). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I asked Michael Devore to proofread it and he find two typos but no other errors. Any remaining errors are my fault, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read this article very closely and have not found any errors in spelling or punctuation. My only question is this. What is the name of the source of the stream? It appears to be a good sized pond on the TopoZone maps. I believe that Plunketts Creek is ready to be nominated for FA. Excellent work! Dincher 22:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • First off, thanks very much for checking this. I have now rechecked every map I used as a reference and none has the pond labeled on it, so I don't know what its name is (and suspect it does not have an official name). I am also embarrased to admit that I never checked where the coordinates of the source are. The PennDOT map of Sullivan County here has two different branches north of the pond named "Plunketts Creek", so I thought that the northernmost and longest one was the branch leading to the source. So the coordinates of what I thought was the source are 41° 27' 30"N, 76° 44' 38"W , see it here on TopoZone USGS topo map. I will tweak the course description to reflect this. I want to write stubs for the redlinks before going to FAC and will also see if I can get a photo of the pond (source) as it is just off the road from Proctor to Hillsgrove. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, I have rewritten the beginning of the course section to reflect the USGS GNIS location of the source. I will also have to add the source to the map as the current version does not show it - taken from the Census maps and another reason why I thought that the source was the other branch (as it is shown and the pond is not). Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The map is fixed and I am done for the night - thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately the source pond is not visible from the road and the land thereabout is all private and prominently marked with no trespassing signs. Sigh, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions.

  • The words 'Plunketts Creek' appear 3 times in the first four sentences. On the second occasion this could be replaced with e.g. 'The creek'.
  • 'more of these visitors are becoming year-round residents.' Do you really mean that individual tourists are deciding to settle there in measurable numbers (and if so how is this measured?) or that the proportion of tourists to permanent residents is changing?
    • Changed to "Tourism, hunting, and fishing have long been important in the region, and its year-round population is increasing much faster than either county's is." and added comparison to the Sullivan County population (which is declining) in "Decline and renewal" section. The only basis I had for the prior version was the Census data and statements in the newspaper articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The word 'coordinates' seems to be too large to fit into the same line as the dash in the infobox. Is this fixable?
    • I tried increasing the map width in the Geobox from 256 px (default) to 300 px. While the map looks better larger, this problem is not fixed (on my computer anyway, using Internet Explorer as my browser). I will ask User:Caroig, who made the Geobox, about this problem. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Name. I think MOS asks that you state Menginnnes (1892) i.e. include the publication date. Ditto Geology.
  • Course - The location of the creek relative to (say) Philadelphia (or perhaps Wilkes-Barre might be useful in the lead. I had to click the link to Sullivan County to get my bearings. It might be of interest to know if the relief ratio is typical or not of creeks in the area.
    • I could add a map to the box showing the location of the mouth on a map of Pennsylvania - would this help? Otherwise I will add the location relative to Philadelphia.
      • Either would be useful. BM
    • The relief ratios for Loyalsock Creek and Wallis Run are published and I will add them to the section for comparison. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The locator map for the mouth and relief ratios for comparison are all now in the article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Geology. Any idea of the average depth/flow rate? Also, why is this para here and not in 'Course' as it seems to fit in more with the relief ratio rather than the geology.
    • I added two sentences on water depth on Plunketts Creek. They are verifiable, but not based on a published source. Since there is no stream gage, I do not know of any estimate of stream discharge. I have a picture of the creek as a trickle near the mouth, should I link it? In the two other FA stream articles I wrote there was United States Geological Service gage and stream discharge data, so I included it in "Geology" there and here. Should I move relief ratio here? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Well I would, 'cos I don't think discharge is an essentially geological phenomenon, but its your show. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I moved the paragraph to course (after relief ratio), rearranged Geology a bit (put the names of the mountains up with their composition), and moved the confluence picture up to Course, as that is where the mouth is discussed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Water Quality - 'gone' is a bit tired - 'departed'? 'most acid rain'. Do you mean the most acidic rain or the highest volume of acid rain? I don't think 'subtributaries' is a British English word.
    • Changed 'gone' to 'departed', clarified that it is the largest amount of acid rain, and 'subtributary' must be one of those words which divide the American and British. Finally, I found some more information on anthrax at the tannery and added that to the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Image 'Plunketts Creek in the village of Proctor was once the waste disposal system for a tannery.' Is this an image of the tannery remains or of the creek in the village? It clams to be the latter I think, but I don't see any buildings and the subject matter is very similar to at least three other images. If a picture of a bridge or the creek passing a building or two is impractical, surely an autumn or winter image might provide some variation.
    • It is of the creek in Proctor and there is no trace of the tannery left there. If you look at the images on Commons, there are some of Proctor that I could use instead (the General Store, or a view of the village). I do not have any photos other than in summer, though fall foliage should be possible soon. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Anything that's relevant to rpovide a bit of variety would be welcome, but obviously you can't take out-of-season photos. I presume the creek does not pass through any recognisably inhabited areas.
      • It does, but the creek tends to hug one side of the valley, the roads go down the middle, and the houses tend to be along the road, often on the other side, so getting a good photo of both at once is not easy. There are some places below Proctor where I can at least get a bridge and probably some houses (creek zig zags a bit). I will swap in one of the Proctor pictures for now - I may eventually be able to get a nice shot looking south into the valley from the north on a vista on Burnetts Ridge, but that may take some time. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Recreation. What species of deer? white tailed deer is clearly stated once in the section. Need it be repeated Dincher 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Silly me - of course not. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Lumber and tannery. 'mills, and, to a lesser extent,'. The comma after 'and' is redundant. I don't like the colon in '$1.75 a day: the employees lived' much either. 'day, the employees living' (followed by 'rented' not 'renting')? 'Sock and Plunketts and Big Bear Creeks" has inconsistent apostrophes.
    • Fixed the first two, thanks. The inconsistent apostrophes are in a direct quote from a newspaper article ('Sock is a colloquialism for Loyalsock). Should I note this somehow? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • 'Sock and Plunketts and Big Bear Creeks" - sorry its fine. My mistake. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline and renewal. 'businesses.[33].[37]' Redundant period between refs. I don't know what a 'Proctor Homecoming' might be. 'Today much of Plunketts Creek's watershed is wooded and protected as part of Loyalsock State Forest or Pennsylvania State Game Lands 134'. I don't know what the 134 is for. No. 134? 'Plunketts Creek and its villages have always been a place for lumber and tourism'. I doubt the ghosts of the Susquehannocks would agree. 'the opening weekend of trout season' - missing 'the' before 'trout'?
  • Refs.
No (PDF) after the title in references 1, 2, 16, 27.
Fixed, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
No apostrophes or italics in title in 4, 7, 10,12, 13 et seq.
I am dense - these use {{cite web}}, should I also use double apostrophes to italicize the titles? Could you please give an example of what you think it is supposed to look like? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, I wish I could with confidence. CITE and MOS just seem very confused to me, and there seems to be no system if place to provide coherence. Citeweb and CITE contradict one another in some places. However, the system as explained to me by SandyGeorgia (in whom we trust) is that a book or newspaper is italicised, a chapter, journal paper or article is apostrophised. See first ten or so citations at Renewable energy in Scotland and BP Peterhead project for example. However, there is no guarantee that someone in the FAC room will not insist on something else. I notice that our most succesful Scottish editors tend to be historians, who fastidiously avoid web references.
All titles in refs are now either italicized or apostrophized. If it makes it through FAC like this I will change the refs in the other streams FA's I work on to this format too, thanks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
'[Townships.]' looks odd in 6.
Meginness does not include the word "Townships" in the chapter title, so otherwise it would read "Chapter XLII. Plunkett's Creek, Lewis, Cascade, and Gamble". Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why the Townships is needed. My advice would be to go for accuracy rather then clarity.
[Townships] has been removed, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
'URL is to scan of 1892 version with some OCR typos' 'a scan of the 1892'?
Fixed, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way I went and fixed this in every use of this ref on Wikipedia I could find using Google (dozens and dozens). Good call, thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
17 - why '19 pages'?
It is 19 pages long, I have removed that now. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
20 'Sock Country' might be 'Sock County'
No, it is in Lycoming County and Sullivan County. Just newspaper-ese, I guess. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
25 [Archive copy at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine Acid Precipitation] dodgy square brackets
The template for the Wayback Machine adds the square brackets, so I can't change it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I added apostrophes to the title to try and clarify what the document is called. It might be better with italics per the above comment.
34 and 35 have commas not periods.
I think it is because {{cite news}} adds a comma after the title, not a period. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you are right - another inconsistency that, in my limited experience, would be quite unacceptable elsewhere.
41 'Llouden, Leslie' Louden?
My notes indicate "Llouden" but it is an odd name and I will try to go back and double check it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It was "Clouden" and my penmanship is not what it once was - good call, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
42 no publisher
Added the company itself as the publisher (own website), thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for a very detailed review - I will make the corrections and suggested changes as possible and respond to them indvidually above, although that may take a few hours. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I still have to contact Caroig, need to look up "Llouden", and need clarification on the italics or lack thereof in the refs. There are a few other places where I replied but you may still wish for changes, but I think it is nearly all done and thank you again. I have tried to find an image of the Protor Tannery (which would be public domain by now) but have not found anything online. I have found a few more tidbits to add on the name (Hillsgrove Twp in Sullivan County was originally also Plunketts Creek Twp) and railroads (thanks to Choess who found a lumber railroad in the north of the drainage basin), but am done for the day. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks again MacDui for your scrupulous attention to detail here. I will reply to each point above when I make the individual changes, but for now I wanted to say I understand and will make them (and make them in the other Pennsylvania Stream Featured articles when this is done). I think the confusion for me is that I call this character ' an apostrophe or a single quote, and it is also the one which is used to italicize (when doubled). I call this character " a quotation mark or a double quote, so when you were asking me to "apostrophise" things, I was confused as to what you meant, but it is as clear as the conflicting policies will allow now. I sometimes think we need an editor in chief who would go through and systematically set some basic style and other issues so they were consistent. I do still watch Renewable energy in Scotland and also saw the change there- thanks for that. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Agree about the editor in chief - or a committee of some sort. Good luck with the FA. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC) PS have a look at Template talk:Cite web if you want a good example of the citation confusion.
          • Thanks again for everyone's input, I am submitting this to WP:FAC next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler[edit]

This article about the 22-year-run of a character in the UK's EastEnders series is already at Good Article status, has been through one Peer Review in May 2007, and had a run at Featured Article in June 2007. After a month's worth of debate, the nom failed, primarily because of too much plot-related information. The article since then has gone through an extensive rewrite, and we'd like to take another run at FA. If successful, this will be the first time that an article about a soap opera character gets to FA status, so this article will be held up as an example for future such articles.

We'd appreciate any further comments from the community, as to whether this article needs any other improvement, or whether we're ready to take another run at FA. Thanks, Elonka 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous peer review: archive
Previous FA nom: archive
Great article and I think you are almost ready for FAC. I wasn't sure not sure about this sentence from the marriage section and had to re-read it a couple of times:

"The storyline continued throughout 1993 as Christine was shown to make greater demands on Arthur, threatening to tell Pauline about their affair unless he did." I think it should say "did so himself" so there is no ambiguity. It might just be me being slow though! I'm only halfway through so I'll let you know if I come across anything else.--Opark 77 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reading through it. I've altered the sentence per your suggestion.Gungadin 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I am suitably impressed. The article is improved beyond measure. I suspect it might get some prose criticisms from those who write better than I do, so it might be worth taking the time to get a copy edit prior to returning to FA. I have a couple of comments for improvement. There's a lot of use of em-dashes in the prose. Em-dashes are a stronger form of punctuation than a comma — more of an interruption than a pause — and so I think it's worth reviewing if they've been overused here and there, breaking the flow of the prose a little too much. My other point would be to look at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure about the use of criticism sections. I think "Reception" would be perfectly readable with the two sub-sections merged. J.Winklethorpe talk 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. "Popularity" and "Criticism" kind of go hand-n-hand. Also, back to that family list at the bottom. It's an unnecessary list, since there are people in the infobox (which I assume are the immediate family...don't know, don't watch the show) and a box at the bottom of the page, which is in plain sight of the family list, that lists everyone again. Since the "Beale/Fowler" link is in the box, people can click that to see a family tree and learn what relation all those people are. "Cultural impact" should probably be titled "In popular culture". "Impact" suggests that she influenced something, when, as I read that section, it just appears that she was referenced in those situations. An example of "cultural impact" (this is hypothetical, as I don't have sources to back it up) would be discussing Sigourny Weaver's impact on the female protagonist genre, with her character Ellen Ripley from the Alien movies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
There's some duplication in the infoboxes, sure, but I don't actually mind the infoboxes at the bottom. Building the web, and all that. Would changing the family list in the top info box to The Beale/Fowler family be more appropriate? It would save having to decide which family members to include, and so on. (I'm thinking more as a precedent for other articles here) J.Winklethorpe talk 12:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The family list itself is undue weight, because no one knows what the importance of that is. You have a section called "Importance of family," which makes me think any important family members are already listed there, and everyone else is irrelevant. Again, there's a big box at the bottom the lists all these people already. Building the web means connecting relevant topics (through wiki-linking in sections), but not providing a list of every associated topic, no matter how small in relevance. What the article has is a "See also" section masquerading as a "Family List"; a "See also" section that is already listed just below itself in another box. My suggestion would be ditch both the lists, and do what you suggested, and that's put the "Beale/Fowler" link in the top infobox. This way, you can view the family when you start the article, and if you missed it, you can view it by the time you get to the end (as they are all listed in the box at the bottom of the page). To put a different spin on it, the "Family" list at the bottom is about as necessary as putting a list of all the "Batman" films on every single one of the Batman film pages. There's already a box at the bottom of the page that lists all the Batman films, and any important films (ones that had an impact on the article in question) would be mentioned in one of the other sections anyway. It's just a list, it doesn't establish what its importance is to the character. The only people that know of the importance to the character, for any of those family members, are probably fans of the show, which means to the casual reader it means nothing other than a list of family members (which repeats itself in a box just below the list).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd completely missed the "family" section; I thought you were talking info-boxes only. My bad. In which case, I quite agree - there's no need for that family section and the infoboxes. Realistically, everyone of relevance will already have been mentioned in the article, and the info-box links will help anyone who wants to see the full line-up. Anyway, let's wait and see what the editors of the article say. J.Winklethorpe talk 14:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I made a request for it to be copyedited at the league of copyeditors a week or so ago, i'm sure it will take a while to get done though (if ever). As far as merging the "Reception", I dont have a problem with that if this is the preferred method. Do you mean just remove the headings? or do you want the text juggled around too? so that it alternates between crit and praise throughout, instead of just all praise and all crit?

I dont have a problem with removing the family section, but I suspect that others might. A while ago I suggested recreating an individual template box specifically for Pauline, that would recreate all the information in the family list i.e. explain how she is realted etc. This would go on autohide like the templates at the bottom. But I have no experience in making templates, so I dont know if this is possible to do. It might be too complicated to include that much information.

What about if we include this image in the article under the section titled family tree? That way the list would be removed, but the information will still be there for those who want it. I think that would look good actually.Gungadin 14:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The image basically serves the exact same purpose as the list, only in image form. Generally, family members are not listed unless they have some how impacted the character in question, for example Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, or Lionel Luthor and Lex Luthor. The pertinant (sp) ones should be mentioned, and I think they are in the "Importance of Family" section. Everyone else is just duplications of the box that is just below them. I think the link to the actual family tree article is sufficient. If someone wants to know the details of a topic not entirely related to the character specifically, they can click that link and be taken to an article that covers the whole family and how they are all connected. Who her cousin was isn't going to help you understand her, unless you know how that cousin affected her life (the same goes for her husband, which is why there is a section about her marriage to Arthur).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to try and defend the family section because I agree that its purpose (linking to related characters) became redundant after the templates were introduced, but many others disagree. Basically, I dont have a strong opinion either way, so if you want to go ahead and remove it then I wont be objecting or reverting. I will leave a note on the project talk page to see if anyone other than me wants to add an opinion on this.Gungadin 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
On the reception section, I would suggest trying to merge the text in so it reads as a cohesive whole. Trying to make it roughly chronological would probably work. For example, the starting paragraph from each section will probably go together quite nicely, then comments about the character during her run, then comments about her leaving. Really, just try to present it so that NPOV is maintained, and opposing viewpoints are presented fairly. On the family tree, I actually think that the templates are better than the family tree section — they link the articles up nicely. J.Winklethorpe talk 09:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
done my best.Gungadin 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll let other people voice their opinions. At the moment, and please correct me if I misinterpreted the opinion, it appears that at least three of us agree that the "Family" section, which just lists family members, is redundant to the templates that are already in place and probably also to the section "Importance of family" that details the important family members.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

John Cena[edit]

Article recently failed FA, see here. I have decided to take it to Peer review to see how I can improve the article ready to nominate for FA again after this Peer review has finished. I don't want a semi-automatic javascript AndyZ tool to look over this as I already have that installed in my monobook. Thank you, Davnel03 17:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Erik Chisholm[edit]

I've been working on this article and would like some feedback as I hope for it to become a good article one day. My main problem is limited sources but beside that I'd like some comments on how to improve the article. Thanks. --Cazo3788 21:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryan White[edit]

Trying to possibly get this up to Featured Article status. I've been working on it long enough that I just need another set of eyeballs. This is sort of a tricky biography. Completely different than that of your typical historical figure, so I didn't know of a good structural model to follow. I haven't written the lead yet, but it will mirror all the major points of the article (I'll try to do it tomorrow). Also, I've sent image requests to his high school, the Ryan White Care Act, and to, but no success yet. I'm reluctant to use a fair use claim, but I think the article suffers from not seeing a picture of him. --JayHenry 05:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and yes I'm using a weird citation system. I'm just doing it during the article writing process, because it keeps things less cluttered for me. I'll do the references properly before I submit to GA or FA. With this peer review I'd just like to focus on the content and structure. Cheers! --JayHenry 06:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article. My only suggestion would perhaps be to include a few quotations from Ryan himself in there in order to expand the article a bit, especially since he wrote an autobiography. I might also consider giving some more general references to show how afraid people were of AIDS in those early years. I think that people forget about this. There are also a few missing words, but I am sure that you could find them by reading it through really carefully. Good luck. 00:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

John Baldwin (educator)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, quite simply, I want to make this an FA. However, since I haven't gottan an article this far, I'd like to see what parts need expanding, improving, copyediting, and the like. Basically whatever's needed to make this guy an FA.

Thanks, Wizardman 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Will get on that. Wizardman 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War[edit]

The single most important happening in the history of Bangladesh, one of the major happenings in the Cold War with major implications for India and Pakistan and some implication for USA, USSR and China, one of the major political geographical change in the post-WWII world besides splitting of Korea and merger of Germany and the biggest genocide of this period, and a somewhat a cause celibre for the flower generation besides the Vietnam War - this certainly warrants some attention... well, a lot of attention. The article has just gone through a collaboration of active WikiProject Bangladesh participants who are not large in number, and needs a lot of help from the community. Please, post your comments, and lend a hand hand, too, if possible. Thanks. Aditya(talkcontribs) 17:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 km, use 000 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000&nbsp;km.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armour (B) (American: armor), harbour (B) (American: harbor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), realise (B) (American: realize), criticize (A) (British: criticise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), curb (A) (British: kerb).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

By Toddy1[edit]

I have gone through the article making detailed criticisms.

  • Political differences
    • Statements need footnotes referencing sources Yes check.svg Done
    • "After the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951..." Say who he is in brackets. Yes check.svg Done
    • "The military dictatorships of Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan," give dates in brackets after each name Yes check.svg Done
    • "Finally, when Sheikh Mujib's Awami League won a clear majority in the elections of 1970" you need to explain this a lot better
  • Military imbalance
    • This section is too heavily weighted to Bengali grievances.
    • Can the Pak Army's beliefs about martial races be traced back to their British military heritage.
    • "The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 over Kashmir also highlighted the sense of military insecurity among Bengalis as only an under-strength infantry division and 15 combat aircraft without tank support were in East Pakistan to thwart any Indian retaliations during the conflict." This is very biased. What fighting was on the East Pakistan front in 1965? How many Indian divisions faced W Pakistan, and how many E Pakistan.
  • Language controversy
    • Statements need footnotes referencing sources Yes check.svg Done
    • What is the West Pakistan POV? Yes check.svg Done
It would help the balance the tone of this article if it were moved to Bangladesh War of Independence --Philip Baird Shearer 17:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Mohammad Ali Jinnah – say who is was in brackets Yes check.svg Done
    • "Later, in memory of the 1952 killings, UNESCO declared February 21" when did they do this? Yes check.svg Done
  • Impact of the tropical cyclone
    • Very biased Yes check.svg Done
    • Statements need footnotes referencing sources Yes check.svg Done
    • Please can we have some W Pakistan or Pakistan Government sources Yes check.svg Done
  • Prelude to war (first part)
    • Well written, but statements need footnotes referencing sources
    • Need to explain ZA Bhutto's POV
  • Violence of 25 March
    • Need to explain Pak government POV
    • Need better sources for the casualty and rape claims. Estimating casualties is difficult. In the 1965 war Indian and Pak casualty estimates differed by a factor of 3 – before criticising this remember that the US made much worse enemy casualty estimates for the campaigns against Iraq in 1991 and 2003+, and against Serbia in the 1999 Kosovo conflict.
    • Statements need footnotes referencing sources
  • Declaration of independence
    • This section is good – but give full references to sources in footnotes, not the text.
    • However make the statement "In July 1971, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi openly referred to the former East Pakistan as Bangladesh.[16] Some Pakistani and Indian officials continued to use the name "East Pakistan" until 16 December, 1971." part of a new section India
  • India
    • Now would be a good point to explain what neighbouring India was doing. The meeting between I Gandhi and the CoS needs recalling. She was very angry that he told her that the Indian Armed forces were not ready for war, but she took notice of him, and got the Army ready for war. These events are of enormous significance. You need to explain how India supported and encouraged the insurgency.
    • You also need to explain the Pak government's understanding of what was going on with respect of Indian military preparations.
  • The war
    • You need to work on the structure of this part of the article and of the one on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 so that a reader can relate them
    • You need to explain the Pak Army military strategy. (It is worth having a section comparing and contrasting the Pak efforts in 1971 in Bengal with the J&K Army's strategy against Pak-sponsored insurgency in 1947)
    • You need to explain what the Mukti Bahini were.
    • The Mukti Bahini's naval campaign using frogmen with limpet mines was an astonishing achievement. This need explaining
    • Phase 4: December 3-December 16 should explain how the Pak Army was deployed – it had a lot in common with that of the J&K Army in 1947
  • Atrocities
    • I have my doubts about the reliability of many of the sources. Try to find Indian military sources; Indian military writers tend to have credibility.
  • Foreign intervention
    • You should quote Indian military sources on how IAF pilots expected to have to make attacks on the USS Enterprise in their Hunters.

--Toddy1 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Human rights in the People's Republic of China[edit]

I would appreciate a peer review as a preparation for submitting to GA. Thanks, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, there's a wealth of information here, but I noticed some problems of balance.
    • The introduction should better summarize the article, and shouldn't include information that isn't discussed in more detail further down; I'm referring particularly to the line about the 2004 constitutional amendment.
    • There doesn't seem to be much historical perspective in the article about past human rights issues; while the article should of course be focused on the contemporary, the context seems lacking.
    • The Perspective of the PRC government should be expanded to include a list of those rights the government claims are protected in the country.
    • The material under Protect from the United States government (What's with that name?) should be moved to a broader section on international reactions.
    • The Organ harvesting seems somewhat out of proportion as a relatively small sub-topic, especially since some of the Falun Gong claims it covers at length don't seem to be substantiated. Perhaps this would fit better in a couple of lines under Capital punishment or Other human rights issues.--Pharos 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The Ethnic minorities focuses almost entirely on the Tibetans, and the Tibetan sub-section focuses too much on semantic debates over the word "apartheid", rather than the actual political situation in PRC treatment of Tibetans.
    • Political freedom particularly seems rather undercovered (perhaps Freedom of speech too).--Pharos 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs to be rewritten. One potential suggestion: "The government of the People's Republic of China has been widely criticized by other governments, and by human rights advocacy groups, for acting contrary to internationally recognized norms of human rights." The lead should then have a clarification of who these governments and groups are, what are their major concerns, and how has the Chinese government responded to these criticisms - in particular, its concept of economic growth as related to human rights. The article itself has enough references, but is poorly organized and needs significant editing. One topic that is entirely omitted is how differing cultural and religious traditions might have affected the different perspectives on human rights held by Chinese and Western officials. VisitorTalk 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Donald Bradman[edit]

This article has been extensively rewritten and re-referenced. I realise that some reviewers may have an issue with its length, but I feel that it falls within the guidelines set at WP:SIZE. I would like reviewers to check the referencing and add cns if necessary.


Phanto282 06:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Well I am rather late after the talk page invite. A random point is that the graph that The RAmbling Man made of the batting averages is POV. The scale starts at 50, so it looks as though Bradman is numerically speaking 5 times better than Pollock. And 10 times better than those who average 5... and so forth
    • Forking - Should not be done on the basis of "controversy" - this is POV forking. They should be forked along topical lines eg Don Bradman as a cricket administrator or Don Bradman as a pos-war cricketer and Early career of Don Bradman and so forth.
    • Content black holes - I do not know the most about holes but one thing that definitely stood out was the lack of discussion about the clashes with Fingleton, O'Reilly etc purported to be due to religion. eg see Bill O'Reilly and Jack Fingleton and the relevant sections that I put in about conflict. This is much discussed. A quick google search with "Bradman" "Fingleton" "O'Reilly" "Catholic" "religion" and their various combos will give many links to articles about sectarianism.
  • All the best, the Kippax and Bradman articles have improved a lot. I should go and do a proper check sometime although I proably won't be able to point out many interesting things. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point that you raised at PR. Perhaps the Fingleton-O'Reilly v Bradman thing is worth a separate article? IMO, the problems between the two factions were in the nature of a personality clash: basically, Bradman had problems relating to a lot of his contemporaries. This analysis that it was sectarian seems to stem from Charles Williams (ie, "they were met by priests in cassocks"), but his evidence is scant. I'm sure that if O'Reilly or Fingleton believed that Bradman discriminated against them on the basis of religion, they would've said so. Do you have a suggestion as to how to make the controversies fork NPOV? Cheers, Phanto282 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I am not sure that the O'Reilly-Fingleton-McCabe faction was motivated by Irish nationalism or Catholic feeling, but it is a notable hypothesis. Definitely though, the schism probably could do with a start class article where one could state the facts about the existence of tension, the various political incidents like the board meeting and then discuss the various theories being circulated and different people's ideas about the internal team tension and why it arose. Certainly we should not present it as fact that it was sectarian but there are debates by people saying that it was or it wasn't so this is a notable aspect of presenting the support and criticism of the religion theory. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As for the controversy thing, the general policy is that things like that should not exist. We should not have a controversy article fork because in the main article we will have topics A, B, C, D and then we have a criticism/controversy section where we have critA, critB, critC...... The ideal way is to have A (inc controversies of A), B (including controversies of B), ..... etc. eg in Greg Chappell the daughter articles should be stuff like Underarm incident, Greg Chappell in World Series Cricket, Greg Chappell as Indian cricket coach, Chappell Ganguly controversy with the controversies integrated into the sections and duaghter articles rather than have a general biography and at the bottom have Controversies of Greg Chappell as a fork and then lump all the criticism of his coaching and tactics together at the bottom. In general we are supposed to divide sections into different events rather than good/bad. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Caroline Todd (Television character)[edit]

I am concerned about the way this article is written. Whilst the article is referenced and has no problems with images (as far as I know), I believe the way I have approached this article is all wrong. Comparing it to articles such as Homer Simpson and Troy McClure, I notice there articles are much shorter and more comprehensive. I'm beginning to wonder if the article needs a whole re-write, or if the article is fine as it is and I'm worrying for no reason. I hope to get the article up to GA once all the potential problems have been resolved.


ISD 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the show. I think the article gives a fine overview and is an appropriate length for a character with such a complex history. "Her left hand goes magnetic" needs to be explained. VisitorTalk 16:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ceres (dwarf planet)[edit]

Annyone knows how to improve this article? There doesn't seeem to be much more to say about Ceres, but it is one of the few planets not to be an FA. Thanks if you can helpNergaal 02:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that with a few touch-ups, this could achieve Featured Article status. Any improvements would be appreciated.


Yesiammanu 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It appeared that a PR entry was generated but it has not been archived, so I'm speculating that the entry was never added to the main peer review page. I'm adding it in now. This page may become very topical in about 7-8 years due to the upcoming Dawn Mission. Comments appreciated. (I'm adding my own below.) — RJH (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


Some comments:

  • The 'Observations' section could use some work. At present it is very terse: little more than a bulleted list. The section could explain why the occultation was notable, and the discoveries made with the recent telescope observations. Please also include some actual information about observation, including magnitude, angular diameter and so forth. (C.f. Jupiter#Observation.) Some of this is in the 'Physical characteristics' section (the second paragraph), so perhaps it could be moved to the more appropriate location in 'Observations'?
  • The 'Asteroid belt' section should really be a link in 'See also', rather than a section.
  • 'Namesakes' is a trivia section. Can this be merged with the text? (E.g. in the 'Name' section.)
  • The 'Symbol' section is too short. It should be merged.
  • There is some bold text in the notes. I think those should be italicized instead.
  • The 'Physical characteristics' section only briefly covers the topic of why this body is round. Could this be explained a little more? Also could the article cover the topic of how Ceres was formed and why it didn't swallow the remaining mass in the belt and form a planet?

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Malaysian Grand Prix[edit]

Article recently failed FA, see here. I have decided to take it to Peer review to see how I can improve the article ready to nominate for FA again after this Peer review has finished. I don't want a semi-automatic javascript AndyZ tool to look over this as I already have that installed in my monobook. Thank you, Davnel03 07:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The overall reaction to this was good, with Williams technical director Sam Michael, who came up with the inital idea,[12] calling it a "pretty good solution." - I know the second good is a quote, but could the start of the sentence be reworded in order to convey the same meaning without using good twice in short succession.
    • Changed to "The overall reaction to this was well recieved...." Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • ...which is grammatical nonsense. Use Alex's suggested phrasing, below. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I can't find that phrase Alex mentioned. Davnel03 16:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
          • The second of his two italicised paragraphs near the bottom. Pyrope 16:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Quoted straight from the second paragraph: The overall reaction to this was good, with Williams technical director Sam Michael, who came up with the initial idea, calling it a "pretty good solution." And what change are you on about? If I'm right, the start is exactly the same as my first version. Davnel03 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
              • No, yours ran "The overall reaction to this was well recieved", Alex's is "The overall reaction to this was good". Your phrase mixes up object and subject of the sentence, Alex's is much more elegant. Pyrope 16:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Nope, the first one. It's directly under where I put my opening comment in this PR. Davnel03 16:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • Yes, and you still run into the repetition of "good" problem, I wasn't commenting on that. But your phrase about the reaction being well received is lumpen. The reception of the idea was the reaction. A reaction can be positive, and idea can be well received, but a reaction cannot be received unless you are talking about a second reaction to the first reaction (and so we tie ourselves in knots...). It needs to be rewritten. Pyrope 16:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • I can't think any other way on how to rewrite it; maybe "The change was successful, with......" and then go from there the same. Davnel03 16:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                      • Well I gave you a big hint! Try using Alex's construction, but replacing the first "good" with the word "positive". And buy a thesaurus... ;-) Pyrope 16:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • Hahaha, I'm only at secondary school, so my writing (for my age) is pretty good. Edit done. Davnel03 16:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                            • FAC has no allowance for age. There isn't a "pretty good for a 12 year old" category. Get over yourself. Pyrope 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                              • I'm not 12, I'm 15. Davnel03 08:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
                          • Oh, I also suggest you take a look at 2007 Canadian Grand Prix, which is currently a FAC. One problem about the testing section in the Malaysian article is a major problem in the Canadian one...... Davnel03 16:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Hondas struggled again in Friday's second practice session. Barrichello called it "extremely frustrating". This is the first time 'Barrichello' is introduced to us, but no explanation of who (or what) he is. The reader might not know who RB is (the article may be read by a non-F1 fan, or even an F1 fan in 20 years time). The MOS says After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only. which I take to mean that the person should be introduced the their full (common) name, i.e. Rubens Barrichello, and also it needs to be noted that he is a driver for the team.
    • Added "Rubens". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I question what this quote is telling us at all. Driver underperforms and isn't happy, big deal. This is a good example of the clutter which needs to be trimmed to help the article flow. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if it would be too 'bitty' if the Pre-Race section was split up into stuff that happened before the race weekend started under Pre-Race and then have the practice sessions under their own header. Suggest getting other opinions on that.
    • I might take that to WP:F1. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Why? Be bold. I agree with Alex. Separate "background events" and "practice sessions" headings would help to differentiate the general from the specific. Whether you make these sub-sub-heads under a "Pre-race" subheading (which I don't like at all, it is far too jargony), or make them subheadings on their own, I think that this could improve the screed that exists under this heading at present. However, as I have commented previously, these sections should be pared down to a minimum, to set the scene for the subject of the article: the competitive sessions. Further, test sessions are not competitions. Tests and practice are just that, you don't know how much fuel is in the cars, you don't know if they are even running legal parts/weights/fuel. These sessions are, at very best, only indicative and running such a full breakdown (complete with timings to three decimals!!) is pointless and crufty. Some general comment, perhaps only one or two sentences, would be plenty. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't want to remove it because of this comment someone made during the original FAC. I've renamed the headers though. I'll rename them for all the rest of the 2007 race reports as well. Davnel03 16:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I wasn't suggesting that you remove it, just make it a more realistic size. And race commentators most certainly do not go into minute detail about who put what time in during practice/testing. They make generalised comments like "Ferrari dominated during mideweek testing at Jerez" (and often that is as much a they say), but they don't follow that with an in-depth breakdown of "positions" and times. They know that such a discourse would bore the trousers off their audience. The same applies here. Pyrope 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Honda's poor form continued as Rubens Barrichello was knocked out in Q1, qualifying 19th.. Rubens second mention and he's being referred to by his full name. If he was introduced earlier, then he should now be just Barrichello.
    • Removed "Rubens". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • missed the cut with 17th spot, but team-mate Tonio Liuzzi made it through to Q2. Super Aguri's Anthony Davidson also failed to make the cut, - Again a bit repetitive using 'cut' twice.
    • Removed the second cut; changed to "Anthony Davidson also failed to make it through to Part Two," Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • caused all the drivers to post quick laps at the start of Qualifying 2, traditionally the slowest period. - Not sure I understand that bit about the slowest period. Both the part about tradition coming into it (the quali system is just over a season old by this race) and the slowest period. I'd say that the start of Q3 was the slowest period so I think sentence needs adjusting to explain clearly what is meant.
    • Removed last phrase. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm, but is didn't "cause" them to post their fastest laps then. Nit-picking perhaps, but a threat cannot cause (an active process), it can influence or persuade (a passive process, the final decision is the drivers'). Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • but the Renaults were the shock as both Fisichella and Kovalainen were knocked out... - doesn't have an encyclopaedic tone to it.
    • Removed "were the shock as both Fisichella and Kovalainen". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • ...with Pat Symonds later stating that they "didn't maximise [their] chances" - and who's Pat Symonds? Is he one of their drivers too? I'd imagine that's what a reader would think.
    • Changed to "....with Pat Symonds, the teams Executive Director of Engineering, later...." Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • My point would be, do we really care? Of course he said that, race personnel always claim they could have done better. The whole sentence adds nothing and is of very little significnce. Stay focussed. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Removed. I hope the things I'm changing don't come to backfire on me at FAC when I renominate straight after this PR is over. Davnel03 16:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
          • (dull knocking sound as Pyrope's head beats against the nearest wall) What is the obsession with FAC?? Go and read 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens and then tell me that that this article gets even close... Featured articles are "our very best work and feature professional standards of writing and presentation". There are many exceptional pieces of work on this site, work that I am in awe of in many cases. One thing that they have in common is that they grow organically over many months, and have input from a large number of well-informed, skilled, articulate, dilligent authors. Would you please stop trying to promote your work in such a, frankly, tawdry way, by doing so you debase the hard work and achievement of many others. You can certainly aim for GA, maybe even A-class with time, but to suggest that these race reports are amongst the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer is absurd! I am perfectly willing to spend time helping you improve an article to good B-class, or eve GA if the race deserves it, but to spend so much time taking an inconsequential race to full FA status (I personally don't think that it is possible for such races) is pointless. Be satisfied with earning respect as an enthusiastic, helpful, informed and informative contributor to F1 topics, stop trying to boost your own ego by notching up undeserved FA articles. You will just get a reputation as a dilletante and glory-seeker, and nobody likes a show-off. Pyrope 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Couthard and Barrichello were deemed to have changed their engines before qualifying, resulting in both drivers being awarded a 10 place grid penalty. Closer examination, however, revealed that Coulthard changed his engine before the start of the race weekend, preventing his 10 place drop. - Probably needs to explain who 'deemed' DC and RB to have changed their engines, and also replace the closer examination bit with something else (subsequent investigation if that's what happened). Did DC/Red Bull appeal the orginal decision. Who decided DC hadn't changed the engine, Race Stewards?
    • Changed to "Couthard and Barrichello were deemed by the race stewards to have changed their engines before qualifying, resulting in both drivers being awarded a 10 place grid penalty. Subsequent investigations by the stewards, however, revealed that Coulthard changed his engine before the start of the race weekend, preventing his 10 place drop." Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Do try and avoid the passive voice. Try "The race stewards initially imposed a 10 place penalty on Couthard and Barrichello, for changing their engines prior to qualification. However, after further investigation they rescinded Couthard's penalty, as his change had been made before the start of the race weekend." This also avoids the rather awkward "deemed" word, which often comes with an implication of arbitrary and unfair decision making, as well as avoiding the repetition of the penalty specifics. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In Qualifying 3, Massa snatched pole from Alonso in the dying seconds both snatched and dying don't seem the right tone to me. Also as it's the first mention, give the full name, 'pole position', and wikilink it.
    • Done. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed, state the facts and don't get drawn into hyperbole. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Massa's pole marked Bridgestones 100th pole position in Formula One. Bridgestone need introducing as a tyre company, and a bit of a random place for a wikilink to F1.
    • Removed Formula One wikilink. Inserted the tyre company between Brigestones and 100th, with commas surrounding it. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Adrian Sutil's suspension failed at turn four, causing him to collide with Button and retire from the race, although Button was able to continue. - Comes across as awkward. Perhaps a bit more detail on Button (did he pit?) and this could be split into two sentences (and retire from the race. Button was able to continue after...)
    • I've split it. It's now: " Adrian Sutil's suspension failed at turn four, causing him to collide with Button and retire from the race. Button, after making an early pitstop to repair the damage, was able to continue. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I think this is part of the reason the prose is being commented by some as being 'choppy'. You've used Button, after making an early pitstop to repair the damage, was able to continue. The sentence is grammatically correct, but by wording it like that it's breaking the sentence up into two bits, one in the middle of the other, requiring two pauses when reading it and breaking up the flow. If you were to use After making an early pitstop to repair the damage, Button was able to continue the two bits of the sentence are now separate and (I feel) it reads better as a result. The pause seems much more natural this way appearing near the middle of the sentence. Probably worth looking through the rest of the article, and seeing where it sounds better without the mid-sentence pause. Remember that variety is good to keep the article interesting so don't remove all the "xx,x,xx" style sentences just ones where it improves by not having it. It's 'nitpicking' like this that help meet criteria 1a) of FAC. AlexJ 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Changed. Davnel03 11:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Just as a brief rule of thumb: if a sentence including subclauses loses its meaning when you remove a subcleause, it generally needs rephrasing. In this case if you remove "after making an early pitstop" from your sentence, you are left with "Button was able to continue", which says nothing. Notice how you can't do that to Alex's phrase. Definitely worth looking through the rest of the article. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Ah, OK. If you notice something else like that in the article that hasn't been changed, point it out to me. Davnel03 16:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • After starting fifteenth, Button quickly found himself being overtaken for 17th - Choose one style for numbering.
    • Changed fifteenth to 15th. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Quick phrasing point: he wasn't "overtaken for 17th", he was "overtaken, and dropped to 17th". Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Spyker team's weekend got worse as Christijan Albers retired on lap 9 with a gearbox fire. On lap 12, Robert Kubica was the first man to pit, however he reported traction control problems four laps later and dropped down the order. Button's weekend got worse... - repeating 'got worse' in short succession. Perhaps you could say "The Spyker team's other car driven by Christijan Albers retired on..." to avoid this. AlexJ 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed to your version. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Kubica dropped to thirteenth as his traction control problem got worse - Arrgh! It's 'got worse' again. Worsened this time maybe? Or perhaps reword the sentance to use a totally different phrase like "deteriorated further".
    • Changed to "deteriorated further". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • A problem can't deteriorate. A situation (e.g. traction control fault) can deteriorate, but a problem worsens or increases. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Added the word fault. For some reason it was just traction control. The word problem was not there - I think I removed it in a previous edit. Ah well! Davnel03 16:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • and a train of cars developed behind him. - Common parlance in the world of F1 perhaps, but a little confusing to the regular reader.
    • Don't know how to reword that. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Changed to a train of cars that wanted to pass developed behind him. Guroadrunner 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Kovalainen's performance was much better than in Melbourne - Melbourne probably needs an introduction ("than at the previous round in Melbourne" perhaps) and I'd say that Kovalainen's improved performance probably could do with a citation to avoid it being perceived as POV.
    • Changed to " Kovalainen's performance was much better than at the previous round in Melbourne, and he...." I need to find a source to back it up, and as you stated it could be seen as POV at the moment. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nico Rosberg, running in 6th place, retired with hydrallic problems... - Spelling.
    • Changed. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • ...with thirteen laps to go[1] and was extremely frustrated afterwards.[31] - Citation 31 appears to cover both the frustration and the thirteen laps to go, so the ugly mid sentence cite is not needed.
    • Removed midsentence ref. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Heidfeld said later "this is a fantastic experience (to beat Massa)" - Could be reworded to avoid having to use the brackets-in-quote.
    • I have no idea on how to reword that. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Changed to Heidfeld said later beating Massa was "a fantastic experience". Guroadrunner 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Fisichella finished 6th (he later said it felt like a podium given the performance of the car) - not sure why the brackets are used here.
    • Changed to "Fisichella finished 6th, however he later said it felt like a podium given the performance of the car...." Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hamilton admitted afterwards that this was his hardest race to date,[36] while Räikkönen admitted he "did not have enough speed - Repetition again (admitted).
    • Changed first "admitted" to "said". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Räikkönen also had to protect his V8 engine from overheating - it the V8 part relevant to the point being made? As Raikkonen only has the one engine I'd say no. To a casual reader this could suggest Raikkonen having other engines.
    • Removed "V8". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The notes section. I know it's common across race reports to do this, so this comment is not aimed at this article specifically, but I think the article demonstrates particularly well why it's perhaps unneeded. It's pretty much a trivia section by any other name, and duplicates what's already said. Fastest lap is already featured in the infobox. This was the first victory for Fernando Alonso in a McLaren. and This was the McLaren's first 1-2 finsh since the 2005 Brazilian Grand Prix. are already mentioned in both the lead and in image captions in the body. That leaves just the lap leaders which perhaps should be shifted to the infobox (new field would be required). That's probably something that needs to be discussed with a wider audience though.
  • Removed notes section. The bit about the infobox would almost certainly have to be discussed at WP:F1. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few points raised there, hope that gives you an idea of how the article can be improved. Please take time to consider the best solution to each of the points raised and feel free to ask me if you need clarification on anything. Thanks, AlexJ 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed them things, here is the diff.