Wikipedia:Peer review/October 2009

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

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


Contents

Nikita Zotov[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was planning to take the article to FAC soon, and was wondering if anyone would be willing to check the prose to ensure that there are no problems with grammar, flow, clarity, etc.

Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been passed for GA status and gotten copyedited. I would like to get it up for WP:FAC in a little bit and would appreciate any comments for improvements.

Thanks, The Flash {talk} 04:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the comments.
Comic Book Resources is a comic book news website.
The Gargoyles thing was confirmed here as being real and reliable.
Slice of SciFi is a sci-fi news website.
Mania.com is an interview and news website frequently used by other RS.
The Flash {talk} 23:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Bleach video games[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because over the past week I've worked heavily on this article, and it was something that no-one was working on in regards to Bleach. If possible I was wondering about the references, they are mostly from the one source and I don't know if that's ok, and also what other information should be implemented into the notes section, unfortunately, there are few examples to use for video game lists, which is why I'm looking for more input. Thanks, Lightlowemon (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you used List of One Piece video games for insparation? Its a FL and anime/manga related. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes I did actually, as well as the Harvest Moon list. Thank you.--Lightlowemon (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The only issue I'm finding is that dates needs consistency; most are like this "2009-09-02" when it should be "September 2, 2009" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates-Tintor2 (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You serious? They were originally the second way and I could have done them the right way the first time, grrr. Anyway, I believe I went through and changed them all to their correct forms. Thank you. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Guyinblack25[edit]

The list looks pretty good and should do well at FLC. The main issues I saw are prose related.

The lead
  • Rearrange for flow:
    "...based on theTite Kubo's manga and anime series Bleach by Tite Kubo."
  • Split into two sentences and trim/reword for flow:
    "The games for the most partprimarily revolve around the plot of the manga, following Ichigo Kurosaki and his friends, as well as his enemies, but s. Some games, however, do veer from the main plot and develop original..."
  • Don't know if there's really that much variety to the systems: two Sony systems and three Nintendo systems.
    "The games have been released on a variety of gaming systems, both home and handheld consoles."
  • Best to avoid repeating "include" like this.
    "...but has included other genres includinglike strategy role-playing games and..."
  • All instances of "Bleach", video game or otherwise, should be in italics per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles).
  • The last two paragraphs are short enough that they would benefit from combining into one larger paragraph.
  • Games are either "ported to" a location or "localized for" a location. Localized is probably the best term here though:
    "...though Sega has directly portedlocalized the first Wii game, and the first three Nintendo DS games for North America, Australia and Europe."
  • I'd paraphrase the quotes. The punctuation in them throws off the flow of the content.
List
  • The notes sentences need to be consistent in their structure. Either make them all incomplete sentences without periods or complete sentences with periods. For example:
    • An incomplete sentence should not have a period: "Features one stage and six playable characters from the Bleach series."
    • A complete sentence should have a subject: "The game features one stage and six playable characters from the Bleach series."
    • This one is already a complete sentence and needs no change. "Hanatareshi Yabou was developed by SCEI."
    • This one is an incomplete sentence and needs either a subject added or the period removed. "Rereleased on October 25, 2007 as "Bleach: Hanatareshi Yabou (PlayStation 2 the Best)" in Japan."
  • The structure is more complicated than I've seen in other lists, but it is still functional and organized. Should be no issue.
Sources
  • For a list like this, yes, the majority of refs coming from one source is fine.
  • Any all capitalized words in the ref titles should be standard case. For example, SEGA → Sega and BLEACH → Bleach.
  • The sources look to be reliable.

Keep up the good work. Good luck at FLC. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

I think I went through and fixed everything, if you wouldn't mind could you please check, good work on the Kingdom Hearts articles by the way, you have quite a track record. --Lightlowemon (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I gave the sentences a quick sweep. Feel free to change some of the wordings around to your tastes though.
A few more things I noticed:
  • Is there anything notable about Bleach DS 4th : Flame Bringer? Something needs to go in the notes section.
  • The only other suggestion I have is to cut down on some of the linking. Like in the "Bleach: Blade Battlers" section, PlayStation 2 only needs to be linked for the first instance. All others after that in the whole list can be plain text. Same thing with "Bleach DS", only the first instance of Nintendo DS needs to be linked.
Other than that, the list looks good to go. Hope you do more like it in the future. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC))
Thank you very much for that, I added a note to Bleach DS 4th : Flame Bringer, but I also had to remove one from Bleach Soul Carnival 2, I looked for a source to replace it, but there is next to no news releases on it considering all that has been seen/announced is a clip at the end of Bleach: Heat the Soul 6, and even that I can't find a reliable source. I also went and cut out all second links in each section, the article looks really bare now. --Lightlowemon (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Since SC2 was announced recently, there's not much that can be done. Just keep an eye out and add stuff as you find it. I'm sure the reviewers at FLC would understand because the game isn't even out yet. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
Ok, then thank you very much again for all your help. --Lightlowemon (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mario Nuzzolese[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to achieve high-quality article with pictures and more information available

Thanks, Mndv78 (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting artice - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • One of the biggest problems I see is that there are no inline references.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The language of the article is quite poor and needs to be cleaned up considerably - for example, they are silent movies, not "mute movies"

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Tryon Creek[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC in the near future. More eyes would be helpful because I've worked on this one without much input yet from other editors. Any suggestions would be welcome. I'd much rather deal with any doubts, questions, errors, or omissions here than at FAC.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement, although this looks pretty ready for FAC to me already.

  • I would clarify in the lead that Lake Oswego is a city, so ...the Multnomah Village neighborhood of Portland and the Tryon Creek State Natural Area to the Willamette in [the city of] Lake Oswego. I thought at first it was a lake and was not sure how it was entering the Willamette and a lake.
Thanks for catching this vagueness, which I think is now fixed. It's a confusing pair, Oswego Lake and Lake Oswego. I thought they had identical names until I wrote this article. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What makes up the other 30 percent of the watershed? Single-family residential properties cover more than 50 percent of the watershed, while parks and open spaces amount to about 20 percent.
Good question and one that troubled me often as I did the research. I never quite found a document with the statistics I was hoping for. Instead, I found an interesting but incomplete set of land-use statistics published by Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) that gives the desired data only for the Portland fraction (80 percent) of the watershed. I didn't find a set of similar stats published by the City of Lake Oswego or the county governments and, thus, couldn't add them to the BES stats to get the equivalent stats for the whole watershed. I re-wrote one paragraph of the Watershed section today by using the BES stats plus a short summary by Metro, the regional government, which takes a wider view of land questions. I think the two combined give a fair (though imprecise) idea of land use in the whole watershed: lots of houses and parklands and not a lot of anything else. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The map is very nice but it sure looks to me like Falling Creek enters further upstream than river mile 4.16 (of a total length of 7 miles). I tired to check this online but only found the Watershed Association's similar map. 4/7 is about 60%, but to me it just looks more like 75% or even 80% of the distance from the mouth. If some of the headwaters are not shown that could do it I suppose.
I see the problem. Tryon Creek is only 4.85 miles (7.81 km) long by BES's precise measurement (to the nearest hundredth of a mile), even though other sources say 7 miles. BES says the "headwaters complex" above that point consists of tributaries. Tributaries don't count toward total length no matter what the other sources, which do not explain how the total was calculated, may say. The USGS river-mile point (1.0 mile) for the stream gauge below Nettle Creek supports the BES measurement (1.06 mile) for the reach below Nettle Creek, and it's not possible to fit seven of those lengths into what shows on any map of the creek that I've seen. Correcting the length fixes the Falling Creek problem (which is 86 percent of the distance from the mouth), and related distance problems. The map was generally fun but less so when I tried to include the jurisdictional boundaries. They are such a crazy quilt that I could see no way to include them. Finetooth (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Could there be some variation of "aty RM X (RK Y)"? Perhaps "X miles (y km) from the mouth"? It just gets a little repetitive.
Indeed it does. I've varied the usage along the lines you suggest. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am assuming most if not all of the bridges crossing the creek in the state park are footbridges (as they carry trails, and from the photo). Could this be stated somehow (blanket staements if possible - five footbridges cross the creek in the park, or specifics for each bridge if they differ)?
Yes. Five is the correct total, and I've added that to the Course section. They are all similar footbridges. I wikilinked footbridges. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Were the maximum and minimum historic flow rates associated with particular weather events (for example in Penna. most high flow rates are associated with Hurricane Agnes)?
No. The data-gathering time, six years, doesn't go back far enough to catch anything big. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Paralell construction? Should it be in... in both times Of this, about 80 percent is in Portland in Multnomah County, and 20 percent is in Lake Oswego and [in?] Clackamas County.
Good catch. Thinking about this led me to add the clarification that we are really talking about four local jurisdictions with a lot of overlap as well as a fifth, the State of Oregon, which owns the state natural area. I have modified this paragraph. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the Tyron house no longer exists, could the dates for it be added to the caption?
Yes. Good catch. I've added the construction date and the approximate demolition date to the caption and gave a source. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The and here made me think frogs etc. were meant to be mammals at first Some of the resident mammals are bats, coyotes, moles, rabbits, skunks, and squirrels, and frogs, salamanders, snakes, and turtles also do well in the watershed.[28] Would "while" work better (instead of "and")?
Thank you. I used your suggested wording. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Should the names of plant species be capitalized consistently?
I think I've fixed this now by making all the instances of "Western" lowercase. Is that what you were thinking of? I've never found a consistent guideline for whether or not to capitalize any species except the birds. I wish I could find one partly because other editors have sometimes changed my uppercase bird species to lowercase, and I don't have a strong argument to make one way or the other. I see that Fauna of Scotland has uppercase for all species. Would that be better? Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
After sleeping on it, I've changed all the species names to title case and changed the generic bird names to lowercase. Finetooth (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Refs and images look OK - the fair use image of the house may need to be made smaller (in the original - size in the article looks fine) but I would probably wait for the image gurus at FAC to decide this.
Thanks. Yes. I think I'll wait and see what happens. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is very helpful, and I will make further improvements to the article over the coming week or so. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think I'd be able to find anything that got through the always-thorough Ruhrfisch's review, but I think I've got one. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what easy solution there could be…as it's in the infobox code. The discharge rate is listed as being "for near Lake Oswego…" "for near?" makes no sense. But, it appears the word "for" is built into the template…so I'm not sure what the best solution would be.
Otherwise, fantastic article! -Pete (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Pete. Good catch. I'll give the discharge rate location some further thought. I think I added "near" many months ago and that it is actually in the city of Lake Oswego, but I'll have to double-check. I've been off-line again for a day and a half, hence the delay in fixing anything yet. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The USGS says "below Nettle Creek, near Lake Oswego, Oregon," and refines that by saying the gauge is at river mile 1.0, 0.8 mile north of Lake Oswego". I changed the geobox to say "below the confluence with Nettle Creek, 1 mile (1.6 km) from the Tryon Creek mouth". The geobox still adds "for", but that and "for near" seem logical to me though a bit odd-sounding because "a point" is implied rather than stated; that is, I take it to mean "for a point below the confluence with... ". Finetooth (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I have now fixed the problems mentioned above or at least responded to them. Thank you both. Any further suggestions are most welcome. Finetooth (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Amador Valley High School[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Comments from previous reviewers on Wikipedia, including but not limited to Scartol, Finetooth, Shirulashem, Camaron, and Jp07 have helped polish up this article. I have been very responsive to their comments and believe this article has come a long way since the beginning of the summer.

However, I feel as if some small issues and complexities (especially from newer prose) may still prevent the article from reaching Featured Article status. I would appreciate comments from additional outside eyes on how this article could better reach FAC and potentially become one of the few featured public high school pages. Thank you for your time, Deltawk (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems pretty good, but not quite ready for FAC I think. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the National School of Character, and National Blue Ribbon School seem to only be in the lead, for example (shouldn't they be in the Awards). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • References to school awards have been added to the awards section. The lead mentions all the main sections of the article, although I am unsure how to reference the alumni section in the lead.Deltawk (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this needs a ref Don is a Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian term used as a mark of high esteem for a distinguished nobleman, similar to the British respect title "Lord." I would also argue that someone addressed as Lord usually means they are a member of the peerage in the UK.
  •  Done I've added references to the sentence and removed the part referring to the term "Lord." Deltawk (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • MOS:QUOTE says the ref should be at the end of the sentence with the direct quote in it, so From November 3 to November 5 in 1986, Amador Valley teachers went on a three-day strike to "protest a breakdown in negotiations for a new contract."
  •  Done The ref has been moved. Deltawk (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not sure why the 2006-7 enrollment is in the Academics section and then there is a separate Enrollment subsection later with more recent data.
  •  Done I have moved the enrollment and ratio data to the enrollment section. The data has also been updated. Deltawk (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the article has potential issues with WP:WEIGHT. For example the varsity sports program is summarized in one sentence that does not even list all of the sports As of 2009, the school offers 12 varsity sports teams for boys and 11 varsity sports teams for girls. There is a whole paragraph on the water polo team but no mention of football or baseball. Or we get a three sentence paragraph on Corinne Tu, is one of eight Californians to win the prestigious Presidential Scholar award in 2008
  • I've evened out mention of the sports and removed sections that seem to give undue weight.Deltawk (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the article also has potential issues with WP:RECENTISM. I like how the "Band and Color Guard" section gives some sense of history, but the Math Team section has no data earlier than 2005 and almost nothing but 2008 and 2009, or the Awards section all seems to be in the late 2000s.
  • I've removed many of the elements from the Awards section that had a bias towards recentism. Material has been adjusted to focus more on entities as a whole rather than recent events.Deltawk (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The Notable people section has a few people who do not have articles - generally these people meet WP:NN and have their own article. I also think the staff section is odd. Again this guy has no article and it goes into way too much detail on his story, which has very little connection to the high school. Is there no other notable staff member since 1922?
  • I have created articles for all the staff and alumni who did not have articles.Deltawk (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


Achtung Baby[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it progress through to GA standard, and hopefully even FA at one stage. I would like a general review of the whole article. I would value non-music and non-pop culture editors as much as those more used to reviewing music articles.

Thanks, Merbabu (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

llywrch writes

This is good, solid article. I looked at it critically, & found it answered all of the questions I had about the subject. I wish I could say more. -- llywrch (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive and generally well-written. I have some suggestions, mainly about prose and style, and a couple about making the article a bit more accessible to readers with no U2 background.

Lead

  • I think it would be helpful to give the names of the four band members in the lead.
  • Should the video be mentioned in the lead?

Background

  • "the album’s intended homage to American music legends was interpreted as the band's self-importance and them placing themselves as equals with the likes of Bob Dylan and The Beatles" - The phrase "them placing themselves' is a bit awkward. Suggestion: "the album’s intended homage to American music legends was interpreted as a self-promoting attempt to claim equality with the likes of Bob Dylan and The Beatles".
  • "Towards the end of Lovetown Tour, Bono said... " - Wikilink Lovetown Tour?

Pre-recording

  • "With a more contemporary feel, Bono later said the song was more in line with Achtung Baby." - Dangling modifier. Suggestion: "With a more contemporary feel, the song was more in line with Achtung Baby, Bono said".
  • "The band recorded "Night and Day" for the first of the Red Hot + Blue releases and Bono and The Edge contributed to the original score for the Royal Shakespeare Company's theatrical version of A Clockwork Orange and Bono later said that this early experimentation was "preparing the ground for Achtung Baby"." - Too many clauses. Suggestion: The band recorded "Night and Day" for the first of the Red Hot + Blue releases, and Bono and The Edge contributed to the original score for the Royal Shakespeare Company's theatrical version of A Clockwork Orange. Bono later said that this early experimentation was "preparing the ground for Achtung Baby".
  • "including guitar riffs" - Wikilink riff?

Video

  • "Achtung Baby: The Videos, The Cameos, and a Whole Lot of Interference from Zoo TV" - This title should be in italics but not bold letters.
  • Does the list have to be numbered? Should it be preceded by a sentence saying what the list is? Shouldn't the "Interference" titles have a capital "I" but lowercase letters otherwise? Wikipedia generally avoids all caps even if the source uses them. Exceptions exist, but this doesn't look like one of them.

References

  • Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
  • Citations 64 through 74 are incomplete as are some of the other citations. A good rule of thumb for Internet citations is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those are known.
  • What makes www.atu2.com or its sources such as Hot Press reliable?
  • Is a second infobox normal? I'm not used to seeing more than one, and I'm not finding examples of music FA articles that use two. See Smashing Pumpkins, for example. I think the combination of the numbered list, the second infobox, which overlaps three sections, and the bolding make this last section look less polished than the upper sections. Also, the image in this infobox is oddly big compared to the small one in the first infobox. Perhaps the lead image should be bigger and this one smaller?

General

  • The dabfinder tool that lives here finds two wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
  • The link checker tool that lives here finds four dead urls in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article in an area of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC) oth|Finetooth]] (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


Arthur Eve[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a previous PR was closed while I awaited receipt of an interlibrary loan source. The book just arrived this week. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I think the article looks more solid than it did at the last PR, but it still needs polishing. Here are some suggestions:-

  • Lead

**First para: suggest add: "but was defeated in the following mayoral election"

**Second para: suggest reword: "by the time of his retirement in 2003"

**Second para final sentence: delete "also" since this does not follow from the earlier paragraph

**There is more than "personal" information in this section – it covers his introduction to city politics. Could a more comprehensive title be found?

**I have copyedited the beginning into the correct chronology

**Dollar conversion looks better rounded to $80

**"...but he saw social issues with drugs in the parks and a lack of guidance for youth in the community." It's not a "but" clause since it doesn't contradict the first part of the sentence. Also "he saw social issues with drugs in the parks" is weaselly. Perhaps the whole sentence could be split and rewoked: "Eve's first job in Buffalo was in a Chevrolet plant.[6] While working there he became aware of drugs problems with local youths in the city's parks, and observed a lack of guidance for youth in the community."

**"He surrendered his job to pursue a job in parks recreation, but learned that such jobs were doled out by political patronage to party loyalists." – "job", "job", "jobs" in rapid succession. Also "surrendered" is a bit dramatic. Suggest "He gave up his job to seek a post in parks recreation, but learned that such jobs were doled out by political patronage to party loyalists."

**"...rising up as in insurgent" – far too dramatic and overwrought. Can this be expressed more moderately? My suggestion: "By 1958 he was blossoming as an independent activist within the party, pursuing minority rights, and was the only ward leader that was not part of the political establishment."

**Constance wasn't "the former Constance Bowles" when they got married. Can you clarify that the date in parentheses is her birth date?

**Give dates for Leecia's candidature as lt-gov. and as possible Senate replacement for Hillary.

**Eve's educational qualifications should be given earlier, not tagged on after information about his chidren's careers.

More to come. Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Second tranche: More

  • Assemblyman 1967–79

**This section ought to start with a brief account of his election as an assemblyman. All we have at the moment is a short sentence buried in the previous section.

**First sentence: "Eve fought against state construction union policies that disallowed minority participation in apprentice programs that led to high paying union jobs." This is very awkwardly phrased. I've tried to sort it out; this is my best effort: "Eve fought against union policies which disallowed minority participation in apprentice programs that led to high paying union jobs on state construction sites."

**"He directly threatened then New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller..." You don't need either "directly" or "then"

**"The resulting protests..." It's not clear who was protesting, or what the protest were "resulting" from.

**I don't think "System" is part of SUNY's official name, so the word should not be capitalised.

    • "...unable to attend college because of educational or financial circumstances." What "educational" circumstances are you suggesting here?
      • I am not too familiar with the details of the scholarship, but this is the language of the source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
        • The actual language of the source is "educational and financial circumstances". I have altered the text. I still don't really know what it means, but you're probably right in thinking it has something to do with scholarships. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

**POV formulation: "By 1988, he had distinguished himself enough to be a recipient of the Kennedy Center Distinguished Leadership in Arts-in-Education award." Simplify to: "In 1988 he received the Kennedy Center Distinguished Leadership in Arts-in-Education award."

**I have copyedited third para to remove various problem phrasings. Can you say, however, what is meant by "accommodated" in this context?

**"Believing that people with credibility within and without the prison were needed,..." I'm not clear what this phrase is saying.

**"Farrakhan refused to attend,..." Refused to attend what?

Yet more to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Third tranche:-

  • 1977 mayoral campaign

**"and" is an awkward conjunction in the first sentence. Personally I would turn the thing round and say: "On March 3, 1977, Buffalo's incumbent mayor Stanley Makowski announced he would not seek reelection in May; on the same day Eve announced his candidacy for the post"

**To avoid repetition, start the second sentence: "Eve declared his intentons early..." etc

**The rest of this sentence has another dodgy "and", a typo, and a confusing ending.

**"He won the primary by a approximately 25,538–23,579 (37%–34%) margin..." What's "approximate" about that?

**Another of those wrong "and" conjunction sentences: "Third-place primary finisher Leslie Foschio threatened to enter the general election and Griffin became the Conservative Party nominee." Apart from that, did Foschio follow through on his threat? If so, "threatened" should be replaced by "decided". That being so, the sentence would read better: "Griffin subsequently became the Conservative Party's nominee; third-placed primary finisher Leslie Foschio also decided to enter the general election."

**"...who hoped to prevent a third Democrat from running in the general election..." Who was he hoping to prevent from running, and how was he proposing to prevent it?

**Sort out the grammar: "Eve spurned Chairman Crangle's endorsement the endorsement caused him to be associated with the Crangle machine."

    • The last two sentences of the section each need citations. As you have voting figures for the primary, it should be possible to quote the relevant figures for the general election.
  • Deputy Speaker 1979-2003

**"That year the Democratic majority had fallen from 90–60 to 86–64, while the caucus' Assembly membership had grown from 15 to 16. This meant that for the first time the caucus had enough votes to withhold legislation, which brought about a shift in the balance of power." First, "fell" not "had fallen"; the words "for the first time" are probably unneccesary; "obstruct" rather than "withhold" legislation; "...which brought about a shift in the balance of power" is self-explanatory. So the passage could be shortened to: "That year the Democratic majority fell from 90–60 to 86–64, while the caucus' Assembly membership had grown from 15 to 16. This meant that the caucus had enough votes to obstruct legislation."

**However, the passage seems out of place where it is. The first and last sentences of the first paragraph are connected and should be together. The bit in between seems to belong elsewhere.

      • I joined the two sentences together, but I do not know what to do with the remaining text and left it in that paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

**Second paragraph: "vocal voice"??

Head spinning, got to take a break. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Final comments

  • Deputy Speaker section - continued

**The following sentence appears in the middle of the second paragraph: "In 1984, Eve joined with James F. Notaro, the Liberal Party of New York chairman to create the "Coalition for a Better Buffalo", with the sole intention of identifying a candidate for the Democratic and Liberal party lines who could unseat Griffin." This sentence appears to be about the city poltics of Buffalo, regarding the mayoralty; the rest of the paragraph, before and after this sentence, is about state politics. This muddling of city and state affairs gives lack of coherence. What is the relevance of this sentence in a section headed "Deputy Speaker", which should be concentrating on Eve's rols in the state assembly?

(added later): I see that the section is not, after all, about Eve's role as Deputy Speaker of the state assembly, but about all his various political activities after he acquired that office. Perhaps a broader section title is required?
I have renamed the section and assumes that this solves the problem above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

**Third paragraph: "During his 1988 election campaign..." Need reminding: campaign for which office?

**Third paragraph: "...over Gore and Michael Dukakis." Since Al Gore hasn't been mention since the lead, I don't think he should be suddenly reintroduced as just "Gore".

**Final paragraph: I have copyedited this into some sort of shape. I wonder if this: "The holiday would have been the thirteenth state holiday" is important enough to be included?

*Political themes: The section begins: "Eve is widely recognised as a champion of the American family ... " etc. The source for this seems to be a NYT report of a political beakfast in Eve's honour, arranged by feelow Democrats. So the "widely recognised" assertion is suspect.

**I can't work out what the first sentence means. Check grammar?

**It might also be a good idea to say who George D. Maziarz is.

**I still find the terse statement "He became an evangelist" disconcerting, without any context or any previous indication in the article that he even had religious beliefs. The citation for this statement is a passing reference to the "Assemblyman-turned-evangelist", which is pretty meaningless. If he really did become an evengelical preacher, there will surely be some public record of his activities in this field, that would enable a context to be added. Otherwise, I think the statement should be taken out.

      • Above, I have it contextualized and you did not have a problem with the combined facts. I removed it in isolation at the bottom where I had forgotten to do so previously.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think the final paragraph has got anything to do with Eve or his retirement and don't really see why it should be in the article.

I'm sorry to have been late with these final review comments, but hope yo find the helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


Cato June[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems to be well developed enough to have FA potential. I hope to nominate in the fall.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

comment by doncram Looks good. You have a wide range of expertise! "Redshirt" used four times in this passage: "He became a starter toward the end of his redshirt freshman year, but missed the entire redshirt sophomore season due to injury. He returned as a starter as a redshirt junior and started as a safety until an injury slowed him down late in his redshirt senior season." But, the link to redshirt explains that a college athlete can have one "redshirt" year, not four, does not define terms like "redshirt junior", whcih I don't understand. doncram (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Once you redshirt for a year your academic progress and athletic eligibility will not mesh. In college athletics Redshirt as an adjective means that although academically you may have a different classification, you are athletically that term. Thus a redshirt freshman may be a sophomore or junior in his classes. A redshirt junior may be a senior or a graduate student. How would you suggest that the text be changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, i will base my suggestion on what I see now is stated in the redshirt (college sports) article: "The term redshirt freshman indicates an academic sophomore (second-year student) who is in the first season of athletic eligibility. A redshirt freshman is distinguished from a true freshman (first-year student) as one who has practiced with the team for the prior season. The term redshirt sophomore is also commonly used to indicate an academic junior (third-year student) who is in the second season of athletic eligibility. After the sophomore year the term redshirt is rarely used, instead the terms fourth year junior and fifth year senior are more common." Then I suggest rewording your passage to "He became a starter toward the end of his redshirt freshman year, but missed the entire next year due to injury. He returned as a starter as a fourth year junior and started as a safety until an injury slowed him down late in his fifth year senior season." doncram (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You have taught me something about sports. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive and generally reads well. Most of my suggestions have to do with relatively minor prose and style issues. It's hard to write in depth about a sport without using the jargon of the game, and that's true of soccer and baseball and other sports as well as football. I've noted a few places where I think a non-football fan might get lost; I think this can generally be fixed by re-wording or by adding a brief explanation or, if that's too clumsy to embed in the text, a footnote.

Lead

Early years

  • "June and Marjani Dele, his divorced mother, moved to the northwest section of Washington D.C. as a sophomore in 1995." - This slowed me down because at first I thought it meant that Marjani Dele was a sophomore. Maybe "When June was a sophomore, he and Marjani Dele, his divorced mother... "?
  • "Following the move, she enrolled him in a summer in a college prep program... " - Delete second "in a"?
  • "Washington, D.C." needs a comma in this section and elsewhere in the article. When it or other city-state combinations occur in the middle of a sentence, they also need a trailing comma after the state. Example: "moved to the northwest section of Washington, D.C., as a sophomore...".
  • "By mid-season he was being mentioned across the country as the nations best player." - Possessive: nation's best player.
  • "Entering the championship game, no one had caught a touchdown against him and he had not fumbled the football." - Dangling modifier. Suggestion: "Before the championship game, no one had caught... ".
    • O.K., but I used "Prior to" instead of "Before"

College career

  • "of his 27 tackles in a 24–17 victory at Michigan Stadium in the rivalry game against Ohio State on Nov. 20, 1999" - Spell out November.
  • "Before returning to football, he was involved in a public altercation in Spring 2001. - Lowercase "spring". Also, what kind of altercation? Did it affect his football career in any way?
  • "A collision on October 26 in a game with Iowa halted play for ten minutes while June received medical attention after leaving the game on a stretcher with movement in his extremities." - That last phrase might sound odd to readers who don't know football. Perhaps deleting "with movement in his extremities" would solve the problem.
  • "he played in two plays during the subsequent Michigan-Minnesota Little Brown Jug game on November 9.[75] June was healthy in time to play full time... - Repetition of "play".

Indianapolis Colts

  • "June was listed as a starter when the Colts got to minicamp" - Should "minicamp" be linked or briefly explained?
  • "Manning took a knee instead." - Should this jargon be briefly explained?
    • Linked
  • "Coach Dungy's scheme is designed so that the weakside linebacker is the play-making position... " - This, too, might seem inscrutable to an outsider.
  • "When the 2006 Colts started training camp, June's health caused the team to limited him to one practice session per day." - "Limit" rather than "limited"?
  • "In week 5 of the season, June recorded 9–tackles as the Colts improved" - Delete en dash. Ditto for the en dash in 15–tackles.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

  • "The contract was believed to be a three-year $12 million agreement... ". - Combinations like $12 million need an nbsp to hold them together on line break. Ditto for $17 million and any similar instances.
  • "June also expected defenses to run at him because at 6-foot (1.8 m), 227-pound (103 kg) he was small... " - "feet" and "pounds", no hyphens
  • "In his first game as a Buccaneer, he did not play on many passing downs,[165] which was somewhat of a controversy in the press after the opening... " - Suggestion: "which caused something of a controversy".
  • "Brooks, who was charged with having lost a step... " - Jargon may need explaining.
  • "claimed that the defense was back up to snuff with the change... " - Slang.
  • "divided up time at linebacker during nickel coverage" - Jargon, "nickel coverage", may need an explanation.

General

  • The dabfinder tool that lives here finds several wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
  • The alt viewer that lives here doesn't show any alt text for the lead image. I tried adjusting the syntax to image_alt=, but that didn't fix the problem. I'm not sure what the problem is, probably a syntax error that I'm just blind to at the moment.
  • Citation 21 has a dead url. The link checker tool that lives here was having trouble connecting to quite a few others. The connection problem was probably transient, but you might want to use the tool later to make sure.
    • I have eliminated four of the five uses of the ref, but am unable to find a substitute for his triple jump championship. I left a note on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Weight Gain 4000[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm going to pursue an FAC for it, in keeping with the South Park featured topic drive. The content and sourcing is all there, I think, but I want to make sure it all works grammatically. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from indopug—

I think this needs polishing and restructuring before it is ready for FAC. Many of my comments seem to be applicable here as well:

  • Not a fan of either of the images, I think they can both be replaced by better ones—
  • I think the image of Cartman when he is blown up Jabba the Hutt-proportions, on national television will be far better than the current one. As an add-on, the caption "Eric Cartman: Fat Ass" is awesome.
  • Non-free pics of living people are almost never allowed on Wikipedia. Instead, why not have a pic of Gifford in her Popemobile alongside this? The Popemobile is also discussed in the text.
  • I suggest thoroughly running through the article yourself once. Since you haven't edited the article in a month, you will have some unfamiliarity with the text, and will spot many of the errors I now find.
  • Watch out for sentences/paragraphs where you use the same word too many times, it doesn't make for good reading. "Nevertheless, several reviewers felt "Weight Gain 4000" was a significant improvement over the first episode, Cartman Gets an Anal Probe, and felt it went in a much more satirical direction."
  • "With the series was still in its earliest stages, the episode continued to shock many due to the characters frequent use of profanities".
  • Refer to Kathie Lee Gifford as "Gifford", not "Kathie Lee". indopug (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Aniru Conteh[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Looking to submit this for GAN soon, but it's hard to find more sources than I already have. There's one or two more that I can probably use to expand the article, but not by very much. I think my best bet is to try to expand Conteh's clinical approach to dealing with Lassa fever in the ward, as Donaldson's book has more information on that subject, and it is of great interest. I believe there are also some additional journal articles and CDC reports etc. that deal with this subject. I've asked WP:MED to help me, so we'll see.

Thanks, Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: What an amazing and selfless human being he was, and what a tragedy he died. This looks pretty good to me - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I doubt this will be a problem at GAN, but I can see this going up for FAC eventually eventually and it might be a problem there. The lead photo File:Aniru Conteh by F. Jacquerioz.jpg was published in a CDC journal, but that does not necessarily mean that it is a free image (PD-US Government). If F. Jacquerioz is a CDC or US gov't employee or was doing work for hire, it is a free photo. If the photographer just allowed his or her photo to be used, then it is not necessarily free. It might help to contact the lead author of the article and ask about this, although I doubt it iwll be an issue at GAN.
  • I also read the ref (current number 2, CDC EID) the lead photo is in and it includes some details that are not in or in one case conflict with the article as written now. For example it says he moved to Freetown as a teen to help support his family, or there are more details about his last illness and death On March 23, fever developed in Dr. Conteh. Despite the administration of intravenous ribavirin, profuse vomiting and diarrhea developed a few days later; these led to hypovolemic shock and cardiac arrest, which necessitated resuscitation. Bleeding and renal failure ensued. Consultations were sought and received from medical experts around the world.[1]
  • The CDC obit article also says "Aniru Conteh is survived by his wife, Sarah, three sons, and two daughters." but the article says "With his wife Sarah, Conteh's family includes four sons and two daughters.[3]" It might be one of his sons died before he did, but this needs to be noted (his Lancet obituary said he had four sons, while his EID obituary said he had three sons) or explained "Conteh and his wife Sarah had four sons and two daughters, he was survived by his wife, three sons and two daughters." or something like that.
  • I couldn't check the Lancet article as registration was required, so the ref should note this
  • The Personal life section is only one short sentence - I was wondering if it could be combined with the Illnes and death section after his death (since it is just his surviving family)? Ref 12 also gives the name of one of his sons and says that the son works for the UN. Not sure this is worth including
  • There are a few places where more context could be provided to the reader - see WP:PCR I think a paragraph or two on Lassa fever (symptoms, cause, progress in humans, even a bit of history) would help the reader understand the dangers COnteh faced earlier. Not sure if a sentence or two on the civil war would help.
  • I looked at 2 refs and found little facts that could be added in each - it might be useful to go back and reread the sources and see if more could be gleaned from them. In particular I agree that it seems as if the Lassa Ward book might have more details (in a book over 200 pages long). Again GAN does not require that an article be comprehensive, but FAC does.
  • Refs should generally be in numerical order, so fix things like Conteh died from renal failure on April 4, 18 days after first becoming infected with the Lassa virus.[10][3]
  • Language is pretty good - thanks for an interesting read and opening my eyes to the story of this brave and selfless human being.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply from Viriditas
  • You might be right about Frederique Jacquerioz. She does not appear to have worked with the CDC. I'm going to try and contact her and determine the appropriate licensing, however, she has received NIH funding and works closely with Médecins du Monde, so I doubt the current licensing will be a problem. But, it's always good to confirm.
  • No conflict, his mother died, and he might have tried to support his family by moving to Freetown and sending money home, but I'll try and fix this. There are more details about his death that could be added, but I wasn't entirely convinced that going into the violent detail of a death from Lassa Fever would be appropriate, however, I'll see what I can add.
  • The discrepancy regarding the number of children is noted in a hidden comment, and I have not yet been able to resolve this.
  • I will note the registration need for the Lancet article.
  • Merging the death and illness with the personal life section seems like a good suggestion.
  • Agree with expanding content about the fever and the civil war.
  • I will take another look at the refs and the book.
  • I'll fix the refs.
  • Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Gray's Inn[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd eventually like to get it to FAC. No idea if that'll happen, but I can hope.

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Current ref 55 lacks a page number
  • Current ref 90, don't run the publisher into the link title and the author should be listed also, its Markku Peltonen
  • Has nothing been recently written on Gray's Inn and its history? Mot of your historical works are from before 1950, just supplemented with a few journal articles from later than that.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is the first instalment of my comments, mainly on the prose. They cover the lead and the first few sections.

  • Lead
    • I find the first sentence a bit convoluted and overlong, and would suggest a split. It also needs to establish that the Inns are in London (mentioning High Holborn and Gray's Inn Road may not be helpful to non-Brits). I suggest something like: "The Honourable Society of Gray's Inn, commonly known simply as Gray's Inn, is one of the four Inns of Court in London. To practise as a barrister in England and Wales, an individual must belong to one of these courts." (note: to be "called to the Bar" and "to practice as a barrister" amount to the same thing. This is adequately explained in the first section of the article.)
    • "...a site of accommodation and offices..." - a bit obscurely worded. Suggestion: "...a place of living and office accommodation..."
    • Benchers should be linked. Treasurer can also be appropriately linked check this edit window.
    • "...with a record of this dated from 1391." I'm not quite sure what this phrase means, but in any event there is no follow-up to this statement in the body of the article.
    • The sentence beginning "During the 15th and 16th centuries..." is another example of an overlong sentence that would benefit from splitting.
    • It may be advisable, for the benefit of those less well versed in English history, to provide dates rather than references to the reign of James I and the beginning of that of Charles. The same point applies to mentions of events such as the English Civil War and the Restoration.
  • Role
    • "Although previously a disciplinary and teaching body, these tasks are now shared between the four Inns..." What was "previously a disciplinary and teaching body", and what "tasks" are now shared between the four Inns? (I suspect that "these tasks" would be better worded as "these functions"
    • The paranthetical words "in fact" are unnecessary
    • Last sentence: far too many commas (and again too long). I suggest "The Inn remains a collegiate self-governing, non-incorporated association of its members, providing within its precincts library, dining, residential and office accommodation (chambers), along with a chapel. To some extent members of the Bar outside the Inn may use these facilities"
      • Fixed all. In my defence the last sentence certainly isn't mine - far too POV-esque.

(Note: I won't mention excessive sentence length again, but it would be worth your checking the rest of the article to see if this tendency persists.)

  • History (preamble)
    • after "education" an ndash, not a hyphen, is required, although in this instance a colon might be better.
    • English language purists disapprove the adverb "firstly" and prefer a simple "first," followed by a comma. Stranely, this disapproval doesn't extend to "secondly", which is OK.
  • Founding and early years
    • "can therefore not be verified" → "cannot therefore be verified"
    • Baron Grey of Wilton: is there any history relating to a change of spelling? For example, was the Inn once known as Grey's Inn?
      • Not as far as I know. Poor handwriting and aged parchment means that family names change a dozen times in different books. I was writing an article on a 14th century priest called William Paull a while back (or William Pagula. Or William of Pagula. Or William of Paull. Nobody can make their mind up). Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • A comma is required after (or inn), and perhaps then, "called the Manor of Portpoole."
    • MOS: use double not single quotes around "commons"
    • Earlier it is said that the records of Grays Inn were lost up until 1569. Now we have: "Records from 1437 show that Gray's Inn was occupied by socii, or members of a society at that date." What records were these?
    • Again in the second and third paragraph we have information which appears to contradict the statement that the Inn's records were lost. Would it be more accurate if the original statement said that "most of the records of Gray's Inn itself are lost up until 1569"?
      • Nope, all records were lost; fire does that to paper. These are outside records; a sale of land to/from the king, for example, is shown in the king's records. I've noted in the first instance that these are outside records.
    • There are lengthy lists of names in the second and third paragraphs. These people individually do not appear to be notable, so I wonder if it is necessary that readers should have to plough through them?
      • I've cut them down to the "notable" ones; the redlinks, mostly (writing articles for them is on my to-do list). Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
      • All other points dealt with. Thanks so much for all this :). Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

More later Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Second instalment

  • Elizabethan golden age
    • First paragraph: Three sentences in close proximity begin "During..." ("During the reign of Elizabeth I...", "During Elizabeth's reign...", "During the Elizabethan age...". Some variety of expression advisable (particularly as the second paragraph starts with "During...", too)
    • Does Queen Elizabeth need "herself"?
    • "...The Misfortunes of Arthur by Thomas Hughes, is considered to be the most impressive masque..." - is considered by whom?
    • Inns of Chancery: it might be advisable to explain what these were, rather than relying on the link. Likely otherwise to be confused with Inns of Court.
    • "...working towards a degree, graduate and be admitted to one of the Inns of Court." This would read more easily as "working towards a degree, and be admitted to one of the Inns of Court after graduation." Also, suggest remove overlinking on "Inns of Court"
    • "...before seeking admission to the Inn of Court his Inn of Chancery was tied to" Awkward phrasing, suggest "before seeking admission to the Inn of Court to which his Inn of Chancery was tied". This should be followed by an mdash not a hyphen.
    • "...to supervise bolts"??
    • "court - after" needs to be an ndash not a hyphen, but I would go for "court, and after..."
    • Perhaps avoid the repetition of "weak" by using a synonym, e.g. low, poor, deficient etc.
    • Watch overlinking - "moots" was linked in the previous paragraph
    • "that the Inn is noted for" → "for which the Inn is noted."
  • Caroline period and civil war
    • The Caroline era and the reign of Charles I are synonymous. It reads as though the reign was just the start of the Caroline period. A little rewording would give: "At the start of the Caroline period, when Charles I came to the throne, the Inn continued to prosper."
    • Using the inflation template, £21,000 in 1634 has a current value of £2,536,000, Some party! I think this information should be included. Check this edit window for this: (current value £3,226,000)
    • Some links required on the lordly titles, for the benefit of non-Brit readers
    • Perhaps Holdsworth could have a brief introduction rather than just a link?
    • Hyphen violation after "three things"
    • Second paragraph: I have made one small change, but the prose here reads somewhat heavily and repetitively. A proper copyedit would tighten it considerably. A few suggestions:-
      • Delete "as they would in a reading or lecture."
      • "did not have the opportunity" → "denied themselves the opportunity"
      • Replace "Since students now had a way to learn without attending lectures, they..." with "Eventually, students..."
      • Revise final clause, suggest: "and secondly because many were keen to avoid the work of preparing a reading, which cut into their time as practising barristers."
    • Was not the decline in prestige or prosperity, rather than "prospects"?
  • Restoration to present
    • "This can be linked to the end of the practice of the landed gentry sending their sons to study at the Inn with no intention of becoming a barrister." A mite clumsy. Suggestion: "This fall in numbers was partly because the landed gentry were no longer sending sons who had no intention of becoming barristers to study at the Inn."
    • Can you clarify the point being made with the comparative ratios? I believe (but I'm not sure) it means that in 1615 only one in 13 of students who studied at the Inn became barristers whereas by 1713 this had become one in 2.3. Is there a way of making this point more clearly. There is particular confusion when you say the ratio had "fallen".
    • The Civil War and William III's reign were 50 years apart, so it's quite odd seeing them linked in this way. Its a bit like saying that the Second World War and the premiership of John Major were jointly responsible for something (!)
    • "It may have been more serious than that, however,..." - non-encyclopedic phrasing, needs rewording
    • "Several" reasons turns out to be two. The significance of the second of these reasons is not immediately clear
    • "It is unfortunately not recorded" Sounds POV
    • "but a further discussion in 1762 the Inns adopted..." A word is missing somewhere.
    • I am not sure of the relevance of the Danby Pickering sentence. What point is being made here?
    • What does "bound to take Anglican rites" mean. Presumably not ordination. Does it simply mean confirmed as Anglicans?
    • MOS hyphen violation after "fellows".

All right, that's the history stuff all done. More in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

All corrections done, now. The 50-year gap makes sense if you're looking at it from a family point of view rather than as the fortunes of an individual; the coffers were repeatedly hammered by events (comparatively) close together. I've tried to explain this point with a tweak to the text. Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Third instalment

  • Structure and governance
    • "At the time Gray's Inn was the odd one out amongst the Inns, who did not recognise..." A slight adjustment needed: "At the time Gray's Inn was the odd one out amongst the Inns; the others did not recognise..." etc. Then "and had Benchers" not "and who had Benchers". In the parenthetical note at the end of the sentence "are" should be "were"
    • Hyphen violation after "Gray's Inn" (I'll stop pointing these out, but please look for others)
    • "In Gray's Inn the Readers, when they existed, were required to attend" Clarify what they were required to attend (meetings of the Pension, presumably)
    • Masters of the Benche"? Or is the "e" a typo?
    • Delink Treasurer; the redlink isn't required, the term is linked in the lead.
  • Readers: no issues beyond the couple of hyphens
  • Benchers
    • The caption refers to F.E. Smith, without identifying him as Lord Birkenhead, per the article text.
    • There is overlinking of terms like "moot" and "barrister" which are already copiously linked.
    • "originally simply" - lose the second adverb (and also the comma after "Inn", to keep the sense of the sentence.
    • "for whatever reason" sound a little off-hand, perhaps. Maybe "for unknown reasons"?
    • "should be afforded the same rights and privileges that they were, although without a voice in Pension." This confused me, though I worked it out. It means: "should be afforded the same rights and privileges as those who were, although without a voice in Pension." Needs rewording accordingly.
    • End of first paragraph: "reader" needs capitalising, for consistency (suggest check for other discrepencies)
    • I have converted two lots of hyphens to mdashes
    • "The English Civil War marked the end of legal education at the Inns, although the government attempted to persuade Readers to continue by threatening them with fines..." Can you clarify "the governmnet"? Is this referring to the Commonwealth period under Cromwell?
    • "with the Benchers paying a fine of 100 marks because they refused to read, a practice that still continues." Please clarify: Benchers today who refuse to read are fined 100 marks?
    • "Noted Benchers of Gray's Inn include..." – and then just one example. Could you mention a couple more, not counting the honoraries?
    • Could we have a date for Churchill's appointment? (if you don't have it I'll consult a biography)
  • Badge: I'm not sure the description in heraldic language helps anyone. Why not just say: "The Badge of Gray's Inn shows a gold griffin with a black background."? The link is helpful here.

Right, just the grounds and buildings, then I'm done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Done, no idea about Churchill I'm afraid. Out of interest, do you think this is FAC-worthy? Ironholds (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally: (note: I have made a number of fixes myself)

  • Buildings and gardens - preamble
    • The map caption does not identify the buildings and walks of the Inn
    • "...and by 1586 they had added..." Can you identify "they"?
    • "...no buildings should be built..." sounds clumsy. Suggest "nothing should be built"
    • The word "let" can be used instead of "renting out"
  • Hall
    • "...rebuilt during the reign of Mary II,[70] and again during the reign of Elizabeth." If you really mean Mary II, she reigned (as part of William and Mary) long after Elizabeth, so "and again" is wrong.
    • Possible further historical confusion in this paragraph. The Spanish Armada sailed in 1588, so wood from its galleons would not have been available until after then - yet the hall was finished in 1559 (when Elizabeth had been on the throne for a bare year).
  • Chapel: no specific comments
  • Walks: (last line) - I think "plane trees" would be better than just "planes"
  • Library
    • "While several books were saved..." "Several" suggests a single-digit number, probably no more than half a dozen. I suspect rather more books may have been saved, some perhaps "several" could become "some" or "a number"
    • In 1883 a new library was built, and in 1929 another new library was opened. Any reason why the 1883 building was so quickly inadequate?
    • "funder" or "founder"? "Funder" , if that is intended, is a rather odd word - perhaps "benefactor" would be more euphonious?
  • Notable members: It would be good to get away from Bacon and Lord Birkenhead - perhaps som eother notable lawyers should be mentioned here. There is rather too much use of "such as" in the list that follows, and a bit of redrafting might make for smoothe reading.
  • Images: It would be a good idea to consult an images expert about the licensing of some of these images. I am not an expert, but I know that sometimes copyright of old images is retained, even though the author has been dead for over 100 years. Much depends on the original publication date. Also:
    • File:1stEarlOfBirkenhead.jpg: Licensing - how do we know that the photographer died before 1939?
    • Your lead image and the image at the end of the Caroline section appear to have identical filenames although the pics are quite different. I don't know if it matters but I thought I'd point it out.
    • Some of your image captions are rather terse, and could be more informative.

That just about does it. If you have any queries about this review please ping my talkpage as at the moment I am unable to watchlist all my reviews. This is a pretty nice article, and with some final polishing could do well at FAC. It might be an idea to get another editor to copyedit it through – I'd offer myself, but don't have time at present. If however you were to wait until November before the FAC nom, I'd be able to help then. Good luck with it, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


Baichung Bhutia[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a Featured Article. I think it would be great to have an Indian footballer up there as the majority of the football FAs are British and besides that he is an influential figure both on and off the field.

Thanks, Spiderone 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Eddie6705
  • Don't need to mention he is captain of the Indian team twice in the lead section.
  • What did he do in the 1992 Subroto Cup to bring him to the notice of the football establishment?
  • The chronological order seems awkward when it goes from since then including the Arjuna Award in 1999. to In 1997 he returned to East Bengal Club. Perhaps the award could be mentioned further down.
  • He became team captain in the 1998–99 season[9] where East Bengal finished / signing a three-year contract[15] and became the first Indian / He had difficulty obtaining a visa[18] and could not - Needs a comma before the citations.
  • On 15 April 2000 he scored his first goal - Needs a comma after 2000.
  • As a result of the Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa incident he was suspended for - Shouldn't link to the same article as it is in.

Thats all for now. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. They have helped. Spiderone 16:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article, and it seems comprehensive to me, an outsider. I have suggestions about the layout and a few aspects of the prose.

Images

  • MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it." For this reason, the image directly under "Professional career" should probably be moved to the right.
  • MOS:IMAGES also says, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." For this reason, the third text box and the final two images should probably be moved. The shortness of the existing sections makes this difficult. You might consider combining some short sections to make room for images. Extremely short sections are not such a good idea in any case.

Infobox

  • The ref for his birthplace should come after the comma, not before.
  • Why do so many boxes in the list of senior career stats have question marks instead of numbers?
  • No data is available on his appearances as far as I know. Spiderone 16:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

  • Instead of starting three sentences in a row in the first paragraph with "He is", I'd suggest variety. For example, the second sentence could be flipped to say, "Currently the captain of the Indian team, he plays for East Bengal Club."
  • "As well as this he has played for JCT Mills, where he won the league once, and Mohun Bagan, where he failed to win the league once during his two spells, in his native India." - This sounds odd because he didn't win the league or fail to win the league by himself. Would something like " ...which won the league once during his tenure; and Mohun Bagan, which failed to win the league once during his two spells, in his native India."

Professional career

  • "He became team captain in the 1998–99 season where East Bengal finished second behind Salgaocar in the league." - Comma after "season" and then substitute "during which" for "where"?

Bury

  • It would be good to add that Bury is in Manchester, England. Many readers will not have any idea where Bury is.
  • "However his stint at Perak ended in a 3–1 defeat to Sabah FA in the Malaysia Cup semi-finals with Bhutia describing himself as "the villain of the piece"." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: However his stint at Perak ended in a 3–1 defeat to Sabah FA in the Malaysia Cup semi-finals, after which Bhutia described himself as "the villain of the piece".
  • "The 2004–05 season saw East Bengal finish in third place behind SC Goa and champions Dempo SC with Bhutia scoring nine goals." - Suggestion: "During the 2004–05 season, Bhutia scored nine goals for East Bengal, which finished in third place behind SC Goa and champions Dempo SC."
  • "The 2007–08 season (the league was now known as the I-League) saw Mohun Bagan finish slightly higher in the league in fourth place, with Bhutia scoring 10 goals in 18 matches." - Suggestion: "During the 2007–08 season (the league was now known as the I-League), Bhutia scored 10 goals in 18 matches, and Mohun Bagan finished slightly higher in the league in fourth place."
  • I see other "with" conjunctions further down in the article. They would all be easy to fix in ways similar to these three suggestions.

East Bengal "Homecoming"

  • Lowercase "homecoming"?
  • "claiming damages of Rs. 10 million, against Mohun Bagan" - Constructions such as Rs.10 million need to be held together with an nbsp code to prevent the parts from being separated by line break on computer screens. WP:NBSP has a full explanation. Also, no space should separate the "Rs" from the "10". Ditto for instances lower in the article.

International career

  • "Bhutia played a significant part in the final as he was involved in the build-up to N. P. Pradeep's winning goal against Syria where India won 1–0 to become champions." - This sentence uses "where" in an odd way. "During which" might be better. Ditto for similar instances lower down in the article.

Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa controversy

  • What does "SMS frenzy" refer to?

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article on a topic of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll begin to address these, thanks for the comments. Spiderone 16:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Note that some of these are probably reliable, but since, as you point out, most of the footballer articles are on non-Indians, the Indian football sources haven't been seen at FAC much yet.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Montrose Academy[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been listed as a stub but I have since made some amendments and updated it.

Thanks, Lcw27 (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I've not yet read the whole article, so my comments relate only to the first half.

  • Lead:
    • You say that the Academy's history "extends as far back as the 16th century grammar school". Yet you also say that Montrose Academy was founded in 1815. How do these statements reconcile?
    • "Due to its prominence as an educational establishment it has a history of teaching learned men who later earned esteemed positions, some of whom are well-known." Very difficult to sort this sentence out, since the logic seems wrong. I would imagine that the school's prominence comes from its history of successful teaching, which is not the sense suggested by the sentence. Also, schools don't teach "learned men" (they may teach boys who later become learned men); "esteemed positions" presumably means prominent or influential positions; the last clause is misplaced. A complete sentence rewrite is required.
    • I think a word is missing (after "to") in "A number of pupils come to from outwith the catchment area." Also, the word "outwith" is peculiar to Scotland; the more common form of "outside" should be used here.
    • This is a general encyclopedia article about the school, not a promotional article. I don't think that the names of the present Rector and his senior staff should appear in the lead section which, in accordance with WP:LEAD, should give a concise overview of the whole article, i.e. it should be a summary of the detail that follows in the body of the article. If the rector is named in the infobox, he shold be described as "Current rector" and the date of his appointment given, thus: "Current Rector: Ronald Small (appointed [date])"
  • Grammar school history
    • I am not clear as to the relationship between the grammar school and the academy. Unless there is some historical continuity, the history of the grammar school relates to a different institution altogether. I note that this history does not extend beyond the mid-seventeenth century.
    • It is also very haphazard, with bits of information included almost randomly, and is unbalanced by the extensive quote.
    • Various statements are uncited, e.g. "He taught and circulated copies of the Greek Testament amongst his pupils. His notable teaching attracted attention when it was considered heretical for bishops to teach Greek and especially the Greek Testament. He fled to England in 1538 when summoned by the Bishop of Brechin" and "Melville became a noted theologian and distinguished scholar of Classical Greek and Latin; and arguably one who was spurred by an intellectual capacity owed to an education gained in Montrose" and the line about David Lindsay.
  • Academy history
    • This is again something of a mishmash. It deals with assorted facts relevant to the academy's foundation and early years, but then jumps straight to post WW2
    • There are no citations whatever in the second part of the section.

Before I go on I would welcome some response to my initial comments. There are numerous school articles listed among Wikipedia's Featured and Good articles, mostly American – but City of London School and Stonyhurst College are Good Articles about British schools. Have you consulted these, to get ideas about content and structure? If not, this might be worth spending some time on. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Upper and Lower Table Rock[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it just passed its GAN, and I would like to see it become a featured article. ZabMilenko and I have been working on it since late April, and Sasata, the GA reviewer, gave me a few good tips already. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks, LittleMountain5 22:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Cook Island Aquatic Reserve[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to good article status. The main objective of this peer review is to meet the good article criteria, specifically "addresses the main aspects of the topic", I ask you how can this criterion be addressed (should a section, with limited content, named "Geography and geology" or similiar be made?)

Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article with nice images. It's not broad enough yet to qualify as a good article, and the prose could use a bit of polish here and there. Here are some suggestions:

  • I would suggest including mention of the Cook Island Aquatic Reserve by name and including its dimensions, rules, and a bit of its history.
  • You might consider using Template:Geobox/type/nature instead of the island infobox. The geoboxes seem to me to be more versatile. For example, a "protected area" geobox such as the one for Mendip Hills can accommodate an image as well as a map or maps. The geobox template also provides a kind of reminder of possible categories of information that might be added. (Some of the categories clearly don't apply to particular articles and can simply be deleted from the geobox to keep things uncluttered.)
 Done Alex Douglas (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done Alex Douglas (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful to mention the nearest big population center and its distance and direction from the island.
  • I think the main text as well as the infobox should mention the island's size (length, width, shape), and it would be good to include the elevation of its high point. Climate data (temperatures, precipitation, humidity, amount of sunshine) could be interesting.
  • It would probably be possible to add some geological data to the article. What kind of rock does the island consist of? How did the island get to where it is? Is it part of the same tectonic plate as the mainland? How deep is the water surrounding the island? If the water is shallow, is it shallow all the way to the mainland? Did a land bridge ever connect the island to the mainland?
  • Should anything be added about reefs?
  • The "History" section might be slightly better if re-organized chronologically. It starts now with 1770, moves to 1823, then back to the 16th century, then leaps forward to 2008, then back to 1998, then forward to 2004. Also, did anything of note happen between 1823 and 1998? Were the surrounding waters ever fished or overfished?
  • "The marine surrounding Cook Island contains a wide variety of fish species... " - "Marine" is used in this way twice more in the last section and also in the lead ("the surrounding marine") as a substitute for "sea" or "ocean" or the more verbose "marine area". I don't recall seeing it used like this before. Would "ocean" or "sea" or "water" be better here and elsewhere?
  • Measurements given in metric units should also be given in imperial units. Thus "located six hundred metres" should really say, "located 600 metres (2,000 ft)". I like using the {{convert}} template for these. You can see how I did this one by viewing this comment in edit mode. The template is capable of handling all sorts of measurements and spells and abbreviates them correctly.
 Done Alex Douglas (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Tweed River in the "History" section links to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target.
 Done Alex Douglas (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's often helpful to look at FA articles for ideas about how other editors have solved similar problems. A list of geographical FAs can be found at WP:FA#Geography and places. The list includes the Isle of Portland and other islands. Although none is exactly like Cook Island, there's bound to be quite a lot of category overlap.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Jay Busbee[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i've never created a Wikipedia page before and would like to know for sure if the page lives up to Wikipedia's quality standards. I know already that the subject more than meets notability requirements. If I have made anything about the page improperly I would like to know in advance of any possible deletion. Thank you in advance for your time and patience.

Thanks, TimidObserver (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interesting guy, here are some suggestions for improvement and to make sure it is kept and not deleted.

  • See WP:NN for more on the notability criteria for people. It notes that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Let's look at these one at a time.
  • The problem is that none of the sources currently used in the article meet these criteria. I note that ref 1 (his wife's law firm profile) makes NO mention of Jay Busbee (that I could see). All of the rest of the sources are primary sources (Busbee's own college web page, his various articles, his book website). One ref does not mention him and the rest are not independent of the subject.
  • What this needs are articles from newspapers or magazines or books or other reliable sources that talk about him. My guess is that these may exist. They do not have to be on the web (they can be print only).
  • The refs should be in standard format - {{cite web}} may be helpful here
  • There should be no external links to websites in the article - convert these to references.
  • The image is not free of copyright - if Busbee took it of himself, he owns the copyright. Now if he has sent it to you to upload here, it can presumably be released under a free license. See Wikipedia:OTRS for how to submit the photo and email for use here.
  • This is so short that it is hard to say much else about it. The writing is decent, which is good.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Schloss Eggenberg (Graz)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm new to Wikipedia and this is my first article so I am looking for feedback on all aspects of it. Thanks, Smf77 (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: First, let me say that if this is your first Wikipedia article, it's pretty impressive. My own first attempt was absolute rubbish. It takes a while to learn all the forms and procedures that are necesssary in making Good and Featured articles, but I'd call this a promising start. There are, as you would expect, numerous issues which require consideration or attention. I hope you will accept these comments in the spirit of constructive criticism. Meanwhile I have raised it to B-class which I think is a fairer reflection of its standard.

  • The article is very lightly cited: only 18 inline citations in an article of c. 2,500 words. Whole sections have no citations at all. Up to ref. [11] the level of referencing is reasonable, but thereafter it is very sparse indeed. As a rule of thumb for referencing you can apply the following rules:-
    • Every paragraph should have at least one citation, generally at the end, supporting the pararaph's main content
    • Every direct quotation within a paragraph needs to be specifically cited to its author,
    • Every statement that might be in any way contentious, or subject to challenge, needs to be
  • Non-neutral tone: Parts of the article read like the editor's own opinion or interpretation. These statements should either be cited to sources, or rephrased in neutral language. Examples:-
    • "At first glance Schloss Eggenberg presents itself as a uniform, new construction of the 17th century."
    • "...three exquisite East Asian cabinets..."
    • "The various owners and builder-owners have always looked at the palace and at the surrounding gardens as corresponding elements."
    • "This had the unfortunate consequences of singular elements of the garden being torn-out..." etc
    • "During mating season, the loud cawing of the males as well as their brilliant plumage adds an exotic flair to the splendor of the park..."
  • Images
    • The article is somewhat overwhelmed by images. Mostly they are rather beautiful and I can understand a reluctance to lose any, but you might want to consider whether they are all necessary.
    • In particular, you should study WP:IG carefully, concerning your use of a gallery.
    • Image:2002 Austria 10 Euro Eggenberg Palace front.jpg lacks a fair use rationale. In any event no such rationale would be accepted since, unless every single one of these coins has been destroyed, the image clearly is replaceable.
    • Image captions should start with capital letters
    • Images should have Alt-text. SeeWP:ALT for further details
  • Prose: I have not carried out a detailed prose check, but I wonder to what extent you have adopted the prose of your sources rather than paraphrasing it? For example, sentences such as "With its construction and accouterment history, it exhibits the vicissitude and patronage of the one-time mightiest dynasty in Styria, the House of Eggenberg" sound like something from a textbook. Likewise: "With his new residence, Hans Ulrich von Eggenberg, the mental inspiration behind the complex program, realized an architectural concept deeply influenced by the humanist notions of magic as the praxis of natural philosophy and of the rational order of the world." If these are your own constructions I apologise; otherwise, the article needs to be rendered very largely in your own words, with limited verbatim quotes clearly cited to source.
  • Article construction
    • Literature section: The first item listed is a film, which cannot be described as "literature". I suggest that this section is retitled Sources. Its correct position in the article is after, not before, the Notes and references section
    • Further information: This might better be described as "Further Reading", and should be placed after the Sources section.
Thus the order of the final sections should be; Notes and references → Sources → Further reading
  • Manual of Style issues: I'm not sure I've picked up all of these, but here are some that I've found:-
    • Citations should, as far as possible, be placed at the ends of sentences. If unavoidably in the middle, they should be after punctuation.
    • Book references should be in the form of author's name and page number, not book title and page number. For example, "Wedgwood, p. 60" not "The Thirty Years War 1961, p. 60
    • Values under ten should be written as text, not numerically, thus "seven" not 7
    • Dates should be in cardinal not ordinal form, thus "November 26" not "November 26th"
    • Section title: "Notes and references" not "Notes and References"

That's plenty to be getting on with. Please feel free to contact me via my talkpage if you have any questions arising from these comments. Brianboulton (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


The X-Files[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Although I am not a major contributor to this article, I am interested in seeing where this article should go from here. It was a good article once (now it's C-class), and hopefully it can get back to that status. One of the problems I notice is that it's long; how should we deal with that?

Much appreciated, Hardtofindaname 07:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The only reason for it to not be a GA, is the grammar. If you can fix the grammar, it can make it to GA-class. --TIAYN (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'll try to go through the article and tighten up some of the sentences. Thanks! Hardtofindaname 23:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article has potential but needs substantial editorial work to make it less meandering, to make sure the sources are reliable, and to fix many errors or omissions in the citations.

Unnecessary detail

  • I think the article would be stronger if trimmed substantially. For example, here's a quote from the "Cancellation and future" subsection:

In November, 2001, Carter and the production crew of The X-Files decided to pursue a second feature film adaptation of the series, following the 1998 film. Carter was expected to collaborate with Frank Spotnitz, who had co-written the first film, on a script for the follow-up. Production of the film was slated to begin after the completion of the ninth season of the television series, with a projected release in December, 2003.[1] In April, 2002, Carter reiterated his desire and the studio's desire to do a sequel film. He planned to write the script over the summer and begin production in Spring or Summer 2003 for a 2004 release.[2] Carter described the film as being stand-alone, "We're looking at the movies as stand-alones. They're not necessarily going to have to deal with the mythology."[3] Director Rob Bowman, who had directed various episodes of The X-Files in the past as well as the 1998 feature film, expressed an interest in filming the sequel in July, 2002,[4] but it was later known that Carter was going to take over director duties for the film.[5]

The X-Files: I Want to Believe became the second movie based on the series, after the original 1998 film adaptation, The X-Files: Fight the Future. Filming took place in Vancouver and ended on March 11, 2008. The movie was directed by Carter and co-written with Frank Spotnitz. It was released in the United States on July 25, 2008. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Chris Carter said that if I Want to Believe proved successful, he would propose that a third movie go back to the television series' mythology and focus on the alien invasion foretold within the series, due to occur on December 22, 2012.

The essence of this might be captured in three sentences: "After 'The X-Files: Fight the Future', the original 1998 film adaptation, 'The X-Files: I Want to Believe' became the second movie based on the series. Filming took place in Vancouver and ended in March 2008. The movie, directed by Carter and co-written with Frank Spotnitz, was released in the U.S. in July 2008." Perhaps something about the mythology might be added to this, but the details about the internal debates over the script and the discussions about what might happen in the future cause reader fatigue (in this reader, anyhow).

References

  • Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source for itself. Thus citation 1, which sources Wikipedia to Wikipedia, won't do. To fix this, you'd need to find a reliable source outside of Wikipedia and to link to the url with the data supporting the claim.
The episode is the reference, not the wikipedia article! --TIAYN (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Citation 2 has a dead url.
  • Citation 4 uses two different date formats, m-d-y and d-m-y. You need to choose one format and stick with it throughout the citations. Since most of the citations use m-d-y, I'd suggest using that for every date in the citations.
  • Citation 6 lacks an access date and the author's name (Maureen Ryan). A good rule of thumb for Internet citations is to include the author, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of that can be found.
  • Citation 7 lacks an access date; Entertainment Weekly needs italics; Wikipedia does not use ALL CAPS for titles even if the source does. It uses title case, like so: "The 'X-FILES' Builds a Cult Following by Following the Occult".
  • Citation 14 lists The X Tapes as the publisher, but the publisher actually is Heiran Publishing, which appears to be a personal blog or web site. Generally personal blogs or self-published web pages are not considered reliable sources as defined by WP:RS. What makes this site an exception? Do all of the other cited sources qualify as RS? If not, they should be replaced by RS sources, if any can be found.
It's not a block and its an interview, meaning it reaches the Reliabiltiy guideline. --TIAYN (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The link checker tool that lives here finds several dead urls in citations.
  • The dabfinder tool that live here finds several links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended target.
  • Generally, all of the citations need to be looked over for completeness, consistency, and adherence to generally accepted Manual of Style guidelines as noted in the above examples.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Hardtofindaname 05:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 777[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to solicit additional opinion before nominating Boeing 777 for FA review.

Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nimbus227[edit]

I've just had a very quick look as I am steering an article through the FA process at the moment. If you go into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce Merlin/archive1 you will see a toolbox on the right. If you type in 'Boeing 777' into the box at the top of each tool page you will see that there is still some work to do.
I think that the operators section should be above 'specs' per WP:AIR/PC. The specifications section is non-standard for the project, whether this will have any effect at FA I don't know. Personally I would pick one variant/model and use Template:Aircraft specifications with the table kept below under a sub-header of 'Variant specifications' or something like that. I think there might be some overlinking in the article, Rolls-Royce Trent 800 is linked three times in paragraphs that are close to each other. Good luck, it's a long road!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

All good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nimbus for your speedy reply and helpful suggestions. SynergyStar (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries, it's a big article, I hope that you have some help! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks also Nimbus. Were the dead links in the External links section or in references? All the links in the EL worked within the last hour. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the 'External links' tool only checks links used as refs, ref # 66 (Jane's Air France order) is showing as dead since June and ref # 160 (AAIB report) is showing as 'request error 400' for me. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Just tried them through the article, the Jane's link opens a Jane's page that says that the page cannot be found but the AAIB link opens fine. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just finished adding alt text, replacing disambig links, moving the sections per WP:AIR/PC, also replacing the Jane's reference. SynergyStar (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also replaced Trent 800 wikilinks, etc., and replaced some additional reflinks. Not sure about the specs table; have also looked at the autoreviewer info. Thanks again. SynergyStar (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Good work, I notice that the Boeing 747 which is a featured article only uses a table for specs, this misses out some parameters from the template and adds new ones. My only concern with this way of doing it is that editors may well use the featured articles as benchmarks, I used to until I saw the different standards applied to the aircraft FAs. Hope that some more editors drop by here. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The use of a specs table is not limited to Featured or Good Articles and has been in use for a while. There are many jet airliner articles with specs in table form instead of a specs template (all the Boeing 7X7 articles, all Airbus airlines since A300, all Douglas/McDonnell Douglas jets, and several by Bombardier, Embraer, etc). It would be better to discuss this at WT:Air than here, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like there are no real issues in what the Automate peer reviewer lists now. We already are using standard abbreviations and 737NG is correct. It also mentions that the Table of Contents is too long, which I don't think is major. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to add, the Table of Contents has been trimmed. SynergyStar (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dayton, Ohio[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested on what (if any) improvements are needed so that I can suggest it as a featured article. The article was reviewed in 2006, but many improvements have been made since.

Thanks, Texas141 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but needs a lot more work to reach GA. It's a good idea to have FA in mind as a goal, but I'd suggest working first toward GA. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

Lead

  • MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections in the lead. The existing lead says nothing about climate, suburbs, political structure, urban design, culture, sports, media, and so on.

Lists

  • The Manual of Style generally favors plain prose to lists. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details. Some of the lists like the list of highways could be converted to straight prose. Others like the long list of radio stations could be shortened to prose by discussing only the most notable. See, for example, how Seattle, a featured article, handles the radio stations. The same is true of the school lists. WP:USCITY says in part, "It's very easy to make ... a list of radio/TV stations, movies, TV shows, etc. This should be avoided, instead constructing the information as prose."

General

  • WP:USCITY has many other suggestions about how to write excellent articles about U.S. cities. For example, it suggests putting the notable residents near the bottom rather than high up in the article.
  • It's often useful to look at FA articles to see how other editors have handled similar material. You can find a link to the FA city articles via WP:CITIES.
  • Generally, it's better to write in full paragraphs rather than to create one- or two-sentence paragraphs. Developed sections are also preferred to many extremely short sections. The existing article has many orphan paragraphs and tiny subsections. Two solutions are possible: expand or merge.
  • A good rule of thumb for verifiability is to source every paragraph, every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every direct quote. Quite a few paragraphs in the article are unsourced even though they include information that is not common knowledge.
  • Most of the citations are incomplete. A good rule of thumb for Internet citations is to include the author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these can be found. These can entered by hand or by using templates such as those found at WP:CIT.

Images

  • The lead image has a license problem. The image description claims that the image is in the public domain. The link provided in that description goes to a convention and visitor bureau's web site but not to the original image. However, the legal information posted at that web site says, "The Dayton CVB Web site, its design, all text, graphics, and content are the property of Dayton/Montgomery Conventions & Visitors Bureau and its affiliates. None of the content found on this site may be reproduced, republished, distributed, displayed, sold or modified without the express written permission of Dayton CVB." That would not seem to support the public-domain claim.
  • Images now require alt text to survive FAC. Alt text describes the content of images for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it. You might not need it for GA, but I'd suggest adding anyway with these readers in mind.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


The Slip (album)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After a fairly easy GA nomination, I'd like to eventually get this article up to par for a try at FAC. I feel like it's pretty close, though I would appreciate a few more eyes to take a look. Any comments are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty close to FAC to me, here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • Could these two sentences be combined somehow to be tighter? . It was recorded, performed, and released in three weeks, with Reznor releasing the album's only single, "Discipline", to radio stations himself. The song had been mastered by Moulder less than 24 hours before it was released to radio stations.[14] perhaps as something like . It was recorded, performed, and released in three weeks; Reznor released the album's only single, "Discipline", to radio stations himself, less than 24 hours after it had been mastered by Moulder.[14]
  • Could this sentence be made simpler, perhaps split into two? Some instrumental performances were contributed by live-band members Josh Freese, Robin Finck, and Alessandro Cortini, though they did not participate in the songwriting process; their contributions were limited to small parts rather than complete song recordings.[18]
  • NIN needs to be explained as an abbreviation, probably after the first time "Nine Inch Nails (NIN)" appears in the article
  • The first sentence of the Release section is also a bit long / awkward, but I am not sure how to fix it
  • These probably need refs for FAC: The digital download is available in a variety of DRM-free audio formats. The lyrics for each track are embedded using ID3 tags, allowing for their viewing in supported media players. and As with Ghosts I–IV and Year Zero, multi-track audio source files of the album were also made available at remix.nin.com.
  • Could these two be combined? The Slip was released on CD in the United States and Canada on July 22. The album [and] was released as a six-panel digipack which contained the album itself, a 24-page booklet...
  • I assume the Billboard 200 only counts sales of phyiscal copies - could this somehow be made clearer?
  • Could these also be combined? Rolling Stone named The Slip in their "Best of 2008" list, ranking the album at number 37.[38] Rolling Stone also named Reznor number 46 in its "100 People Who Are Changing America" list...
  • Could a free image of Reznor be added?
  • Otherwise it looks pretty good to me

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to eventually list it at the good article nominations page. I know this step is only necessary for potential featured article candidates but I think a peer review would be good to have anyway since FA criteria includes what's required for GA criteria. Just so you're aware, I recreated this article from Tabitha and Napoleon's individual pages which I merged. See the talk page for details. Since the article is basically one biography about two people I would like feedback on the flow and of course the grammar. I would also appreciate it if someone could rate this article according to wikipedia's quality assessment scale and change the status on this article's talk page. It's not a long article, only two pages printed. It shouldn't take much time to review. I would appreciate any comments.

Thanks, // Gbern3 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Comments by Gwern
  • Does it really matter who their agents are?  Done
It doesn't.
  • 'involvement' is pretty vague; what do they actually do at this Monsters thing?  Done
Removed from the lead.
  • What made them abandon conventional careers for dance? As written, it sounds like a crazy hormonal-in-love fling.  Done
Good catch. I never noticed that. Added explanation of how they got into the dancing professionally.
  • More dates. As it is, the reader is adrift. By the time the 2 have graduated, are we in the '80s? The '90s? How long've they been at this? Without going back to their birth year and working forward, hard to even get the decade.  Done
Another good catch. Added.
  • Choreography section seems to mix normal CV material with subjective description of whatever their signature style is.
??? I don't know if you're just commenting or telling me to fix something. I name-dropped musical acts they've worked with in the first paragraph because it adds to why they're notable choreographers. As far as the description of their style, that was a direct quote taken from Dance Spirit magazine. I don't think there's a better way to describe it in my own words.
  • Might want to re-sectionize. 'Projects' is obviously just where you threw everything miscellaneous, even though it might be more sensible to combine all the movies and TV and video stuff - why is their fashion line mixed up with exercise DVDs?  Not done
I thought about your suggestion and I don't think it would be wise to combine movies, TV, and video. The entire choreography section list their TV work. Other than TV, they've only choreographed one movie Legally Blond (also in the choreography section). There's only two other movies mentioned: MOVE in which they're just being interviewed not dancing and Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo which only had Napoleon as an extra when he was 16. I can't put Breakin' 2 or MOVE in the choreography section because they didn't choreograph either of these films. If I put the movies in their own section there would be large gaps in time considering there's almost a 30 year difference between Breakin' 2 and MOVE. So I don't think this is wise.
The two exercise videos only featured Tabitha, one of which she was just a back-up dancer in. I don't think either of these videos are notable enough to be put in their own "video" section especially since it doesn't make up a significant chunk of their choreography work or their career in general. I thought about making a "movies/video" section but since there's several years in between each and since none of these movies or exercise videos are related to each other in anyway I really don't think the paragraph would flow very well.
Breakin' 2 - 1984, Napoleon only as extra; Legally Blond - 2001, choreographed together; exercise DVDs 2007, Tabitha only, host in one, dancer in another; MOVE - 2010, interviewed.
In addition if I made multiple sections for these side jobs I know some other reviewer would complain about my T.O.C being too long. I think it makes more sense to have MOVE, Tabitha's exercise DVDs, and their dancewear line under "projects". Like you said earlier, it's all miscellaneous. It doesn't fit anywhere else. However, I did rearrange this section so that the dancewear paragraph comes first, followed by exercise DVDs and then MOVE. It's more chronological this way.
  • 'Married life' makes more sense as part of 'History'. We read the intro, history, career, projects - and then married life? What?  Not done

--Gwern (contribs) 13:30 3 October 2009 (GMT)

I've seen this done sooooooo many times in other wikipedia biographical articles; where there's a section for 'early life' and another section for 'personal life' (there isn't a history section in this article, it's called 'early life'). Examples: Christina Aguilera, Antonio Sabàto, Jr., Ozzy Osbourne, Kanye West, J. D. Salinger, Anne Rice, Angela Bassett, Tommy Hilfiger, Sofia Coppola... I'm sure there's more. Salinger and West both have GA status. I just named it 'married life' in this article rather than 'personal life' because the entire section only talks about their marriage relationship rather than how many kids they have, people they're related to, illnesses they've dealt with, etc.

Thanks for peer reviewing this article. I wasn't expecting a response for at least a month after I posted this request. I read the article over after making most of the changes you suggested and I think it's much clearer now. // Gbern3 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


Not One Less[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've done some work improving this page and given how much information is out there about this, I think it's a topic that is FA-worthy—it just needs some love. I have no experience working in-depth on film articles, so would appreciate a review from someone familiar with the film guidelines to make sure this complies with everything. And as always, copyediting and language cleanup is always welcome—extra sets of eyes never hurt.

Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
That's just a source to verify an award nomination or win, not for critical commentary or anything; it's the same sort of thing that could also be sourced with IMDB, I imagine. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting and generally well-written. I think it would have little trouble making GA, although my understanding of the film guidelines comes mostly from observation and osmosis. FA is a reasonable goal for the near future. I made a few minor proofing changes as I went, and I note a few other prose issues below. Here are my suggestions for improvement.

Alt text

  • The existing alt text wouldn't be of much help to someone who can't see the images. For example, what would a blind person learn from "Not One Less DVD cover", the alt text for the infobox image? Better would be something like "A DVD cover is divided into three panels. The first depicts a serious-looking young Chinese woman with long, dark, braided hair; standing, she is surrounded by seated children whose faces are indistinct. The second panel shows a group of laughing children, all looking forward. The third panel shows a seated laughing boy, surrounded by the words, Not One Less. Other writing on the cover says, 'From Zhang Yimou, award-winning director of Raise the Red Lantern' ". Or something like that. These are not always especially easy to write; some require much more thought than others, and it's entirely possible that my stab at it is too long. I'm sure the other two alt texts in the article could be improved by imagining what a blind person would learn from hearing a machine read the alt text aloud. WP:ALT has more details, and you can see ongoing discussions of alt text at WP:FAC.

Lead

  • "The film went on to win the Venice Film Festival's Golden Lion and several others, and Zhang won the award for best director at the Golden Rooster Awards." - Replace "several others" with "several other awards"? Otherwise it literally means "several other Golden Lions".

Production and cast

  • "For this film, he cast only amateur actors who had never appeared in any films before, and whose real-life names and jobs were similar to the roles they would play in the film... " - Since names aren't roles, it might be better to re-cast this slightly. Suggestion: "For this film, he cast only amateur actors who had never appeared in any films before and whose names and occupations resembled those of characters they would play in the film."
  • "The movie is filmed in a documentary-like, "neorealist"[11] style, with Zhang using hidden cameras and natural lighting." - "With" might not be the best connector. Suggestion: "The movie is filmed in a documentary-like, "neorealist"[11] style involving hidden cameras and natural lighting."
  • "After putting the lesson on the board, Wei usually sits outside, guarding the door and to make sure no one leaves until they have finished their work." - "One" is singular, but "they" is plural. Suggestion: "After putting the lesson on the board, Wei usually sits outside, guards the door, and makes sure students do not leave until they have finished their work."
  • I find the cast table you've prepared and added to the talk page interesting. It might work well at the bottom of this section.

Plot

  • "how many bricks they need to move and how much time it will take, etc." - Delete "etc."?
  • "After being reunited, the station manager arranges to have Wei and Zhang driven back to Shuixian village, along with a truckload of school supplies and donations that viewers had sent in." - Dangling modifier; the station manager isn't reunited. Suggestion: "After Wei and Zhang are reunited, the station manager arranges to have them.... ".

Themes

  • "Wei discovers that only someone with money or connections can gain access to a television station, but once someone is on camera they are part of an 'invisible media hegemony'... " - "Someone" is singular, but "they" is plural. Perhaps here "she or he" could replace "someone". Or, if that seems awkward, perhaps "... but someone on camera becomes part of... ".
  • "While she lacks money and power, however, Wei overcomes her obstacles through sheer obstinacy and persistent ignorance... " - "Sheer obstinancy" makes sense, but overcoming obstacles through "persistent ignorance" does not. Suggestion: "While she lacks money and power and is ignorant of many things, Wei overcomes her obstacles through sheer obstinacy... ".
  • "Zhu Ying points out the prominence of movie creates a conflict between traditional Confucian values... " - I'm not sure what is meant here. The phrase "prominence of movie" does not make sense.
    • Oops! Word vomit...that was supposed to be "prominence of money in the movie", my fingers must have gotten ahead of my brain. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Critical

  • "Overall, critics were impressed with the performances of the amateur actors,[19][25] with Jean-Michel Frodon of Le Monde calling it the film's greatest success... " - I'd suggest re-casting this sentence to avoid using "with" as a conjunction.
  • "Wei Minzhi's character received mixed reactions, with Scott describing her as "heroic" and demonstrating how obstinacy can be a virtue,... " - Ditto for this sentence.
  • I'd suggest merging the Rotten Tomatoes sentence with the paragraph above. Ditto for the one-sentence orphan paragraph at the end of the "Box office" section.

Box office

  • Should something about Sony Pictures Classics, Columbia Tristar, and DVD releases appear here too since they are mentioned in the lead and infobox?

Awards

  • "Other awards and nominations the film received are listed below." - Would it be useful to say which were awards and which were nominations?
  • Would the awards and nominations look better in a table?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Comb.jpg
Thank you for the suggestions and for the great copyediting (usually my articles don't have so many careless mistakes at this point! but with this one I skipped the GA review). I have tried to implement all your suggestions above, although I still need to search for more information on the DVD releases. Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You are most welcome. The comb is a nice touch and made me laugh. Finetooth (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Aapravasi Ghat[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review I'd like to nominate it as a WP:FAC. There is a current lack of representation of Mauritian articles, hence, what could be a better article than one that is related to Mauritius' history, society and politics—all in one article. This is also my first full article for peer review. My previous ones were mostly focused on listings.

Thanks, Joey80 (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Before you go for a FAC, IMO go for a WP:GAC (Good article) and evaluate the article in accordance with WP:GA? criteria. References:

Coverage: The article seems less like an article on a building complex, architecture.

  • There is too much "Background" (otherwise History is fine). There should be a distinction between text about the structure and text generally written about Indians working as labourers in Mauritius. Reduce or remove the latter part as relevant only to a certain extent - to the building itself. Legacy is almost a complete WP:UNDUE and major parts of the section are best removed. The section mostly deals with Legacy of the immigration. Condense all that background material in a single section called "History"
  • Write more about the interior and exterior architecture of the building
  • More images of interior and exterior needed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hip-hop dance[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it at WP:FAC. This article had a lot of misleading or just wrong information prior to when I started rewriting it (click here to see before) so I took it upon myself to correct and expand it. I would specifically like feedback on the lead and grammar. Those are what I'm most concerned about. I would also appreciate it if someone could rate this article according to wikipedia's quality assessment scale and change the status on this article's talk page. Be forewarned that this is a long article. I took it from 9KB to 72KB but it was necessary in order to talk about the history and to make this article comprehensive which, based on what I've read, is required to meet criteria 1a. If it's any consolation, Britney Spears' article is longer and hip-hop dance is older than she is. Thanks, Gbern3 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

David Hamilton (footballer)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently rated as C-class (fairly harsh, I think, but I wrote it...) but I was wondering what improvements people thought could be implemented to get the article up to a Good Article.

Thanks, -- BigDom 22:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally reads well. Some of the jargon needs to be explained for readers who know little about football, and I have a few other suggestions.

  • It's often useful to look at Featured Articles to see how other editors have handled similar subjects. You can find a list of featured sports articles at WP:FA#Sport and recreation. Thierry Henry, for example, is an FA article about a footballer. It has a "Style of play" section, which might be something you could consider for expanding the Hamilton article. One of the GA criteria is that the article be broad in coverage.
  • Can't really find any sources describing his style of play, just that he was a midfielder. I know what you're saying about being broad in coverage though.

Lead

  • "He won caps... " - A reader unfamiliar with association football won't know what "caps" refers to.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Wikilinked caps.
  • "He is currently the chief scout of League One side Walsall, whom he joined in June 2009." - "which" rather than "whom"?
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Changed.
  • "having not played any matches for the Black Cats - Delete italics? Are the Black Cats different from Blackburn? Why did it matter that he had not played any matches for the Black Cats? (It's made clear below that the Black Cats refers to Sunderland, but it needs to be clear in the lead as well.)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Took out the bit about him having played no games, so the Black Cats part came out with it.
  • "he played in over 100 league matches for the side in just three seasons" - Should "side" be linked or explained?
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Can't see how it would be confusing, but changed it anyway.
  • "He played 15 matches in two years for the Clarets" - Delete italics here and for other team names elsewhere in the article? Are the Clarets different from Burnley? It's clear in the main text that they are the same, but it's not clear here.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Changed that phrase to just "... in two years for Burnley", and deleted italics throughout article.
  • "He started to take his coaching badges... " - What are coaching badges?
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Replaced "badges" with "qualifications".

Playing career

  • "He admitted to having a good working relationship with Clough while in the England set-up." - I'm not sure what "the England set-up" refers to.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Changed it.

Tables

  • You have a chart of managerial stats. Any chance of doing one with player stats?
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Took a while, but done.

References

  • Newspaper names should appear in italics.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Done.

Images

  • At least one would be good if you can find one. You might find something with a Creative Commons license at flickr.com, or you might find a team photo that could be used with a fair-use rationale. You'll probably need at least one image to make GA.
  • Really struggling to find any images, pictures, photos etc...

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article in an area of your own choosing. Finetooth (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, much appreciated. -- BigDom 18:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 UEFA Champions League Final[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it is banging on the door of WP:FA with great force, but I believed that it would be prudent to subject it to a peer review first. I believe that what the article needs most is a language check, but if anyone believes that there is some missing content or that some of the existing content need not be there, please comment.

Thanks, – PeeJay 12:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to respond been busy recently, anyway here's my thoughts

  • Think the lead could do with being a bit bigger, just bulk up the paragraphs there a bit on short side, also no need for references in lead if they are referenced later on.
    • Can do! Shouldn't take too long.
  • Man of the match doesn't need to be linked twice in the infobox
    • That's part of the coding of the infobox, so nothing to do with this article.
  • Images need alt text - Wikipedia:ALT should explain what is needed
    • Can do.
  • "the first time that the final has been contested by domestic champions" change has to had
    • Done.
  • "Both Manchester United and Barcelona were also looking to another Champions League title" this doesn't read right I would put add before another
    • Reads fine to me. I'll wait for another opinion on this before making the change.
  • "Manchester United had already won four out of a possible seven trophies in 2008–09" I would wikilink the manchester united season article here
    • Done.
  • I would change the table at the bottom of the road to Rome section, to the one used in the 2007 UEFA Champions League Final article
    • I'd also like another opinion on this before making the change.
  • "More than 3,000 Manchester United fans congregated just outside the city in a field that has come to be known as "Fergie's Field"." I know you have two references at the end of the paragraph, but I think this needs a citation.
    • Done.
  • One immediate problem with the match section, is that there are hardly any references, this will need to be addressed if you want it to pass FAC. For instance the trophy presentation section has no references at all, and could be construed as original research
    • Can be done, but it would just be repeated references to the same source, I'm afraid. Also, for the trophy presentation, I will need access to a copy of the match DVD (which is available on Amazon, but still fairly expensive).
  • Put the uefa full time reference under the score, a shown on this article
    • Not sure why that's necessary. I would have thought that a link to the official UEFA match report would suffice.
  • You need separate references for the statistics as well again look at the 2006 article to see what I mean
    • Done.

I'll review the rest tomorrow pretty tired right now, hope this helped so far, NapHit (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll make some more changes tomorrow. – PeeJay 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Oldelpaso
  • Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that match articles I've written have tended to be about events in the dim and distant past, but in places the article seems to me to be blow-by-blow to the point of excess, such as the Match Summary section. Does the ball really merit a whole section to itself? The referee?
    • According to Featured Article criterion 1b, a featured article should be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". I would say that the match referee and his history with the competition and the two clubs is a major fact and in context, and the UEFA Champions League Final match ball has become one of UEFA's most recognisable symbols, and it stands to reason that people would come to the article about a specific final to find information about the ball used in that final. To be fair, at least I haven't listed the boots that each player wore in the match :-P
      • There's comprehensiveness and there's undue weight. The section about the ball could be paraphrased as "A ball, like other balls from the same manufacturer, but with a logo on it." Most of the rest is marketingese. I find it very hard to believe that the brand of ball has become one of UEFA's most recognisable symbols. Outside UEFA and Adidas-led press events, few will care. I certainly wouldn't expect to find any serious news stories about it, its a ball, not a masterpiece by Christopher Wren. The bit about the referee is not too much of an issue. My thought process was that even in a match programme — a publication of maybe 80 pages written specifically for a match – the background of referee is covered by a sentence or so next to the team line-ups. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I must say that I've tried to be as careful as I can with the marketing-style language. I was trying to focus more on the technology used to manufacture the ball, as the evolution of footballs is not an insignificant subject. Also, the impression I've got is that there is a significant number of people the world over who look forward to the release of new balls, boots and other equipment, so I figured that since the information is available, why not incorporate it into the article? If it didn't go in here, where it seemed to logically fit, then either someone would have just made a ramshackle edit to Adidas Finale or the info would have been lost to history. I agree that, possibly, the language could be toned down slightly, but I don't think the section should be removed. As for the referee, there's only one paragraph of four sentences about the actual referee, all of which seems relevant to the match. I thought that since all of the info about the officials came from the same reference, it would be OK. – PeeJay 17:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "As with every UEFA Champions League final since 1999, the 2009 final was given its own unique visual identity, designed to give a distinctive flavour of the host city..." - segments of this paragraph lean too far into the language of press releases and publicity brochures.
    • You could be right there. I've tried to tone the language down a bit, so it should hopefully feel a bit less press release-y.
  • The image of the sign might be considered a derivative work and thus not a free image. The ticket should be OK, as it is a utilitarian object.
    • I've raised the issue about the sign at WP:IMAGEHELP, so we should have a response fairly soon.
      • OK, the image has been listed for a deletion discussion at Commons, but it's had no replies so far, and will likely be deleted without discussion. Fortunately, if that happens, I can just ask User:Andrea 93 to upload it here. – PeeJay 13:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Considering every major news source in Europe will have reported on the match, the match summary section has very few references. Some parts have an OR feel to them e.g. "Barcelona kicked the match off, but Manchester United showed their intent from the outset, forcing goalkeeper Víctor Valdés to concede a throw-in after just 10 seconds." That a team lacking possession tries to gain it is a given. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned to NapHit, referencing the match summary section will involve mass repetition of references, and it will take some time, but I believe I can get it done. – PeeJay 21:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments from TRM
  • First sentence kind of reads like "The A was the B on C which was C on the B of A...." - perhaps engage us quicker? "Champions League" appears four times in that one sentence. Tell us what it was rather than repeat the details.
  • Don't think capacity is required in intro, and as you say "for the fourth time" it may imply that the capacity was the same each time (which I doubt).
  • I'd reverse your use of "holders" and "defending champions" to make it clear what position Man Utd had coming into the game.
  • "...and who unsuccessfully ..." you've let the cat out of the bag here haven't you? Before you mention the result you already tell us that Utd didn't win...
  • "early" vs "10th minute" in lead is probably too much. Just stick to the facts. Early could be 30secs.
  • "Barcelona played against " - maybe "went on to..." as this article is a freeze-frame in time talking about the Champions League final.
  • " However, despite" - Pick one. Both is overkill.
  • "Man of the Match" is overlinked in the infobox.
  • I'm nowhere near finishing but there should be a clear reason why (a) you state the capacity in the lead (around 72k) but the attendance of the biggest ever club final in football history had only 62k people (per the infobox). If you have this reasoning later then feel free to ignore.
  • Any chance of linking the Euro symbol for those non-Europeans who probably have no idea what this means?
    • I've completely re-shuffled the lead section, so I believe that all of the above ten comments have been dealt with. However, I do believe that the wording may now feel a bit clunky, so another look-over would be helpful. – PeeJay 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Of those nine matches, Manchester United have recorded three wins to Barcelona's two..." tense issue - surely "had recorded..."?
  • " The most recent meeting between Manchester United and Barcelona ..." - why not just "between them..."?
  • Avoid overlinking Camp Nou.
  • "Premier League crown" - not a redtop - stick with "title" rather than crown.
  • "at which it played host to " a shade anthropomorphic for me. Perhaps just "which hosted"?
  • 72,698 or 72,689?
    • Fixed all of the above. Btw, it should have been 72,689, so the capacity I had written in the lead was a typo.

More later if requested. Bedtime for TRM. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More comments are definitely welcome. Thanks for taking the time out to comment as much as you have already. – PeeJay 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
More from TRM
  • "Barcelona were seeded " then "Barcelona was entered " I care not which you choose, as I understand how we talk about teams in the plural often. Just be consistent.
  • "were seeded for the third qualifying round draw,[17] and drawn against ..." should there be a "were" before "drawn" here?
  • "Wisła Kraków of Poland" never that keen, sounds like a formal title, perhaps "Polish team Wisla Krakow"? No big deal though.
  • "a 1–0 away defeat " it was just a defeat, it was the defeat.
  • "into the group stage draw.[19][20] Barcelona's UEFA coefficient placed them in the top eight seeds for the group stage draw" - "group stage draw" repeated quickly makes for dull prose.
  • That sentence is huge. I suggest you split "group stage draw, meaning that they would " at the comma. And then start with a "This meant that..."?
  • "Four wins, a draw at home to Basel and a home defeat to Shakhtar Donetsk placed Barcelona on top of their group with a game to spare " not sure this follows - you mention six games then say it placed them top with a game to spare. I thought they only played six in total?
  • You link Lyon twice, once to the club, once to the city. To avoid confusion, perhaps you could refer to the club with its formal name instead of simply Lyon?
  • "and the win was all but guaranteed " I know it was, but this is speculative and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.
  • "two goals from Thierry Henry " no need to repeat his first name.
  • "reduced Lyon's deficit to two goals" no need to spoon-feed us - the maths is simple enough - I would just say "reduced Lyon's deficit"...
  • "place in the quarter-finals.[27] In the quarter-finals, " guess what I'm going to say...!
  • "Lionel Messi and Samuel Eto'o " again, no need to repeat full names - there are no other Messi's or Eto'o's to get confused with.
  • "but it turned out to be too-little-too-late " again, a little journalistic for my tastes.
  • Avoid overlinking Barcelona in the image captions.
  • "The quarter-final draw also determined " this sounds like it just happened. Presumably you could easily say "The quarter-final draw had also determined..."?
  • "4–4 draw back at" no need for "back".
  • "they got off to a bad start" bit POV.
  • "their discipline let them down on occasion" journalistic.
  • "Despite this, their discipline let them down on occasion, with Chelsea making four unsuccessful penalty appeals during the match, while Daniel Alves received his third yellow card of the knockout stage, ruling him out of Barcelona's next match, and Éric Abidal was given a straight red card for a foul on Nicolas Anelka as the French forward was through on goal, although replays appeared to show that Anelka tripped over his own feet" the award for the longest sentence in Wikipedia goes to....

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

More more from TRM
  • Avoid overlinking Man Utd in the captions.
  • "defending champions of the UEFA Champions League, Manchester United began their title defence " defence in their twice. Perhaps, as reigning champions?
  • "with two familiar opponents" not sure this is necessary - I would suggest that Utd would be familiar with most, if not all, of their opponents.
  • "a new face" journalistic and anthropomorphic...
  • "of the competition, and a Celtic victory over Villarreal ..." perhaps "of the competition. Following Celtic's victory over Villarreal, United went ..."?
  • Group E is mentioned in the caption but not in the article.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

More more more from TRM
  • "settled United hearts " very journalistic indeed!
  • "Inter never looked like scoring" your POV, especially after saying they'd hit the bar, that does, to me, sound like they were close to scoring.
  • "and, with that, booked their passage " strictly, no. The final whistle and the first goal would have done that. Again, it boils down to treading a fine line between dull NPOV prose and floral, journalistic speak. I think this needs a bit of work.
  • "whom they played " "against whom they had played"?
  • "The draw also determined the semi-final pairings, with United drawn against Arsenal or Villarreal." this makes the prose a bit wonky as this draw would only be relevant should United win, and both before and after this sentence you talk about the QF.
  • "Unfortunately for United, that away goal came in the first four minutes of the game" you're saying this on United's behalf, and it's a bit POV. Plus, the away goal came after four minutes, not "in the first four minutes"...
  • "equalised just 10 minutes " no need for "just".
  • "an all-important " I think, once more, this is POV.
  • "They showed their intent ..." Ronaldo scored a cracker, but I'm not keen on this being a "show of intent" from United.
  • "in only the sixth minute" remove only.
  • "and they started the match in perfect style" your opinion.
  • Instead of linking London, wouldn't it be better to have the Emirates Stadium there instead?
  • "Arsenal remained hopeful of overturning their one-goal deficit, but those hopes were dashed" too journalistic. How do you know they "remained hopeful"? and "dashing hopes" isn't encyclopedic either.
  • The knockout stage table - could you not put a colspan'ed row in for each round?
  • No need to link London in my opinion in the Venue section.
  • However, you could consider linking Roman in "typically Roman images" to Ancient Rome or similar, as you're using Roman in quite specific terms here.
  • Why the capacity reduction?
  • "as a hotbed for knife-related crime" if you describe it in these terms, I think you should find a quotation and attribute it!
  • You could link adidas.
  • "the FIFA list " could use explanation or a link.
  • "compatriots " not required since you've just said they all come from the same country.
  • "five previous occasions, losing just one of them " you don't lose "occasions" you lose matches.
  • "1991 Cup Winners' Cup final. " capital F here I think.
  • "Immediately prior to the match itself, there came the opening ceremony for the final. " remove ", there".
  • Last sentence of Opening ceremony is unreferenced.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

MMMM from TRM
  • "Barça's" stick with Barcelona. Same when you suddenly say "FC Barcelona "...
  • "While replays suggested " I thought the previous section said "despite replays showing that Fletcher had won the ball " which was without dispute...
  • ", including Fletcher's" this redundant - it's clear from the previous portion of the sentence that Fletcher was included in Guariola's request.
  • "Barcelona anchor " not clear what you mean by this!
  • "seemed to rock Manchester United" speculative, your opinion.
  • "pre-rehearsed " is this before rehearsal? Do you just mean "rehearsed"?
  • "an uncharacteristically poor pass from Michael Carrick, while Anderson found himself kicking at fresh air. " journalism again, particularly the Anderson thing, non-experts will have no idea what this means, or why Anderson should do such a strange thing.
  • "lost the ball in a 50-50 challenge " is the % of the challenged really important?
  • Avoid repeating the first names again throughout the final description. We definitely know that Eto'o's name is Samuel, and there's no chance that we could confuse Ronaldo - there were no other Ronaldo's playing were there?
  • "a cheeky back-heel " journalistic.
  • First sentence of the trophy presentation section is a bit like "statin' the bleedin' obvious" to me...

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Last lot from TRM
  • "his erstwhile team-mates" - erstwhile? And I presume you mean he hung around with his own team rather than go see the Utd crew?
  • "Prince William of Wales" is a little over formal (I know, after all the moaning I've done about journalistic lingo!) - the universe knows him as Prince William.
  • Presentation section is entirely unreferenced, which isn't so bad apart from things like when Fergie handed the special plaque straight to Giggsy.
  • You have uefa.com in the reaction section and uefa.com in the references. I know it'll be a template issue in the refs but it seems a little odd.
  • "Barcelona's victory hinged on the performances of Andrés Iniesta (left) and Xavi (right)." - prove it.
  • "Messi, Xavi and Xavi's midfield partner Andrés Iniesta" maybe "Messi and the midfield partnership of Xavi and Iniesta"?
  • "lack of effectiveness " - ineffectiveness?
  • the Treble should be explained or linked more directly to European treble.
  • " and ended up joining" - "and joined"
  • "with the rationalisation" - "with the rationale"
  • "highest ratings that evening" - needs context - highest what? for that timeslot? channel?
  • " an extra 1.79 " I'd prefer "additional" over extra.
  • Avoid UK - use United Kingdom, or if you really wish to abbreviate, place (UK) after the first United Kingdom and then just use the abbreviation.
  • "Barcelona were eligible to compete in" - I thought, generally, the winner just did compete in, rather than became eligible for participation.

That's ya lot. Phew! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Chatteris[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The Chatteris page was recently awarded GA status, and a number of reviewers hinted that it might be a reasonable candidate for FA status at a future juncture. However, I suspect it's probably not ready for that just yet and was wondering what I would need to add or improve to fit the tighter guidelines of that process. Thanks, Rob (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and enlightening. I love reading about towns, especially small ones, all around the world. Although good, the article will need quite a bit of work to get ready for FAC. I have a fair number of suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to try to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead doesn't mention education, religion, sports, culture, notable residents, or the economy.

Metric conversions

  • "The parish of Chatteris is large, covering 6099 hectares... " - Wikipedia articles by convention give measurements in imperial and metric units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for handling the math, spelling, abbreviations, and spacing, thus: 6,099 hectares (15,070 acres) or 6,099 hectares (23.55 sq mi). It takes a while to get used to the convert template and its precise data-entry, but after that it's quite handy. All of the metric expressions in the article need to be expressed in imperial units as well.

Medieval period

  • "The miraculous story of the first known parishioner of the town... " - Delete "miraculous" since it is an interpretation rather than a verifiable fact?

Early modern and contemporary

  • "A small market is still held every Friday." - It might be helpful here to provide more context for foreign readers. I assume these are agricultural markets selling fruits and vegetables from stalls set up by farmers in a designated area in town. Is this so? Do or did the markets offer other things? What specific kinds of produce? (I don't mean a complete list, but a few examples would be good.)

Geography

  • To provide more context for readers who do not live in the U.K., it would be good in this section to mention that Chatteris is in southeastern England, X miles north of London and Y miles west of the North Sea, or something like that.
  • It would be helpful to say where the two drainage rivers go. Where are their mouths?
  • Adding something about the geology and soil types of the region might be useful. Where did the peat come from? What's the deep (geological) history of the region?

Religion

  • "In 1935, a new two manual Harrison & Harrison organ was installed, a fine example of a pneumatic action instrument." - Delete "fine" as judgmental rather than factual? Perhaps this would be better: "In 1935, a new two manual Harrison & Harrison organ, a pneumatic-action instrument, was installed." As I type this, I realize that I don't know what "two manual" means. The organ probably should be explained in more detail.

General

  • "(1075 - c.1142)" - Date ranges take unspaced en dashes rather than spaced hyphens, thus: 1075–c.1142.
  • "The town is in the North East Cambridgeshire parliamentary constituency, with the incumbent MP being the Conservative Malcolm Moss." - I regard any sentence held together by "with" as a conjunction as suspicious. I would suggest hunting these down throughout the article and considering alternatives. This one might be re-cast as "Malcolm Moss, an incumbent Member of Parliament (MP), represents the town as part of the North East Cambridgeshire parliamentary consitituency."
  • I'd suggest wikilinking parsnip, nave, and bowls.
  • Almost any terms that are only abbreviated in the article or are abbreviated in some places should probably be spelled out and abbreviated on first use. I did that with MP in my suggested re-casting of the Malcom Moss sentence, but another example appears in "under the government's BSF programme". Foreign readers won't know what BSF programme refers to unless it is explained. Does BSF stand for Building Schools for the Future?
  • It's often helpful to look at FA articles to see how other editors have handled similar material. You will find a list of FA articles about cities and towns in the sublist at WP:FA#Geography and places.

Images

  • To succeed at FAC, the images will need alt text. It's a good idea to include alt text in any case for readers who can't see the images. You'll find an explanation of how to write alt text and where to put it at WP:ALT, and you can look at current examples by viewing ongoing FAC discussions.
  • I like the aerial shot of Chatteris and the scan of the Park House. The other three have problems. The lead image is only 21 kilobytes at full size and is fuzzy. If you have a digital camera and can re-shoot this one and the one of St Peter & St Paul Church, you are virtually certain to get better results. If you stick with the existing church image and the signpost (which is a weak subject to begin with), they need to be rotated to make the church and the signpost stand up straight. Photo-manipulation software makes it possible to rotate and crop existing images, which can be re-uploaded. Better, though, would be to replace the weak photos with stronger ones if possible.
  • Images shouldn't overlap two sections if the overlap can be avoided. On my computer screen, the Park House image extends into the "Early modern and contemporary" section by about three lines. The problem can be fixed by moving the image up a bit. The aerial view overlaps two sections by quite a bit. Perhaps the aerial view would fit nicely into the "Culture and community" section.

References

  • If you eventually take this to FAC, you will be asked if your references meet the WP:RS guidelines. Dot-coms like Enjoy England might or might not pass the test. Generally, travel web sites, personal blogs or web sites, and general encyclopedias are weak sources, while articles published in newspapers, magazines, and books and on reliable web sites such as government sites and newspaper or magazine sites are stronger.
  • Many of the existing citations are incomplete. A good rule of thumb for citations of Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those are known or can be found. Even if you don't choose to use templates for the citations, you will find handy lists of data categories at WP:CIT.
  • The link checker that lives here finds two dead urls in the citations.
  • The dabfinder tool that lives here finds three wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages rather than to their intended targets.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article about a subject of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this highly detailed and contructive review. Rob (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Miss Earth titleholders[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there has never been a beauty pageant-related featured list. I chose the Miss Earth titleholder list since it is shorter than other pageant list, hence more manageable for the moment, as well as the fact that the pageant is relatively young (only started in 2001), hence, plenty of source materials unlike other pageants.

Thanks, Joey80 (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FLC.

  • The unofficial rule at FLC is that a FL should have a minimum of about 10 items, so it might be better if this waited until the new Miss Earth is chosen in Novemeber. It is not a set rule though, so 9 might be OK.
  • I think specifics are better than vague general statements, so things like The event, which started in 2001, has been attracting delegates from more than 80 countries in the most recent editions. would read better as something like The event, which started in 2001, attracted delegates from 85 countries in 2008. or perhaps The event, which started in 2001, has attracted delegates from at least 80 countries in each year since 2005.
    •  Done Joey80 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • To improve article flow, try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs by combining them with others. For example could the one sentence paragraph As part of the pageant's rules, in the case that the titleholder can no longer fulfill her duties and obligations as Miss Earth, the first runner-up, awarded the title of Miss Air, shall take over the title.[4] be combined with the info on the "dethronement"?
    •  Done Joey80 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I would also give a sentence on the "dethronement" (is that really the proper word?) why did she lose the title? - see WP:PCR
    • As in the case of any other official "dethronement" in the beauty pageant world, the official reason is stated only as "not being able to fulfill her duties", which is definitely vague. Unless one wants to quote from gossip and blog pageas, which is highly discouraged in wikipedia, then the news on "dethronement" is a dead end. Joey80 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Prose needs some work to be cleaned up before FLC Similar to major pageants like the Miss Universe, delegates, with minimum age of 18 and maximum age of 26 at the time of the pageant,[2] compete in three rounds of competition: swimsuit, evening gown and question and answer, which takes into account the platform of organization and hence, gleans on environmental issues. This sentence is too complicated and should probably be split into two. Teh sentence has several issues, but I will give one - I have no idea what ..gleans on environmental issues. means or is supposed to mean.
    •  Done, edited the long sentence and broke it down to two to three shorter ones. Joey80 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
    • Note that if it is unavoidable, then it's ok to have a citation in the middle of a sentence, provided that it be placed still after a punctuation or a phrase. Joey80 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The references need to be more consistent. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
    •  Done, that's the most consistent it can get, I just squeezed out all the info on author and dates as well. For those without such info, they have definitely not been provided. Joey80 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I also wonder if some of the references used meet WP:RS - to pick one, is The Insider a RS?
    • The info on the winners and pageant editions come more from news and magazine sources, so definitely no secondary sources in terms of needing in depth research and investigations. Joey80 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Also is there a chance more independent third-party sources could be used here (many of the sources are from the Miss Earth websites)
    • Unfortunately, it is so difficult to find a third-party/secondary source, unless you're speaking of pages that happen to have cut and pasted the wikipedia article on some other url. Joey80 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Soulcalibur[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hey oh! I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this to at least GA article. Hopefully your comments will make that happen. Give me your thoughts. Thanks, GamerPro64 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • There are two clean-up related tags, a few "citation needed" tags, two expansion tags, and no Gameplay section. These should be dealt with, as it's difficult for reviewers to offer commentary on an article when it's still in such early stages of development. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Disasters of War[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Series of 82 prints by Francisco Goya. Any and all input welcome. Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I found this to be a fascinating article and found it quite well done, though it needs some work before it would pass FAC. With that in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The first sentence is too long and complicated. I would try something like "The Disasters of War (Spanish: Los Desastres de la Guerra) are a series of 82 prints created between 1810 and 1820 by the Spanish master painter and printmaker Francisco Goya." I would put the alternate title in both languages, the further two not considered canonical, and Goya's birth and death years later in the lead.
    Done, but undecided if alt titles should be bolded. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Per the MOS, spell out words ten and under (so a further two are not canonical)
    This also needs a ref, and a note in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    Not sure if this applies to the plates - plate 10 vs. plate ten. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with that. Same case as "Number 3 on the Billboard charts" vs "Number 48 on...". Outriggr (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, I was not thinking of the plate numbers - assuming they are usually given as numbers (Plate 7) I would keep it that way. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In the third paragraph of the lead, I would give the actual number of plates in each series "A middle series of X engravings..." and "The final group consists of Y images..."
  • The Background section is overall very nicely done. It needs a few things though. First there are two sentences that need refs: After Napoleon convinced Ferdinand to return Spanish rule to Charles IV, the latter was left with no choice but to abdicate, on 19 March 1808, in favor of Joseph Bonaparte. and also During this time he visited many battle sites, to witness firsthand the Spanish resistance. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • I would also include some background on the Caprichos - these are referred to in several places and need to be given some context - see WP:PCR
  • I would be very consistent in referring to the prints. Since all of the prints are on Commons, I would link the images (and probably do this each time). If the image was shown in the article, I would say this and even give some idea where (at right, or below). I would also be very consistent in naming the prints (since this is the English Wikipedia, is there any reason not to give the English name, and then the Spanish name on each first mention of the print).
    This is very problematic, as there are many possible English translations for each titles. An early para on the matter migh go some distance to resolving this. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    I am fine with the Spanish name first, but I do think some sort of translation is needed for those (myself included) who speak little or no Spanish. Is there a "standard" edition of the prints with English translations (i.e. could those English titles be used)? If not, then I think I would give the different possible translations on the first mention and then use only one from then on (if at all, I suppose it could be Plate 7 throughout). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I also have to confess that I found it difficult in many cases to figure out all the details in the prints - I think it helps to explain in some detail what is shown in each. For example, even in a fairly clear case, I thought that File:Goya-Guerra (37).jpg was a body missing an arm with a back wound, resting in a tree and did not realize the body was impaled until I read the description. In a more obscure / cryptic example like File:Goya-Guerra (80).jpg I had no idea what was going on (a glowing body?) and found the description essential. Even in something apparently very clear like File:Goya-Guerra (39).jpg, I did not realize the genitals had been mutilated until I looked at the Chapman's cast of it.
  • Sizes need to give both metric and English units per the MOS
  • Finally I wonder if it would be useful to have a separate list article showing all of the prints, with descriptions and the titles and sizes. A FL to go with the FA?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Acting white[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review based on Skomorokh's recommendation at this article's GA review. As someone without a background of any of the related issues, I would really appropriate an outside, fresh perspective.

Thanks! The Squicks (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Liquidluck (talk)

  • The first source, “Acting White”. By Roland G. Fryer, Jr., is broken- i believe the new url of the article you are referring to is this.
  • The brackets around the first letters of several sentences are unnecessary. Although the capitalization does change, it is a minor "house style" grammatical edit and the change is recommended by Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotation marks header "Other matters".
  • The difference between Abercrombie and Tommy Hilfiger is not immediately known to readers. Try to find descriptions of the brands mentioned in the article in reviews by fashion critics. Simple descriptions like "preppy" or "urban" will work, if they are wikilinked.
  • Can the breadth of the article be expanded to include other groups? Most of the article deals only with Black versus White mannerisms and points of view, but the intro says that Hispanic groups also experience the "acting white" label, and from the Fryer article, it looks like the results on grades are worst for Hispanics. Hispanics are not mentioned again in the article outside of the intro, so if info cannot be found the mentions in the lead should be moved to the body- the lead is meant as a summary of the body.

Nitpicking:

  • I think "assuming" is a better word to use than "incorporating" in the context of the first sentence.

Good work! Liquidluck (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I'll work on that soon. The Squicks (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Julia Butterfly Hill[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's undergone significant editing and I was interested in a second opinion of what the article needs before it can be eligible for Good Article Status.

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. You have too many quotes in your article, try to incorporate them into the text.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. The Lead is too short, you need at least one more paragraph. see Wikipedia:LEAD--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Julia_Butterfly_Hill#Hill_in_popular_culture In music should be prose and not a list. You have to reference those facts. see Wikipedia:Cite--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. Don't bold "Butterfly Hill, Julia" in the references.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  5. Add ALT text to the second image.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I did work to get this one up to GA, and I know it has the potential to eventually get up to FA. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This seems to be not too far from GA, here are some suggestions for improvement with GAN in mind, and FAC eventually.

  • There are seven fair use images in the article, which does not seem to meet WP:NFCC. A lot of the images that are used are also fairly pedestrian - I was surprised that there were some fairly iconic images of Spidey that were not used - the half Peter Parker face / half Spiderman space when his Spidey sense is tingling, or the upside down pose with crossed legs (which also appeared in the film) or perhaps the black suit / Venom.
  • The lead needs to be a summary of the whole article per WP:LEAD. As an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the comparisons to Robin and Bucky are only in the lead, as is the EMpire Magazine award (as two examples).
    • Comment: The first sentence needs to be more specific. "Spider-Man is a fictional Marvel Comics superhero" is not enough because there's nothing in this sentence that makes spider-man unique from every other Marvel superhero. What's missing from this sentence is why he's notable. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • MOS:HEAD says not to include the name of the article in the headers, so "Non-Marvel versions of Spider-Man, and parodies" will have to be changed, perhaps to "Non-Marvel versions and parodies"
  • Parts of the article are quite well done, and other parts need a lot more work. For example the Creation and development section is really nice and well cited, but the Non-Marvel versions of Spider-Man, and parodies section is choppy, mostly unsourced and fairly poorly written.
    • Comment: I agree. I have a more detailed summary of this below. However, what's written below are my thoughts and may not necessary be comments that Ruhrfisch agrees with. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Article needs more references in many places. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
    • Agree, see below. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • The Commercial success section seems sporadic in its coverage for a history - the Creation and development section was very thorough, but the history is less clear after that. The relative lack of material might also be a WP:WEIGHT issue.
  • I do not know of any other sources on my own, but I note that a quick look on Google Scholar finds a fair number of title that look possibly useful - see here

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


Gbern3 comments: I think your lead was an appropriate length in relation to the size of your article. Other than the tweaks needed that were already mentioned above, I thought it was a very good introduction the rest of the article. I also LOVE how you separated the footnotes from the references. I really don't like when they're in the same list. I think separating them looks so much cleaner. I also saw how you followed WP:SS policy with main article links at the top of some sections. I didn't find fault with any of your photos. I'm not a comic book person so I was only concerned about whether or not they were fair use. I checked them all. As long as there's no copyright violations or deletion tags, I'm OK with it.

General:
  • I know spider-man was in the new avengers but why is the original avenger's template at the bottom of the article if spider-man was not in the original? You already have four templates. I don't think the article would be lacking w/o a the fifth one especially since there's no links to this article within it. I doubt this is a wiki policy issue. Just my opinion.
  • In the "see also" section, do you need a link to the Bibliography of Spider-Man titles and List of Spider-Man comics since your templates already direct people to these articles? Part of the purpose of templates is to replace the "see also" section WP:NAV
  • Part of your infobox looks odd because the abilities/powers section is bulleted compared to the other sections which have uniform formatting. I think it would look better if you made the abilities section look like the team affiliations section. The abilities would still appear one after the other, just w/o the bullets and with the same indentation as the rest of the infobox. Again, not policy but my opinion.
  • Peter Parker's name should not be in bold font MOS:BOLD. Changed my mind.
  • This article needs the attention of a good copy editor. I found a lot of comma splices throughout the entire article and some sentences that were four lines long. Here's a link to a list of volunteer copy editors. I mentioned some of the comma splices and long sentences below but not all. User:Tenebrae has done a lot of editing today but I did not check to see if it was grammatical editing or factual editing.
Creation
  • "Stan Lee was casting about for a new superhero idea." Suggestion: "Stan Lee was looking for a new superhero idea.
  • "In his autobiography, Lee cites the non-superhuman pulp magazine crime fighter The Spider as a great influence,[4]:130 and in a multitude of print... so often he has become unsure of whether or not this is true." - This sentence is too long. Four lines is too long for one sentence. A period needs to go somewhere in the middle.
  • "He said that the idea for Spider-Man arose from a surge in teenage demand for comic books, and the desire to create a character with whom teens could identify." - This is an example of the comma splices I saw. Most of the time there was a comma put before "and". You don't need a comma here.
  • "Simon, in his 1990 autobiography, disputed Kirby's account[,] asserting that Black Magic was not a factor[,] and that he (Simon) devised the name "Spider-Man" (later changed to "The Silver Spider")[,] while Kirby outlined the character's story and powers." - There isn't a need for any of the commas I put in brackets.
  • Kirby's given reason that he was "too busy" to also draw Spider-Man in addition to his other duties seems false[,] as Kirby was, in Evanier's words, "always busy." No comma needed here.
  • There are a couple places in this section where the ending quote mark was in front of a period like this --> ". It should be placed after --> ."
  • In the last paragraph of this section you have four quotes that are not sourced.
Commercial success
  • "In reviewed the sales figures for that issue and was shocked to find it to have been one of the nascent Marvel's highest-selling comics." - I didn't know what nascent meant until I looked it up on the Internet. I would suggest replacing it with another word or wikilinking it per WP:JARGON policy.
  • Interesting history about comics code being revised b/c of a spider-man comic. Do you have a source for this? There was a reference for Nixon asking for an anti-drug msg and a reference for issues selling anyway in the face of this code but there was no reference given about the code being revised. If this reference is suppose to prove what you typed is true ---> "The issues sold so well that the industry's self-censorship was undercut[1]:239 and the Code was subsequently revised." then it should appear at the end of the sentence rather than the middle. Here's one from the examiner (www.examiner.com/x-19312-Columbus-Comic-Books-Examiner~y2009m8d17-Comics-101-What-is-the-Comics-Code-Authority?cid=exrss-Columbus-Comic-Books-Examiner) and another from Google Books here If you like these sources use the {{cite news}} or {{cite book}} templates.
  • "A third series featuring Spider-Man, Web Of Spider-Man, launched in 1985[,] replacing Marvel Team-Up. By the end of 2007, Spider-Man regularly appeared in The Amazing Spider-Man, New Avengers, Spider-Man Family... the alternate-universe tween series Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane, and the alternate-universe children's series Marvel Adventures Spider-Man and Marvel Adventures: The Avengers." - Another very long sentence. Please split up into two or three sentences.
Fictional biography
  • Other long sentences and comma splices.
Powers and Equipment
  • "Brilliant, Parker excels in applied science, chemistry and physics. The character was originally conceived by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko as intellectually gifted, but not a genius." - Suggestion: "The character was originally conceived by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko as intellectually gifted in applied science, chemistry, and physics but not a genius."
  • "(This mechanism ejects an advanced adhesive, releasing web-fluid in a variety of configurations, including a single rope-like strand to swing from, a net to bind enemies... He can also weave the web material into simple forms like a shield, a spherical protection or hemispherical barrier, a club, or a hang-glider wing.)" - This is a lot of information to put in parenthesis. I suggest either putting it in the notes section or taking off the parenthesis all together.
Enemies
  • "It is revealed that Spider-Man has new enemies in New Avengers." - It would be helpful to add who revealed it and when it was revealed because that isn't made clear in this section.
Supporting characters
  • "The comics detail his civilian life and family, friends, and his romances. Spider-Man is most famous for; however, his super-heroic adventures." - Suggestion: "The comics detail his life as Peter Parker including his family, friends, romances, and career. However, Spider-Man is most known for his super-heroic adventures rather than his civilian life."
Cultural influence
  • "On May 25, 1981, Memorial Day, high-rise firefighting and rescue advocate Dan Goodwin, in an attempt to call to that cause..." - What cause? I think you should specify this in the first sentence. I was lost because I thought maybe the cause was a memorial day related thing but later in the section it says that Dan Goodwin made a promise to a sick child who was a fan of spider-man to climb the buildings. Was this the cause? Whatever the cause is, it should be made clear.
  • "Spider-Man garnered major media coverage with the revelation of the character's secret identity..." - I think you should reiterate why his ID was secret even if you only put it in parenthesis. When I first read this I thought to myself doesn't everyone know spider-man is peter parker? Then I remembered about that deal he made with Mephisto.
Non-marvel versions
  • This section needs more inline citations. There are some statements that aren't cited.
In other media
  • This section needs more citations as well.

Those are my thoughts. I hope they're helpful. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


Valenzuela City[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've wanted to see the article going after its first peer reviewing, and also the grammar inconsistencies etc.

Thanks, JL 09 q?c 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. The Lead should be expanded. Three paragraphs with each at least four lines. Read Wikipedia:LEAD--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. Each fact in the article should be referenced. So paragraphs that don't have a reference at the end should have one. Read Wikipedia:Inline Citations and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. You don't have anything in the Notes section so remove it--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. "Citations" section should be "References"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  5. "References" section can be bibliography or Sources--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  6. Provide ISBN for book references and fill out parameters of {{cite book}}--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana State University[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the massive amount of revisions I've done to it within the last month. This article was in serious need of editing, and I now believe that it could be qualified as a "good article". Also, I don't have all the time in the world to pick through it endlessly, so if you see any problems that could prevent it from being classified as a good article, please let me know and I'll fix them right away.

Thanks, Nowhereman86 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. Many references need citation templates such as {{cite web}} with author, publisher, publication date and all other parameters that can be filled filled, such as http://www.lib.lsu.edu/collserv/colldev/policies/governmentdocuments.html and http://www.lsu.edu/highlights/033/lbtc.html--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. The last paragraph in the "19th Century" section isn't referenced--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. You have many other paragraphs not referenced, please reference any fact to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. The Lead should be three paragraphs since the article is long enough...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Remain in Light[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Oldies: I hope you've boogied to it. Newbies: go listen to this. To both: I'd appreciate a PR against the FA criteria. All points welcome, but from experience, I think a rigorous prose review would be ideal. Cheers. RB88 (T) 05:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Well, here's a beginning. Mainly suggested prose tweaks, but also requests for clarification when the meaning is unclear.

  • Lead
    • "...the record's creation" - For consistency I believe this should be "the album's creation"
      • DONE. RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Last phrase, "reissued with four additional unfinished outtakes." Not quite right: "reissued with the addition of four unfinished outtakes" is probably more accurate unless there were unfinished outtakes in the original album,
    • In any event, "outtakes" should be linked.
      • BOTH DONE. RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Origins
    • It is not clear what this sentence means: "The band members realised that their songs' format as a quartet contradicted their content, in that it was solely up to Byrne to bear the creative burden of crafting tracks." Some rewording/clarification?
      • "The band members realised that it was solely up to Byrne to bear the creative burden of crafting songs even though the tracks were performed as a quartet." RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "Instead of him presenting lyrics before songs were created, Talking Heads performed instrumental jam sessions using the Fear of Music song "I Zimbra" as a starting point." It is not clear why the second of these activities (Talking Heads performing instrumental jam sessions) is presented as an alternative to the first. Does it mean that instead of writing music to lyrics, the band improvised music without words?
      • "Instead of the band writing music to Byrne's lyrics, Talking Heads performed instrumental jam sessions without words using the Fear of Music song "I Zimbra" as a starting point." RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Studio sessions
    • "The album compelled..." Inanimate objects can't compel. "Producing the album required..." (or compelled if you must)
    • "include" followed quickly by "including" should be avoided. You could say "add further" instead of "include additional"
      • FOR BOTH: "The album's creation required the use of additional musicians, including extra percussionists." RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "disjunct process": I assume this is referring to the extended interval between two musical sounds, but this won't be clear to all readers. The wikilink on "disjunct" is unhelpful; perhaps reword?
      • "discontinuous" RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "who had engineered for musicians such as Bob Marley since the age of 17" - not, surely, since Marley was 17? To avoid confusion I suggest: "who since the age of 17 had engineered for musicians such as Bob Marley..."
      • DONE. RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "The tracks made Byrne rethink his vocal style and he tried singing words," - excuse my ignorance, but what was he singing previously?
      • Noone knows. (Just kidding. Although have a look at the "I Zimbra" lyrics.) "The tracks made Byrne rethink his vocal style and he tried singing words to the instrumental songs, but sounded "stilted"." RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Sigma Sound can be linked (Sigma Sound studios)
      • It's already been linked in Origins. I hate to overlink even within a large article. RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "after convincing" rather than "by convincing"
      • DONE. RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "Harrison invited Hendryx to Sigma Sound" I'd forgotten by this time who "Hendryx" was. Could we have her full name?
      • If you think it needs it, then DONE. RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the review will follow in the next day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Second instalment

  • Design
    • "collage of a series of.." is a bit wordy. Why not just "a collage of red warplanes..."?
      • DONE. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "The initial back cover included simple portraits of the band members." This sounds inconclusive; the initial back cover included... Does that imply that it was subsequently changed? If so, can this be clarified? (I see this is clarified in the next para)
      • "The idea for the back cover included simple portraits of the band members." RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "computer power was limited in the early 1980s; the mainframe alone took up several rooms." Both these statements are true, but power and size are different things, and the statements shouldn't be connected by a semicolon. I'm not sure that mainframe size is particularly relevant, and the sentence could end at "early 1980s."
      • "The process was tortuous because computer power was limited in the early 1980s and the mainframe alone took up several rooms." RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "the notable graphic designer..." Whose description? Suggest delete "notable" to preserve neutrality
      • DONE. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "The designing process made the band members realise that the title Melody Attack was "too flippant" for the music recorded and they chose to use Remain in Light." Is there any history or reasoning behind the choice of name? Also "they chose to use Remain in Light" makes it seem like a temporary or working title; why not say they adopted the title "Remain in Light?
      • DONE. The only explanation is given in the adjacent quote box. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Although I am not a fan of short paragraphs, there probably should be a break after "C/T", to indicate the change of subject.
      • Me, too. Attempted a merging workaround: "The design credits read "HCL, JPT, DDD, WALTER GP, PAUL, C/T". The final mass-produced version of Remain in Light boasted one of the first computer-designed record jackets in the history of music." RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion and release
    • "to do justice to the new material". Who is being quoted here?
      • Removed it, not that essential. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "Sire" hasn't been mentioned since the lead and I'd forgotten who it/he was. "Sire Records..."?
      • DONE. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "alphabetical form" → "alphabetical order" (the usual idiomatic phrase)
      • DONE. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Lyrics
    • Citation needed for first sentence
      • All citations cover all the preceding material up to the previous citation. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The "frontman" description hasn't been used for a while and I'd long since forgotten who this was.
      • Well, it comes after Byrne. I'm assuming that people would get it. I'll have a look at the word's mentions throughout though. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • First mention of "The Great Curve" needs to explain that this is a song title.
      • DONE.
    • "Some critics..." Who? And what is the source of the quotation that follows?
      • The NPR ref only says "some critics". The source is the same for the quotation, given in response to NPR's question. RB88 (T)
  • Composition
    • "latter" means second of two, not last in a list of three or more. Should be "last-named"
      • DONE.
    • The word "riff" should be linked
      • DONE. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "The song was made in spite of no band member having heard the music of Joy Division; rather, it was based on an idea of what the British quartet might sound like based on descriptions in the music press." Requires citation
      • All citations cover all the preceding material up to the previous citation. This page happened to have a bit more info than the others. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Critical reception: "...after the band managed to turn rock music into a more global entity..." Seems there should be a "had" before "managed".
    • Simpler: "after the band turned rock music" RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Accolades: Sentence construction: "...in the 1980 Pazz & Jop critics' poll run by The Village Voice, which aggregates the votes of hundreds of prominent reviewers." It is the poll, not The Village Voice, that aggregates the votes, so this should read "in the 1980 Pazz & Jop critics' poll, which aggregates the votes of hundreds of prominent reviewers and is run by The Village Voice.
    • Simpler: "in the The Village Voice's 1980 Pazz & Jop critics' poll, which aggregates the votes of hundreds of prominent reviewers." RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Release history chart
    • It would look neater if the years were centred in the table
      • DONE. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The "Catalog" heading should be "Catalog number".

That's it, really. I'm not watching my peer reviews for the moment, so if you have queries or want me to look again, please give me a ping. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Comments from indopug: One major thing I spot right away is the use of minor, not-very-reputed webzines like Slant and Sputnikmusic as reviewers. (Sputnikmusic is barely considered even an RS) What about the NME and Melody Maker? Rock's Back Pages seems to have a lot of articles about the Heads here. Might be worth checking out. indopug (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • There's only two (NME and Musician) that aren't used but available. I don't have subscription but be my guest and add them to the two remaining slots if you can. Also, calling Slant and Sputnkimusic "not-very-reputed" is a bit slanderous. We can't all be Rolling Stone. All the publications meet the notability and reliability thresholds. I think you'll appreciate that for an album released decades ago, I've done a pretty good job. Even went the other side of London to find a transcripted library issue of Sounds. RB88 (T) 10:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh I never implied that your work isn't excellent, just that the article is not yet ready for FAC.
Without reading it all, you have a verdict?? RB88 (T) 11:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, "album released decades ago" was my whole point actually, I don't see why you would then consider the opinions of relatively minor webzines (I believe WesleyDodds has an account by the way); you should look to use the most authoritative publications available, not sites that just about "meet the notability and reliability thresholds." (I mean, esp. sputnikmusic. I have seen Slant mentioned by mainstream media a bunch of times, but never sputnik)
Used by AOL: [3]. Metacritic have them: [4]. It wouldn't have its own wiki page if such criteria was not fulfilled. Otherwise, people like me would put it up at AfD. There's 10 slots in the review box and I could only find 8. The idea is to use what you can find (reliability wise) after exhausting the notable ones, which I have. I'll ask Wes though for the remaining two. RB88 (T) 11:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Found two myself and replaced Sputnik with the Spin Alternative Record Guide. RB88 (T) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The prose in the lead (haven't yet read the rest) is choppy. A lot of the sentences go "It was" or "The album was", and there isn't really a flow from one idea to the next. For example: "The artwork was designed with the help of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's computers. The band expanded to nine members for the album's promotional concerts." There is absolutely no flow from one sentence to the next there.
OK then, have a go at fixing it and I'll see if I concur. Note that Brianboulton who's pretty thorough and clinical didn't point such stuff out above. RB88 (T) 11:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It's been fixed. RB88 (T) 17:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Instead of overusing "the band" or "the album" consider using the "Talking Heads"/"Remain In Light" instead. indopug (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
But then you'd write a point saying "Stop overusing Talking Heads and Remain in Light". I don't like to use the band name because people always complain about plural verbs at FAC. I'll see if Remain in Light can be added more although I usually use a limit of one mention per paragraph max. RB88 (T) 11:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Also also, in this case, the name was only picked after it was created. They were using Melody Attack throughout. I didn't want to use that a lot in case I was confusing readers. RB88 (T) 11:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania State Capitol[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is just about ready to go to FAC, but still needs some fine tuning before then.

Thanks, ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 19:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

1995 British Grand Prix[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I hope to get this article to Featured Article status at some stage. Any comments are welcomed, and it may be helpful to look at 1995 Pacific Grand Prix, 1995 Japanese Grand Prix, 1995 European Grand Prix and 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix for examples of higher-standard Formula One race report articles from this season.

Regarding the images, I'm hoping to get some more event-specific ones uploaded soon, if I get the Flickr user's permission to do so. (Update: these images have now been added.) I would also appreciate it if people could tell me if they can see the Silverstone circuit map clearly, which isn't displaying properly for me.

Thanks, --Midgrid(talk) 17:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/1995 British Grand Prix/archive1.

Avalon, California[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a lot of work on improving this article, and I would like to bring it up to GA status. In particular, I'd like to know where other people think that additional references would be helpful. Any other comments or suggestions would also be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, mcd51 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

One problem that I can see right away is that more citations and references are needed in this article. An article of this size and scope needs more citations. Another problem that I can see is that the headings of each section have every word capitalized. This should not be. For example, if one of my section headings was, "Sights and Sounds of Basketball" that section heading would not be correct according to wiki standards. Instead it should read, "Sights and sounds of basketball." Note that only the first word of the heading is capitalized. Another point to make is that I feel that the article could be expanded.

Look at the Cleveland, Ohio article. It is a featured article and you could take alot of pointers from how the article is written. As far as the rest of the article, it is actually written pretty well. The main focus (at this point) should be citing more sources. Best reguards!Texas141 (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article makes for enjoyable reading about an interesting place, and it is well-illustrated. It certainly has potential for Good Article status and beyond that FA eventually. It seems neutral, stable, and broad in coverage. It isn't comprehensive, which is a requirement for FA but not GA. It is generally well-written but still has some minor prose and style problems here and there. Its sourcing, as you suggest, is incomplete. Here are some suggestions for improvement (with FA potential in mind).

  • MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything in the lead that is undeveloped in the main text. The existing lead doesn't mention climate, education, transportation, demographics, or government. I'd suggest re-writing the lead as a true summary once you're done with any other substantial changes. Even though it comes first in the article, it's hard to finish until the rest of the article is finished.
  • The images and maps lack alt text. This probably won't be a barrier to GA, but it will for FA. You'll find an explanation of how to write alt text and where to put it at WP:ALT, and you can also observe discussions at FAC to see how other editors are handling alt text issues.
  • You asked about sourcing. A good rule of thumb is to provide a reliable source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every direct quote. Quite a few paragraphs in the article are unsourced as are many claims that include statistics or other information that is not common knowledge.
  • I can imagine quite a few possibilities for expansion of the article should you want to aim for FA. Areas that you might cover include geology, parks and recreation, more details about the economy, culture such as arts, media, entertainment, churches, concerts, festivals, libraries, and museums, and infrastructure such as streets, water sources and treatment, landfills, recycling, and sewage treatment.
  • I'd suggest mentioning in the first sentence of the lead and in the geography section that Avalon is in the United States.
  • "Today Avalon remains a resort community... " - Words like "today", "now", and "currently" are indefinite. Usually it's better to use something more specific such as "as of 2009" or "in the 21st century" or "since then" (referring to the Wrigley era), or even "in the modern era". You might look through the article to find any of these that can reasonably be made more specific.
  • "From the late 1800s to the early 1900s, several different developers tried to develop Avalon into a resort destination community, with most going bankrupt." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction, and I see several similar sentences in the article. They can usually be recast and made stronger. Suggestion for this one: "From the late 1800s to the early 1900s, several different developers tried to develop Avalon into a resort destination community, but most went bankrupt."
  • Ship names like S.S. Avalon by convention take italics.
  • Date ranges like 1921–1951 take en dashes rather than hyphens. Ditto for page ranges in the citations.
  • I'd suggest moving the autoettes image to the right so that the autoettes run into the page rather than away from it. The reader's eye will follow the direction of motion.
  • The dabfinder tool that lives here finds a wikilink that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.
  • The url in Citation 10 does not seem to work. You might have to convert this one to a reference to the printed version or find another solution. Or maybe the problem is transient.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article in an area of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth, I went ahead and added missing reference tags throughout the article except in the lead, which I will completely overhaul once I'm finished with everything else. I would appreciate it if you or anyone else would look through the article to tag anything else that needs to be cited. Either way, thanks for the helpful comments.--mcd51 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Luigi's Mansion[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would want to improve it and maybe some day bring it to an FA status Thanks, Pedro J. the rookie 14:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. The main difference between a GA and a FA is the comprehensiveness of the article. The article needs expansion to have information about the marketing and production of the game. You can see IGN for some articles about the game.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. The plot has references to the game with quotes. All of the references should be removed. The plot's source is the game, you shouldn't provide references with quotes from the game.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Change "audio" to "Music".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I would disagree with most of the changes proposed by Diaa abdelmoneim. For video game articles, quotes for Plot references are standard at FAC, and it's been years since I've seen one pass without them. Also, changing "Audio" to "Music"—when the section contains the voice cast—is inadvisable. I do agree, however, that the Development section could use expansion. Particularly, details about the release (which I believe was fairly major) are not covered in the article. Its design could also use some beefing up, if there's anything to add. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nibiru collision[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, while I have completely given up any hope of it ever being promoted, I would like to see it safe from deletion. While this article deals with a topic that has had remarkable impact on the internet and in the pseudoscientific community, the amount of what Wikipedia terms "reliable sources" on this topic (at least those that I have been able to locate) is oddly tiny. The issue of reliable sources has crashed and burned this article at previous peer and GA reviews. To that end, I have removed unreliable sources the only way I can; by deleting the information they refer to. This article is now cut down to the bleeding quick and I daren't remove any more information. So please, let me know where I can go from here.

Thanks, Serendipodous 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Ruhrfisch comments: I apologize this has taken so long - I had been working on a review (unsaved) and my computer lost power and I lost my review. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • First off I think that this is much improved since the last time I read it, and I want to apologize if I in any way impied this should be deleted. I agree it is important to have it here, and do not think it should be deleted (let me know if it is ever at AfD and I will !vote to keep it). Having read the whole talk page and the two GANs, I must say you have my admiration and sympathies - the article seems to attract a variety of "true believers", and I do not understand the NPOV claims made in the second GAN. I think it could be a GA or perhaps even a FA in time.
  • I think the biggest issue is still the sources and wonder if it would be worth asking someone who is a reference expert (like Ealdgyth, perhaps) to take a look at the article and its sources and see what suggestions came up that way.
  • I noticed reading it that the refs had a lot of little typos and missing information, for example current ref 10 reads "M[a]rk Hazlewood's new position". 2009. http://www.geocities.com/transition7/links/HazelChange.html. Retrieved 2009-07-07." - missing a in Mark, and no publisher given (geocities). I understand that it is hard to find reliable sources. Because of this I also understand that it may be necessary to use primary sources like this in some cases.
  • In my previous PR I found a pretty reliable source (from the NY Times), but it is not used.
I already have a reliable source for the information in that article, which goes into more detail, but thanks anyway. Serendipodous 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
If it were me, I would put it in and mention that her denial of Hale-Bopp even made the New York Times. I thought this was an article that needed every RS it could get? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I also note that Nancy Lieder has published books and I wonder if these would be seen as any more reliable than the website?
Given her pronounced inabilities as a writer I would doubt that. Also I would be unlikely to find such books where I live. Serendipodous 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I also note that things like current ref 11 need links to the relevant web pages "^ "Nibiru" OR "niburu" (a common misspelling) and "2012" produce 419,000 hits on Google, whereas "planet X" and "2012" produce 324,000."
That was always going to be hard to source. Problem is, it's true. So I'll leave it blank for now.
Sorry what I meant was to link it to the actual search and give the access date (and now I see I did not search it quite right, but you get the idea). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There are other MOS issues - for exmaple I think the lead is a bit sparse and could have some more information from the article in it. I also note that WP:LEAD says to start the article either with an image or infobox. This has both, but neither is in the lead.
Moved image to the lead, though I don't think it really belongs there. Since this object doesn't exist, there are no images of it. Serendipodous 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, how about putting the infobox in the lead instead? It has the advantage of sayiong "Pseudoscientific concepts" across the top? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I did not understand the point of the "Criticism by Sitchin" - specifically which set the time for the last passing of Nibiru by Earth at roughly 600 BC, which would mean it would be unlikely to return in less than 1000 years.[32] This needs to be explained.
Revised. Serendipodous 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • On reading I saw one place where single quotation marks 'like this' were used instead of double quoteation marks "like this"
  • Refs need "p." for single page refs, not "pp."
  • I also note that the infobox refers to five people or groups in the Subsequent proponents section, but the article does not mention four of these. If primary sources are OK for Lieder / Zetatalk and Mark Hazlewood (sp?), I would think they would also be Ok to back these up.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Replies I have made some replies above. In response to your post on my talk page, I have looked again at WP:RS, particularly Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources, and Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources. I have also looked at Wikipedia:Fringe theories and Wikipedia:PSCI#Pseudoscience_and_related_fringe_theories and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources. As I read them they all seem to say that in questionable cases, a primary source can be used to back up a claim about the source itself. This is what I meant - if the subsequent proponents are notable enough to be in the infobox, then can't their own works be cited as a means of showing that they are also promoting this?

Looking at the Google Search, I found the Ask an Astrobiologist column at NASA helpful - I see it is cited once already, but wonder if it could be used more? It certainly seems reliable to me and the top 20 FAQs cover much of the same material as this article.

I will repeat what I said above - why not ask someone who is a respected checker of sources / references to look at the article and see what they think? Ealdgyth comes to my mind, but there may be others. Assuming such a review would approve most or all of the sources in the article now, that would be a major hurdle out of the way if this went to FAC (or perhaps even to GAN, though there the single reviewer means it is luck of the draw). I also sent you an email with some info. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


Joey Hamilton[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's currently a GA and after a peer review and an additional review it failed an FAC. After which it underwent another review on the talk page. However, I'd like to request another review (mainly on copyediting) before I bring it to FAC again. Thanks,--Giants27(c|s) 21:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


Comments by 66.213.50.2 (talk) 16
13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your lead looks great. All your references are formatted correctly and the links still work. I didn't see any contractions (outside of the one that was in a quote). I really like the custom made table you have instead of a generic infobox. I think for this particular article it works better. I also liked how all of the information presented was in chronological order with "After baseball" at the end. The last section serves as a good conclusion for the article. While copyediting, I found the following mistakes:

  • "As a rookie with the San Diego in 1994 he was fifth in the Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year Award voting for the National League." - need to add Padres.
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Basically, he lied to us. We had no idea. That's why half the time, you don't know who he represents. He's (Scott Boras) very good at that. His clients are very good about keeping their mouths shut." - When quoting someone while trying to explain to the reader who or what that someone is talking about, you should put the informative material in brackets like this --> "Basically, he lied to us. We had no idea. That's why half the time, you don't know who he represents. [Scott Boras] is very good at that. His clients are very good about keeping their mouths shut." Click here for the wikipedia policy on quotes.
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Hamilton suffered a shoulder injury which was described as an inflammation of the rotator cuff and bursa sac, forced Hamilton onto the disabled list during the 1997 season." - Consider this --> "Hamilton suffered a shoulder injury which was described as an inflammation of the rotator cuff and bursa sac. This injury forced Hamilton onto the disabled list during the 1997 season."
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "At the conclusion of the 2002 season, he was offered arbitration by the Reds along with Jose Rijo, which both rejected in mid-December, meaning the Reds could not sign them until May 1, 2003." - I had to read this a couple times to figure out what the sentence meant. I think it would be clearer if you added "they" like so --> At the conclusion of the 2002 season, he was offered arbitration by the Reds along with Jose Rijo, which they both rejected in mid-December, meaning the Reds could not sign them until May 1, 2003.
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Since he had not pitched in a professional game for five years, Hamilton became eligible for election into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2009 but for the first year was only listed as a write-in candidate.'" Consider this --> Since he had not pitched in a professional game for five years, Hamilton became eligible for election into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2009 but for the first year he was only listed as a write-in candidate.
  • Done.--Giants27(c|s) 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. Great job so far. 66.213.50.2 (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, is there anything else you noticed in the article?--Giants27(c|s) 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Kicks (song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to eventually nominate this for GA status, but would greatly appreciate some assistance first. I'm open to any suggestions for improvement in regards to the article's content, grammar, style, or other areas that need attention.

Thanks, Gongshow 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Not a lot to say, really. By my reckoning this should gain GA status fairly easily, as it is well-written and appears to cover the subject fully, in a neutral fashion. I have several nitpicks with the prose:-

  • Background and composition: "The song contained..." Present tense should be kept, therefore "contains"
    •  Done. Gongshow 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Release and reception
    • For consistency and per MOS, "fourteen" should be 14
      •  Done. Gongshow 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • 500,000 copies - non-breaking space per WP:NBSP
      •  Done. Gongshow 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "It was the highest-charting U.S. hit to date for Paul Revere & the Raiders, eclipsed only by 1971's Indian Reservation (The Lament of the Cherokee Reservation Indian)." Couple of suggestions: "to that date" instead of "to date", and "later eclipsed" rather than "eclipsed".
      •  Done. Gongshow 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Some censors" needs a bit of explanation; who were they, what was their field of activity, what were their powers? I would expect something briefly like: "Broadcasts were then subject to censorship; some censors, ..." etc (if indeed this was the situation)
      •  Done. Clarified with sentence added. Gongshow 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ambiguous phrasing: "...one his favorite works that Terry Melcher produced." I assume the meaning is one of his favorites of Terry Melcher's works, and the wording should more clearly reflect this.
      •  Done. Gongshow 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Other versions: "Surf rock group The Challengers covered the song..." My ignorance, but what does "covered the song" mean?
    •  Done. Clarified meaning of "cover" with link in previous sentence. Gongshow 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's about all I can find. I shall not be watching this article (too many on the list already) so if you want to query something or want me to look again, please call my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you so much for the suggestions. Gongshow 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sacrifice (video game)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Parallel review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Sacrifice (video game)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some additional requests and comments to help Sacrifice be more accessible to gamers and non-gamers alike (and to attain GA- or FA-class). Hopefully, when non-gamers read the article, they would know how the game is played, what it looks like, and what reviewers and the general gaming public found fun and notable about the game.

Thanks, Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Per your request I am looking at the article's text. Here are some observations on the first half; some are mere suggestions for improvement, others may be worth a few moment's thought.

  • Lead
    • First paragraph: "also" not required in final sentence
    • Unclear: "Players customize their offense from spells and creatures..." Is "offense" used in the sense of "attack"? If so, "offensive" might be clearer, and perhaps should be pluralized: "Players customize their offensives from spells and creatures..."
    • "By adjusting the required level of detail, Sacrifice could be run..." Should be "can be run"?
    • Second part of same sentence reads "...while maintaining the highest possible quality of graphics." This is a case where the passive voice might correctly be used, as it isn't clear in the present construction who is maintaining the quality of graphics. I would suggest: "...whil the highest possible quality of graphics."
    • "...no sequels of it were planned." Perhaps "are planned" or "are currently planned"?
  • Gameplay
    • "affect large areas..." – areas of what?
    • "the number of souls on a map is limited" – a map of what?
    • Repetition: "Players may start with a few souls and increase their pool of souls by locating unclaimed souls, or by killing unfriendly creatures and converting their souls." You could lose a couple by rewording: "Players may start with a few souls and increase their resource by locating unclaimed souls, or by converting those of unfriendly creatures that they have killed."
    • "The other three gods—James, Stratos, and Pyro—govern the elements..." It may clarify if you say "natural elements"
    • The last paragraph of this section is a little confusing for non-gamers to understand. "Sacrifice's gameplay does not focus on managing resources and bases..."; "The player is not required as much to renew his resources or to manage their gathering." As I have read it, the player has to have these resources, and has to manage them, to be effective in overcoming enemy forces. Perhaps it is a question of emphasis, but the position needs to be made a bit clearer.
  • Single player campaign
    • First para, a couple of minor points:
      • "Suffering a cataclysm long ago, the world..." Should be "this" world, to clarify what world you are talking about
      • "is split into five realms." To maintain tense consistency this should read "was split" Better still, maintain the present tense throughout - a god rules, rivalries are further stirred, Eldred offers his service to the gods.
    • "...the player's choices would lead..." I'm not sure what "would" is doing here
    • "bestows" → "bestow"
    • "...seek his destiny on other worlds." I think "in" reads better than "on"
  • Multiplayer: The language here is a mite technical for the likes of me (computer semi-illiterates). Possibly nothing can be done?

I will deal with the rest later. At the moment I have some main page problems to sort out (bloody vandals). Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented the corrections; as for the over-technicality of the multiplayer sub-section, I will see if I can make it less technical... Jappalang (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I took a stab at making the multiplayer sub-section a bit plainer... please have a look. Jappalang (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Second instalment

  • Development
    • "...to this game" not necessary at sentence end
    • "The company had a bad experience..." This is a "had had" case
    • I'm missing something. Can you clarify the actual marketing mistake that Shiny made with regard to Messiah?
  • Graphics
    • Ambiguity: "and the simplicity of the division and its data management algorithms..." Does "simplicity" describe both the division and its data management algorithms, or just the division? Incidentally, I could not fathom at all what the sentence including this phrase meant, however hard I looked at it.
  • Release
    • "...possible areas of improvements" - should be "improvement"
    • "On December 14, the game was released." For clarity, this should be "On December 14, the Mackintosh version of the game was released."
  • Reception
    • Neither of the first two paragraphs ssem to relate to the reception of Sacrifice. Are they in the right place here?
    • "The industry examined if Shiny would redress the failure of Messiah and deliver a better product." Awkward phrasing - "examined if" is probably wrong. Perhaps: "The industry wished to see whether Shiny would redress the failure of Messiah and deliver a better product."
    • Tense consistenct needed. At present we have Michael Eilers remarked, Journalist Tom Chick sums up, John Bye found etc
  • Legacy: No detailed points, but just a thought: do video games really have "legacies"?

I hope these points are helpful. Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I adopted the suggestions and tried to clarify the "mistake" (dropping the "marketing"). As for the first two paragraphs of the Reception, I was attempting to establish a background context for those who are not familiar with video games, stating that the video games market was healthy at the time, and real-time strategy games, though not the best seller on the whole, was a popular item for the PC gamers. Shiny's reputation also had most people anticipating for their next product, especially after Messiah's release. Is it a bit too divorced from the subject? Jappalang (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I have rewritten the first two paragraphs of Reception to more tightly focused on real-time strategy games (showing how it was popular and by extension, how people were keen when Shiny started working on a real-time strategy game). Jappalang (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
As for "Legacy", there are several VG articles that have Legacy (sub-)sections. Not sure if the term really does qualify (legacies span long periods?), though... but... Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was asked to comment on images and media and would suggest removing the picture and voices of the gods, as unlikely to pass NFCC#8. No comment on anything else. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, replaced with Curry's and Garrett's photos. Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a new article and I'd like feedback on the shape it is taking as well as an assessment on where it stands quality-wise.

If anybody has reference suggestions please feel free to offer them. At lot of the info I found on the culture of the era and the people was from a magazine article. Adequate but not great in terms of authoritative stature.

Thanks, Mcorazao (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is fascinating and generally well-written. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

Heads and subheads

  • Generally it's a good idea to make heads and subheads unique. Rather than repeating the word "era" in three heads, I'd suggest modifying two of them: "Era economy" to "Economy" and "Era in modern popular culture" to "In popular culture".

Lead

  • MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead reads well but doesn't summarize "Culture" or "Government and law enforcement". A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections.

Overlinking

  • The centuries shouldn't be linked unless there's some special reason to do so. Likewise, common words like "oil", "cotton", "barber", and "bank" shouldn't be linked since most English speakers already know what they mean. WP:OVERLINK has details.

Society

  • "The casinos were, of course, regularly frequented by famous Houstonians... ". - Delete "of course"? It's an editorial aside.

Government and law enforcement

  • A good rule of thumb is to include at least one source for every paragraph. The first paragraph of this section in unsourced even though it includes data that is not common knowledge and must have come from somewhere. This paragraph is an exception; most of the article seems well-supported.

The end of an era

  • "the rest of the Galveston economy tanked... " - Slang. "Collapsed"?
  • "The "Splash Day" celebrations restarted, drawing tourists to the coast (this annual event would evolve into an LGBT event in later decades)." - In several places in the article, a complete sentence appears inside parentheses inside a complete sentence. I believe the way to punctuate this is to use a capital letter at the beginning of the complete sentence in parentheses and a period at the end. Suggestion: "The "Splash Day" celebrations restarted, drawing tourists to the coast. (This annual event would evolve into an LGBT event in later decades)." Ditto for similar combinations elsewhere in the article. On the other hand, constructions like "Efforts at historical preservation (notably including those of George P. Mitchell)... " are OK because the words in parentheses do not form a complete sentence.

Era in modern popular culture

  • Generally straight prose is preferable to lists. I'd suggest turning this short one into prose.

References

  • Some of the references are incomplete such as citation 50, which lacks an access date, and citation 51, which lacks an author, a correct title, a publisher, and a date of publication even though all of these are readily available at the given url. A good rule of thumb for Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date.
  • Book references should include the place of publication and the ISBN. This is true of the "Further reading" section as well as the citations in the "Reference" section.
  • Page ranges get en dashes rather than hyphens.

See also

  • I'm not sure it makes sense to add things to this list that already appear in the main text.

Alt text

  • Most of the images lack alt text, which allows readers who can't see the images to learn what information they contain. The lead image has alt text, but it merely says, "Beach Boulevard", from which a blind reader would learn nothing by hearing it read aloud by a machine. It takes a bit of practice to write helpful at texts. You can find details about how to write them and where to put them at WP:ALT, and you can look at recent examples of alt text by visiting WP:FAC.

Image licenses

  • The postcard used in the infobox is quite nice, but the licensing information looks contradictory. The image description says, "Not dated. This copy was mailed, postmarked 1943. From automobiles original view probably not more than 5 years earlier." That would put the date of publication back to about 1938, but it would need to go back to 1923 for the public domain license to be correct. In other words, the postcard and copies of its imagery may still be protected by copyright. The Hotel Galvez image also has licensing problems as noted on its description page at the Commons.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mcorazao responses:
Heads and subheads - Done.
Lead - Done, I think. I added a very brief mention of some additional stuff. I don't want the intro to get to cumbersome.
Overlinking - Done.
Society
  • "The casinos were, of course, regularly frequented by famous Houstonians... ". - Done.
Government and law enforcement - Done.
The end of an era
  • "the rest of the Galveston economy tanked... " - Done.
  • "The "Splash Day" celebrations restarted, drawing tourists to the coast (this annual event would evolve into an LGBT event in later decades)." - Done.
Era in modern popular culture - Done.
References
  • Some of the references are incomplete - Done.
  • Book references should include the place of publication and the ISBN. - Done.
  • Page ranges get en dashes rather than hyphens. - Not sure how this is done. Need to read up ... Done.
See also - Done.
Alt text - Done.
Image licenses - Investigating ...
  • So regarding the postcard, Infrogmation had a brief forum exchange with the person who posted the picture here. Essentially according to that guy there is no copyright notice listed and so, if we accept that the postcard must have been published between 1923 and 1977, then it would be free of copyright protection. So since we can't get our hands on the postcard this is kind of the best that can be done to verify the license. I am not clear what Wikipedia's standards are on something like this (i.e. this seems to be a good faith effort at verifying the license so is that good enough?). I guess I'm going to call this Done unless there is some stronger standard that needs to be applied.
--Mcorazao (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

TAPMI[edit]

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

Thanks, Mirc.tapmi (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am delisting this from peer review. It has two major cleanup banners, and, in addition, is virtually devoid of inline citations. There is no statement indicating why the peer review has been sought, but it is patently premature. Brianboulton (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


Confederation of Madya-as[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this new article is a potential for re-classifying it as C or anywhere than Start. I am also a bit confused if this article is violating WP rules because many huge chunk of information were copy-pasted anywhere.

Thanks, JL 09 q?c 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

The following extracts from the article's History section are exact or nearly exact copies of the wording in your online source. Please note that these are given as examples; there may well be other, similar extracts:-

  • early in the thirteenth century, a group of datus, namely, Sumakwel, Bangkaya, Paiburong, Paduhinog, Dumangsol, Dumangsil, Dumaluglog, Balkasusa, and Lubay who were lead by Datu Puti and a thousand followers, took to the sea in their barangays and sailed northward
  • Datu Bangkaya and his people stayed in at Madyanos, but Paiburog and his people went farther south and upstream lured by the Mangkosarok. They went further and further south until one day, they realized that Mangkosarok had vanished. But they went on south anyway to Irong-irong
  • Datu Puti left for farther explorations to the north after assuring himself that his people were secure in their new home. Before he departed, he designated, Datu Sumakwel, being the eldest, as the chief datu of Panay.
  • In 1213, Datu Sumakwel convoked the council of datus to a conference for the purpose of drawing up plans for their common defense and a system of government for the Island. Six articles were adopted and promulgated, which came to be known as Articles of Confederation of Madya-as, and which historians have come to refer to as the first written constitution of the Philippines.

In the whole article there is only one citation to the online source; none of the above statements are cited. This is plagiarism as defined by WP:Plagiarism. Any verbatim quotes from a source need to be in quotation marks and clearly cited. Such quotations should be short; in the main you should paraphrase the source information using your own words. If this is not clear to you, please contact my talkpage and I will try to explain further. The article cannot be reviewed until it has been substantially rewritten with proper regard to WP:Plagiarism. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


Anuradhapura Kingdom[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article recently passed GAN, and I'm hoping to take it to FAC. While it qualifies GA requirements, I think there may be problems that need to be addressed before I try that. Advice and assistance regarding the images would be especially appreciated, since that is not an area I'm familiar with. Thanks in advance. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Arrange References in alphabetical order, to ease search. There are 2 Sinhala books in References, add their title's English spelling
  • "In 543 BC, prince Vijaya arrived in Sri Lanka, having been banished from his country". Which country?
  • Links: I observed 2 links Vijaya and asterism in the first section itself, which led to disambiguations. Link to the relevant articles. Please check all other links. Also Elara in section 2
  • See WP:OVERLINK: Link only most relevant articles and only once. Most people know what cemeteries, hermitages or irrigation tanks are. bhikkhuni was linked twice in "Arrival of Buddhism"
  • "Another notable king of the Anuradhapura Kingdom is Valagamba" Link him to proper article. Give date of kings in brackets. Maybe a template of kings like the one in FA Chola Dynasty can be created
  • "She brought along with her a sapling from the Sri Maha Bodhi" What is the importance of Sri Maha Bodhi? "She brought along with her a sapling from the Sri Maha Bodhi, the tree under which the Buddha is believed to have attained enlightenment" explains why. Try to explain jargon as much as possible. Sanghamitta - the daughter of Ashoka - her importance.
  • The coverage of topics is good, but images are needed. I adding images, if you do not like any. Please remove them. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Redtigerxyz. I'll make the necessary improvements and reply here as soon as possible. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 16:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much done, except for the dates of the kings. Since there were quite a number of rulers during this period, a template like {{Chola history}} would take up a lot of space and therefore, would be inappropriate. I was thinking of creating a table of all the monarchs within the article. What do you think? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You can also include dates in the text. Are all kings already mentioned in the text? The work of all kings should be touched in the text. The History may be expanded to meet this requirement. A table of monarchs can also work, but I would prefer text. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reorganize History according to chronology of kings.
  • Write about religion about "Arrival of Buddhism". --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lemon Tree (film)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review since I want to take it to GA review and I'm looking to see if there's any issues.

Thanks, The Squicks (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Majoreditor comments I've taken just a quick glance at the article, but my initial impression is that it is close to meeting GA standards. Some thoughts:

  • The lead looks like it include a small amount of material which doesn't appear in the body of the article.
  • Consider adding additional material on the film's commercial reception.
  • At first glance the article appears to be well-cited, broad, and reasonably well-written.

Should I have more time I will try to provide a more in-depth review. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an informative article about what sounds like an interesting movie. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • It would be helpful to mention in the infobox at least what language(s) are spoken in the film. What is the primary language?
  • It might be worthwhile to mention that Riklis is an Israeli filmmaker and that Abbass and Suliman are Palestinians. WP:FILMCAST suggests adding a "Cast" section that includes information about the cast and crew, including the director. If you created a "Cast" section, you could add to it the list of actors that appears in the lead but not in the main text (something noted by Majoreditor above). To this could be added details about the director's other experience, films, and so on, and similar details about the actors. This would help meet the GA requirement for broad coverage of the topic.
  • Although you list a total for gross revenue in the infobox, no more details appear in the main text. I was hoping as I read the "Reception" section to find something about box-office receipts or ticket sales. (I agree with Majoreditor).
  • Has the film been released on DVD?
  • Can anything be said about the soundtrack?
  • Unless there's a special reason for a list, straight prose is generally favored over bulleted lists. I think the "Awards and nominations" section would work fine as straight prose, and I would not double-bold the names of the festivals there or in the lead.
  • "The struggle of Salma, together with the lawyer Ziad Daud (Ali Suliman), gets to the Supreme Court, involving not only the international press but also Mira Navon (Rona Lipaz-Michael), the minister's wife." - Is Daud her lawyer? If so, you might change this to say, "The struggle of Salma and her lawyer, Ziad Daud (Ali Suliman), reaches the Supreme Court of Israel and involves not only the international press but also Mira Navon (Rona Lipaz-Michael), the minister's wife."
  • "Critic Hugh Hart of San Francisco Chronicle thought that the movie displays a natural sympathy to its protagonist." - If you use past tense for "thought", you should probably use "displayed" to avoid switching verb tense in mid-sentence. Or "thinks" and "displays".
  • It's a good idea to add alt text to the images so that readers who can't see the images will know what they reveal. WP:ALT has details about how to write alt text and where to put it. You can also view recent examples of alt text at WP:FAC.
  • The dabfinder tool that lives here finds a wikilink that goes to a disambiguation page instead of to the intended target.
  • Can you find any reviews of the movie that appeared in Israeli newspapers or magazines? Any comments by Palestinian critics or other Palestinians?

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are excellent points. Thank you very much both of you for reading the article and commenting. The Squicks (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball awards[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm asking for a peer review for this list because I do the same every time I spend a while working on a new format for a list. When it's the same old stuff (lead, tables, refs, done), I usually skip peer review, but I'm acutely aware of the value of this process when doing something new or unfamiliar. I would appreciate any info that any reviewers are willing to give. This is eventually to be presented as the lead article of a featured topic regarding Major League Baseball awards (but not all baseball awards). The criteria for inclusion is determined by using the awards page from the official Major League Baseball website; other awards, such as the Sporting News awards, the Heart and Hustle Award, the Branch Rickey Award, etc., will eventually be included under a larger topic, entitled simply "Baseball awards".

Thanks, KV5 (TalkPhils) 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. Please standarize the dates in the references. You sometimes have September 22, 2009 and other times 2009-08-20.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. "Unlike its National League counterpart, a new trophy is awarded each year." needs a reference.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's why I fact-tagged it. I asked the inserter of the fact to provide one, but he has not, so I may remove it. KV5 (TalkPhils) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  3. Some paragraphs don't have references such as "Comeback Player of the Year", "Rolaids Relief Man" and "All-Star Game MVP".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  4. Please reference every fact in the list to conform with Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Nothing in the featured list criteria or in WP:V says that every fact must be referenced. The policy on verifiability states merely that sources are needed "for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." KV5 (TalkPhils) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  5. "one each to the National League and American League champions, and one of the champion of the World Series" "and one for"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Have referenced all fact-tagged locations. KV5 (TalkPhils) 18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Please indicate when these trophies were introduced: Warren C. Giles Trophy, William Harridge Trophy and to whom it was first awarded.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    The info is unavailable. KV5 (TalkPhils) 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. "The 2008 winners of the Hank Aaron Award include Aramis Ramírez of the Cubs (NL) and Kevin Youkilis of the Red Sox (AL)." Aren't they the only two? And isn't it awarded only to two?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    Not sure what you mean here. The award is presented each year to two players, but Youkilis and Ramírez are not the only two to win the award. KV5 (TalkPhils) 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    I meant change "The 2008 winners of the Hank Aaron Award include Aramis Ramírez of the Cubs (NL) and Kevin Youkilis of the Red Sox (AL)." to "The 2008 winners of the Hank Aaron Award are Aramis Ramírez of the Cubs (NL) and Kevin Youkilis of the Red Sox (AL)." Since they are the 2008 winners, as far as I understand.
    Oh. Got it. KV5 (TalkPhils) 00:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  3. "The Philadelphia Phillies, having won the 2008 World Series, and members of their team have the most current awards held in Major League Baseball. " needs fixing--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • How so? KV5 (TalkPhils) 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      • There isn't an object in the sentence. Maybe "Members of the Philadelphia Phillis have the most awards held in Major League Baseball."--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, there is an object. "The Philadelphia Phillies": subject. "members of their team": also subject (compound). "have": verb. "awards": object. KV5 (TalkPhils) 23:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Aaah, I get now what's meant. But there is a problem with the verb "having". It should be "have".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
            • No, "having won the World Series" is a descriptive phrase, and serves only to modify the subject. KV5 (TalkPhils) 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
              • Ok, I understand the sentence structure now. Everything looks good...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  4. Your lead is 1/3 about the Phillies and their awards, 1/3 about the different awards and 1/3 about the two kinds of awards (Idividual and Team)). Please expand the middle topic here. You should the Commissioner's trophy and explain why it's different from the other awards. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That's what the paragraph about the trophy is for. The lead is a summary. KV5 (TalkPhils) 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes the lead is a summary of the whole list so you should include information about different kinds of awards. The "Commissioner's Historic Achievement" is listed under "Other awards" which doesn't have anything in the lead... Anyway, the list is of high quality and could be promoted to be an FL. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh, I get it. I was unclear as to what you meant. KV5 (TalkPhils) 23:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  5. Aaron Hill should be disambiguated.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want to see if article has problems before can make it good article status, thank you very much. ITABRIZ (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with rating it as a good article. A little work could make it a featured article. Zitterbewegung Talk 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted a duplicate peer review for this article, opened by a different nominator. The text left was as follows:

I've listed this article for peer review because we would like to take it to FAC in the near future. We'd rather deal with any doubts, questions, errors, or omissions here than at FAC, so additional feedback and recommendations are welcome.
Thanks, Neftchi (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think this needs a fair amount of work before it would be ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions for getting it there.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several country FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places - I note Australia, Cameroon and Canada (among others) are all FAs and may be useful models
  • One of the biggest problems this needs to address before FAC is a lack of references in places - the are "citation needed" tags and as one example the last two sentences of the first paragraph in the Antiquity section and the whole second paragraph have no refs. There are also no refs in the whole last paragraph of Restoration of independence. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Many of the internet refs are just links. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Not sure if the refs used all meet WP:RS - for example is the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: History of Azerbaijan [5]. really the best possible ref for history here? In general encyclopedias are not favored refs.
  • The other major problem this would have at FAC in its current state is the language - the hardest of the FA criteria for most articles to meet is a professional level of English. Examples follow
  • One fairly easy thing to fix is the large number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - to improve the article's flow these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded wherever expanded
  • For example the first sentence of the History section is The earliest evidence of human settlement in the territory of Azerbaijan dates to the late Stone Age and is related to the Guruchay culture of the Azykh Cave, where archeological evidences promoted the inclusion of Azerbaijan into the map of the ascent man sites of Europe.[18] "acent man sites of Europe" is not grammatical and I am frankly not sure what it means. Could it be something like The earliest evidence of human settlement in Azerbaijan dates to the late Stone Age and is related to the Guruchay culture of the Azykh Cave. not sure how to rewrite the rest as I am not sure of its meaning
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should generally be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • Watch overlinking - Baku is linked about 6 times in the article, for example
  • I checked only one image File:Transheya.jpg and it is Fair Use, but needs a fair use rationale to be included here - see WP:FAIRUSE. I also doubt that it meets the criteria for inclusion here under WP:NFCC

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I think this article needs more improvement, such as addition of tourism section and etc.--NovaSkola (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz's comments
  • The article needs a map in "Administrative divisions", depicting the divisions
  • The article needs reorganization of images, in many sections (like Antiquity,Middle Ages etc.

) the text is sandwiched between images. The image in Fauna shows no Fauna, but snow and ice.

  • I doubt the license of File:Independence1990.jpg, it appears to a scan of a newspaper from the texture of the image.
  • Protection is a vague title. Rename. "Protection" of what?
  • IMO, History needs to shortened. There is too much detail in the last three sub-sections of History. They are clubbed together something like "Modern Era"
  • Apart from the other [citation needed] tags, stats and figures like dates and things like "making Azerbaijan the first Muslim nation to grant women equal political rights with men." need citations--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Galveston, Texas[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we would like additional feedback and recommendations prior to good article review.

Thanks, Postoak (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting, broad in coverage, nicely illustrated, stable, and neutral. I don't think it's far from GA, but it needs further work to make the grade. It doesn't hurt to work with the eventual goal of FA in mind, and WP:FA#Geography and places is a good place to find FA articles about cities. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Lead

  • The existing lead is reasonably good, but since the lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article, it would be good to add at least a mention of the government and education sections.
Mentioned both sections in lead. Postoak (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Verifiablity

  • In general, the article seems well-sourced. However, fairly large chunks, especially in the early sections, lack sources. In the History section, the first sentence of the second paragraph is sourced, but the rest of the paragraph, starting with "The first permanent European settlements on the island were constructed around 1816 by the pirate Louis-Michel Aury... " is unsourced even though it contains material that is not common knowledge. It must have come from a source or sources, but they have not been identified. The next paragraph is unsourced even though it contains specific numerical quantities that must have come from a source or sources: "along with several associates purchased 4,605 acres (18.64 km²) of land for $50,000 from the Austin Colony... ". The sources should be identified. In the "Growth" subsection, the paragraph that begins "During this era, Galveston was also home to a number of state firsts... " gives no source(s), but the quite specific data must have come from somewhere. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every claim that might reasonably be questioned, every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every paragraph. The entire "Storm of 1900" subsection is unsourced even though it includes this claim that is certain to be questioned: "Even post-Hurricane Katrina, this event holds the record as the United States' deadliest natural disaster."

Proofing

  • Quite a few little things need attention. Sentences like this one in the "Architecture" section are missing words or don't quite make sense for other reasons: "In 1880, the house was bought by Edwin N. Ketchum who police chief during the 1900 Storm." This sequence in "Arts and culture" is another example: ". The Galveston Ballet is regional pre-professional ballet company and academy serving Galveston county." All of the imperial measures in the article need also to be given in metric units. I added a few missing ones, but I see others such as "Ike produced waves and a rising storm surge of about 14 feet" that need to be fixed. Superscripts are tiny in some places and should be expressed like the others at this size: 5. The abbreviations in the Education and Transportation sections should not be bolded. A proofreader or copyeditor would probably catch and fix most of these small things.

Geology

  • A possibility for expansion would be to say something about how the island came to be and what it consists of. Is it just made of sand, or does something more substantial underlie it? If it's only sand, what keeps it from washing completely away?

Storm of 1900

  • Aside from the 1900 hurricane and Ike, have other named storms hit the island during recorded history? Was the original seawall effective in any instance? What is the statistical likelihood of a major hurricane striking Galveston in any given year?

General

  • Extremely short sections are generally frowned upon. I think you could reasonably merge some of the shorter ones such as "Public libraries", "Media", and "Fire and police departments" with other sections.
  • The dabfinder tool that lives here finds 10 wikilinks in the article that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
  • The link checker tool that lives here finds at least four dead urls in the citations.

Images

  • It's best to arrange the images to avoid text sandwiches like the one in the "Architecture" section and, if possible, to avoid section overlap, as happens with the Moody Plaza.
  • The images lack alt text. This might not be an issue at the GA level, but if you are aiming for an eventual FA, it will be an issue. Alt text describes images or their content for readers who can't see the images. You'll find an explanation at WP:ALT, and you can look at ongoing reviews at FAC to see how other editors are handling the alt text questions.

References

  • Quite a few citations are missing needed data. Citations 50 and 52, for example, are nothing but urls, and others lack access dates. A good rule of thumb for citations to Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these are known or can be found.
  • Title case is preferred in Wikipedia articles rather than all caps, even if the source uses all caps. Thus "GALVESTON'S SISTER CITIES" in citation 101 should be "Galveston's sister cities".
  • The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. If you use m-d-y for most of them, you should change all of them to m-d-y rather than yyyy-mm-dd or other formats.

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough and helpful review. I will begin to incorporate your recommendations as soon as possible. I sincerely appreciate the time you've given to assist with the article. Thanks again, Postoak (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cherry Poppin' Daddies[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because...it actually reached GA status! Thus, I'd like to see if it might actually be eligible for Featured *consideration*. Basically, what would be holding this article back from being nominated for Featured? I feel kind of uneasy about some of the references and the overall length, ergo I'd like an experienced editor to give it a once over and give it the "yay" or the "nay", dig?

Thanks! Skibz777 (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: OK, here are some points on the lead and first three sections. As I am not particularly a pop music aficianado, my comments are chiefly related to the prose. I have done a few non-controversial tweaks myself, but mainly I've left it to you. Others will have to judge whether the article is comprehensive, though it looks pretty detailed to me.

  • Skibz777: Great! Thanks for taking the time to do this. Prose is one of the things I was most concerned about.
  • Lead
    • The first paragraph of the lead should encapsulate in a few words why the group is particularly notable, i.e. its most significant achievements. It doesn't do this at present.
    • The band's performances did not "instigate" bans and protests. They may have "brought about" or "provoked" them.
    • "The Daddies experienced international commercial success..." I think "achieved" would be a better verb. Also, in the same sentence, "namely" is redundant.
    • "neo-swing" - term needs link or explanation
      • Neo-swing itself links to a page; provided, it links to "swing revival", but it defines "neo-swing" in its intro. I think "swing revival" is more a descriptor of the musical movement itself rather than the sound. It would seem awkward to define the genre in an article for a band...
      • I was going to put "swing revival" in the infobox instead, but it seems kind of contradictory..."revival" would imply a recreation of the original sound (a la Brian Setzer), but it's mentioned in the "Musical Style" section that CPD's swing is mixed more with punk/ska. What to do?
    • "Following a short hiatus, the band regrouped..." Clarify: did they disband and reform? Or were they merely inactive for a short while?
  • Formation
    • "Genesis" means "beginning", so "genesis began" is wrong. Suggest reword first sentence; "The genesis of the Cherry Poppin' Daddies' was a meeting of singer/songwriter Steve Perry and Dan Schmid at the University of Oregon in the late 1980s."
    • "Despite neither having" is rather awkward wording. Suggest "Although neither had..."
    • The sentence should end after "on playing msic". Then: "They formed the jangle pop band..."
    • "and, recruiting..." → "and, after recruiting..."
    • ""Cherrypoppin' Daddies"" - at what stage did this morph into Cherry Poppin' Daddies"? A word of explanation necessary.
    • "...yet also reflected the band's jazz side as a campy homage to the cartoonish risqué of the Dixieland recordings that had inspired them." The meaning of this needs clarifying. Whose phrases are "campy homage" and "cartoonish risqué"? They need to be attributed.
  • Early years and controversies
    • Prose style comment. There is a tendency to start too many sentences with the -ing verb form. Here we have, in successive sentences, "Sporting" and "Donning". Sporting is probably OK, but Donning, which doesn't match the half-nude phrasing later on, should go. A possible rewording: "In an array of flashy Funkadelic-inspired costumes or drag get-ups, and on occasions simply half-nude, the Daddies became notorious for their over-the-top performance art-like stage shows."
    • The sentence should end at this point. What follows in the rest of the paragraph needs to be reorganised into proper sentences. At the moment it is a muddle of images without a proper grammatical structure.
    • Not surprisingly" - is this a POV aside?
    • "based towards" is not idiomatic - "based on" or "based mainly on"
    • "found themselves receiving hate mail" → "received hate mail"
    • "On one occasion, Perry claimed to have had..." → "On on occassion, Perry claimed, a cup of hot coffee was thrown..." etc
    • ...and the group extensively played and often sold out shows in the Eugene and Portland area throughout the early 1990s." Some slight rearrangement advised. Suggest: "and the group played extensively throughout the early 1990s, often selling out shows in the Eugene and Portland area."
    • "following their mainstream break." Is this the "hiatus" earlier mentioned? Clarification needed.
    • "After selling reasonably well, winning the approval of..." → "After this sold reasonably well and won the approval of..." (it's the record, not the band, that sold)
    • Does "Compact Disc need to be spelled out and linked? "CD" is universal usage

I'll be back with comments on the rest, but meanwhile it would be interesting to see your responses to the above. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Final instalment: I have taken the liberty of making non-controversial fixes myself. It certainly makes the list shorter.

  • National touring
    • "...presumably because of their use of a horn section, they became a staple of the Bay Area's burgeoning third wave ska scene". Whose presumption is this?
    • What is a sophomore album? The term isn't understood in the UK.
    • Link for "indie"? (Indie rock, presumably)
  • Zoot suit riot etc
    • "recurrently"? Not sure, perhaps "regularly" or "frequently"
    • "they started catering their sets more towards their swing fans" Don't know what this means. They began tailoring their act towards their swing fans? Needs to be clear.
    • "vintage suits" – doesn't convey anything unless you indicate what vintage (Edwardian, Twenties, Forties etc) And "suit" hardly requires the link
    • Contractions like "they'd" are informal, and not encyclopedic
    • Penultimate paragraph: The first sentence was horrendously overlong - I've split it into three. There is a general tendency in the articles for sentences to be over-complicated, and it may well be worth checking whether other sentences need to be split. In the sentence I've just dealt with, the word "distinguish" might be better changed to "recognise"
  • Soul caddy etc:"The album was ultimately met with mixed reviews" Suggest delete "was ultimately" - redundant. Suggest look at a few sentence lengths in this section too.
  • Return etc: No specific prose issues in this section
  • Musical style and influence: This section is a little dense for me (my lack of knowledge exposed). One thing did strike me, though: although various influences on the Daddies are mentioned, there is no information given about the influence that the group itself had. It would be interesting to have an assessment of the group's overall impact on the music scene. Perhaps it had none.
  • Lyrical: no specific comment
  • General
    • If this is to go to FAC you will need to add alt text to the images
      • Could you clarify this, please?
    • Most of the online references lack access dates, and many are not formatted correctly.

I hope that you have found this review useful. As I don't watchlist peer reviews, if you want to raise any issue with me, please leave a message on my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


Discovery of Neptune[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it is ready for GA or FA consideration.

Thanks, Serendipodous 11:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment besides the lack of references in several parts, the image/scheme is not extremely helpful. Sure, maybe they were close with the prediction, but there isn't a good sense of scale. To the average, non-astronomer reader, it doesn't really give much away. Zooming out, something like in File:Oort cloud Sedna orbit.svg would greatly help the value of the scale. I would also clarify that Neptune cannot be seen without a telescope, so technically speaking, Galileo was the first person who could have seen the planet (such nobody drops by and asks about Mesopotamians). I might be wrong, but loosely speaking, isn't principle behind Netune's prediction basically the same large planets are predicted around other stars? If yes, it might be worth noting this importance. Also, it might be important to create another section in the relevance of discovery: confirmation of Newton's laws, last discovery of planet in the SS to date, even creating the principle behind the modern day predictions of massive (dark or yet unobserved bright) objects around luminous bodies, and starting the quest for the planet X. Nergaal (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Which picture do you mean? Serendipodous 07:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
File:Neptune discovery.png
  • Comment The quality of the article does not look good. Its editing still carries rather more than the scars of previous episodes of POV-pushing and poorly-supported dubious compromise-edits that resulted. Edits have given undue prominence to arguably non-notable gee-whiz speculations with little or no foundation, and added non-RS citations. Citation to authentic historical and/or peer-reviewed source material seems to have been deleted. Some references appear to be cited for what they do not contain. References to the pre-discovery observations that are now reckoned, by retrospective calculation, to be probably of the object now known as Neptune are not yet well handled -- which would need avoidance of anachronism, and acknowledgement of the retrospective nature and degree of likelihood of the various hindsight attributions. Jumps to conclusions about the status of ink-spots are in need of RS support. Cleaning it up would be a lot of work, in the meantime the article does not yet seem to have reached a state that deserves a badge of approval. The backbone of the article and its core facts would do a lot better than at present, if it were re-edited to follow the plan and core facts of the excellent and quite neutral 1946 article (already cited, but little used for what it actually contains) by Prof A Danjon, then director of the Paris Observatory. Terry0051 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No Line on the Horizon[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm bringing No Line on the Horizon up for peer review because I would like to see it reach FA. After one peer review and a failed FAC, I think that all the issues that were brought up have been addressed. I would like to make sure that it meets the FA criterion though. Having put a lot of work into this article over the last 9+ months, I probably consider it to be a lot more perfect than it really is, and so I would appreciate fresh sets of eyes looking it over and finding any errors. I am most concerned with the prose (particularily in Composition), any possible repetition of information, and with the licensing rationales for the two audio clips, as I think the latter was ultimately the reason why the last FAC failed. Opinions regarding the quality of references would be much appreciated too.

Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Jafeluv

Lead:

  • "with Rick Rubin" → "with producer Rick Rubin", or otherwise indicate who Rubin is
  • "Fez" – one has to follow the link to know what "Fez" is; also, why the piped link instead of using Fes directly?
  • One of the tracks on the album is called "Fez - Being Born". Fez and Fes are used interchangeably, but Fes is the name of the article (while Fez leads to a disambiguation page). Using Fez instead of Fes is just a matter of consistency regarding the spelling of the song name. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. I agree that the piped link works better. There's only one correct spelling for the song name, and Fez is an alternative spelling for the city. Jafeluv (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Aborted sessions with Rick Rubin:

  • "Bono" → "Lead singer Bono" (or similar) – Indicate who Bono is when he's first mentioned, so that the reader doesn't have to follow the wikilink to find out.
  • "Two songs from these sessions were released on the compilation U218 Singles; a cover of The Skids' "The Saints Are Coming" with Green Day, and 'Window in the Skies'." – I think a colon would work better than a semicolon here.
  • "with Steve Lillywhite also being brought in to produce..." – The "with + -ing" structure is not grammatical (see, for example, here) and the article uses it a lot. I'd suggest rewording to "and Steve Lillywhite was also brought in to produce..."
  • I split it into two sentences; having "produce" used multiple times in the same sentence just didn't look right to me. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sessions with Brian Eno and Danny Lanois

  • "The music that the band recorded in Morocco was long and vibe-heavy." – What does this mean?
  • I'm not quite sure myself; changed to "unsuitable for playing in a stadium", as that was mentioned in the same sentence in the source and I assume that they relate to the same thing. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Does "defecated" really need to be linked? I think a reader can be assumed to know what it means.
  • "The exotic influences that the band explored inspired the band to pursue a more experimental sound, as they wished to take more songwriting risks after the band's last two albums presented a more straightforward rock sound." – The long sentence could use chopping up. Also "after" doesn't sound right in the last part, maybe reword it somehow? Also, "the band's last two albums" → "their last two albums" would avoid repeating the phrase "the band".
  • I've switched the two around; it now reads "The band wished to take more songwriting risks after their previous two albums presented a more straightforward rock sound. The exotic influences that they explored inspired them to pursue a more experimental sound". MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikilink first instance of The Edge, and define who or what he is. Also, be consistent on whether it's "the Edge" or "The Edge".
  • There was only one instance I found where "the" was used instead of "The". That's now been fixed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The Bono quote is included twice: once in the body of the text, once in the quote box. Is this intentional?
  • It was intentional, but if it looks wrong I can swap out the one in the quote box for another. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Edit: I've removed the quote from the main body instead. There's really no need to have it twice I guess. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Linear:

  • I think the first sentence would work better if it started with "A film called Linear, directed by Anton Corbijn, is included..." The way it's written now, I don't think it's evident to the reader why the article starts describing a film all of a sudden, and the start looks like the start of a whole new article.

Composition:

  • "experimental sound" – Wasn't this covered already in the Recording and production section?
  • "got tired of [writing in] the first-person" – This also was already covered before.
  • I've brought that information down here as it's integral to the composition of several individual songs. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "with Bono describing it as" → "and Bono describes (described?) it as" (with + -ing again)
  • "Eno-esque" – Are you really sure that's a word? :)
  • Well if it isn't, it should be! =P I've dropped the "esque" from that description; do you think that works better? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm... Perhaps "a synthesizer line by Eno" would be clearer? Jafeluv (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "junkie" → "drug addict" (several times) – Use a more neutral wording.
  • "The song is closest to the band's original concept for the album." – What does this mean? Closest compared to what? Is the sentence really needed?
  • Changed to "The song is closest to the band's original concept for an album of future hymns". MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Eno described the song as such:" – I think this could use a rewording
  • "with the guitar solo at the conclusion of the song taken from..." → "and the guitar solo at the conclusion was taken from..." (with + -ing)
  • "with Lanois noting that..." → "and Lanois noted that..." (with + -ing)
  • Why is "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" pipelinked?
  • It's the same kind of thing as with Fes/Fez I guess. The article name is written one way, and the sources all name it by it's alternative title ("veni, veni"). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Newfoundland links to a dab page. Which meaning is meant here?
  • In general, I think that this section is a bit too long and goes into too much detail when compared to the rest of the article.
  • Hmm, not really sure what I can do about that. There's 11 songs, so condensing all of that down is quite a challenge. What do you recommend be pruned? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, tough question... The section is pretty long, for me it takes up a whole screen. However, the structure doesn't really allow dividing it into smaller subsections. Also, all the information is relevant to the songs in question, and it's sourced as well. An optimal solution would be to move most of the information to song articles, since the detailed information is more relevant to people who want to read about the individual songs. It's not necessary to provide all the details in the album article. However, most of the songs don't have articles and I'm not sure all of them would pass WP:NSONG. Plain removal of sourced information seems wrong as well. If it was I, I'd probably try to put together articles for each of the songs (since each of them already has some sourced material, and I'm sure more could be found) and make the section in the album article a sort of overview of the most important compositional details, and provide links to the song articles. If on the other hand the songs aren't notable enough to have their own articles, I'd say keep the information there and see if the people at FAC have 1) objections to it being there and 2) suggestions on what to do with it. Jafeluv (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Of the four songs that have articles, three are singles. The one exception is "White as Snow" which, while probably non-notable, has enough developmental information about it to warrant an article (per WP:NSONGS). Going on just instinct, I don't think that (m)any of the other songs would have enough information to warrant articles. I think I'll do as you suggest and wait until FAC to see what other editors think. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Release:

  • "with The Edge commenting..." → "and The Edge commented..." (with + -ing)

Cover art:

  • "Original releases of the album's cover had an equals sign superimposed in the middle of the cover, but later releases featured only the image itself without the equals sign." – redundant

Supporting tour:

  • "Tickets sold out quickly after going on sale" – redundant

Reception

  • "with Rolling Stone labelling it..." → "and Rolling Stone labelled it..." (with + -ing)
  • "with Uncut commenting that..." → "and Uncut commented that..." (with + -ing)
  • "5th" and "10th", but "seventh" – Is there a reason to use these inconsistently?
  • Nope, probably just an oversight (except in the case where "10th" is part of the source's title). All are now spelt out.
  • Why is Brazil wikilinked, while none of the other countries are?

Singles:

  • Is "Belgian Singles Top 50" the same as "Belgium Singles Top 50"?

Personnel:

  • The Edge: "vocals" → "backing vocals" – Otherwise the reader has to follow the wikilink to find out if he sang backing or lead vocals. Same with others below.

Successor chart: - Primera Fila should be disambiguated to Primera Fila (Vicente Fernández album).

Links:

  • This indicates at least one dead link and a couple of suspicious ones – might want to check them before FAC.
  • Now this I find really confusing. I checked the dead link (ref 107) by clicking on it in the References section, and it took me there straightaway with all the data intact. The note says it has been a dead link since 20 August, but if I can still access it then it can't be dead, can it? I don't see any "Suspicious" either; just firewalls on the CNN site and such that won't prevent readers from accessing that information. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the tool isn't perfect, and if you can access the link then there's no problem (false alarm). However, the tool can be very helpful in preparing for FAC since it's a quick way to check if links have been broken without having to click through each of them. Jafeluv (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Layout:

  • Maybe put the Personnel section in two columns? It looks empty when the rest of the article uses more horizontal space.
  • I've put it into columns for now, but I think it looks a bit uneven. I could split the "Additional Personnel" so that Eno and Lanois are beneath the band, but I think that may look just as off-putting. What do you think? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Either would be good, I think. Or if it looks better, just put them back in one column. It's a matter of taste really, and probably a browser-dependent thing as well. By the way, I really like the layout of the article, with well-placed images and quotes, and the chart certification tables being in two columns is a good idea. Jafeluv (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Cheers, it took a while to spread it all out so it looked right. I think that, as with the Composition section, I'll wait until FAC to see what other editors think about the Personnel columns. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Media:

  • It was used in an older version, but in the previous FAC an editor noted that it doesn't really show anything that isn't already described by text. I believe their exact words were "eye-candy". MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • They were probably right, since I don't see the exact studio setting described in such detail in the article that would justify using a non-free image to depict it. By the way, since it's a copyrighted image, it'll have to be deleted if it's not going to be used in any article. You might want to tag it with {{db-unfree}} if you're sure that it's not going to be used. Jafeluv (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the non-free use rationales for the audio clips are fine, although you might want to verify that with someone more knowledgeable on the subject.

I hope this helps. Jafeluv (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that helped a lot, thanks! There was loads of little things that had been missed. Thank you so much for going through it all and making those suggestions, it's really appreciated! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to make it a GA and then an FA

Thanks, Pedro J. the rookie 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Headings shouldn’t start with “the” – change “The Oslo Accords” to “Oslo Accords”
  • HUGE table of contents – consider reducing it, possibly by merging some of the shorter sections
  • At 132 kilobytes, the article itself is too long – should move some of the details / less important information to daughter pages and simply summarize here.
  • Current ref 197 is mis-titled
  • No contractions should be used outside of quotation marks
  • Some of your wikilinks lead to disambiguation pages – should point directly to the intended article
  • WP:ALT is a requirement for FA – none of your images have alt text except those that get it automatically
  • Dead links and inconsistent referencing styles are prominent in the References section. All links should be live, websites should have an access date and a title (and author/publisher where available), most if not all books should have ISBNs
  • Avoid run-on sentences
  • Needs a general copy edit for clarity and flow
  • Avoid linking to the same article multiple times
  • Referencing might be adequate for GA, depending on how stringent the reviewer is, but definitely is not adequate for FA. There should be at minimum 1 reference per paragraph, usually more, references for all statistics, and any potentially controversial statement must be referenced. Remember that as a BLP article, the standards for referencing are higher than a normal FAC
  • Take a look at WP:WTA and WP:Weasel – certain words introduce and editorial bias and should be avoided. There’s also some non-neutral-sounding phrasing that doesn’t fall under either policy, but that should probably also be reworded
  • Avoid one- or two-sentence paragraphs
  • Captions are meant to be a succinct summary of the picture – in the 1988 primary section, for example, the caption is the same size as the image itself – far too long
  • The blockquote format is used inconsistently – it should not be used for the short quote in the First term section, but probably should be used for the longer quote about the Vietnam War issue.
  • Should be consistent in referring to Hillary as Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton. “That same year Hillary Clinton shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act through Congress and two years later Rodham Clinton succeeded…” – inconsistent.
  • Under the heading “Travelgate controversy”, a) the text does not use that term, and b) the files controversy is also discussed.
  • Some of the issues in “Military and foreign events” chronologically belong under the first term. Is there a better way to organize this?
  • ”The Oslo Accords” only mentions the accords and doesn’t actually discuss them – the focus is Camp David
  • A number of the section titles don’t mesh exactly with the material that the section actually covers
  • In general, the organization of the article could be done better
  • There are some problems with the use or lack of hyphens and dashes
  • Conditional verb tenses should be used sparingly if at all
  • In “Personal health”, there seems to be a sentence or two missing at the beginning of the section
  • File:Senate in session.jpg is tagged as lacking author information
  • File:Bill Clinton 1995 im Parlament in London.jpg uses a deprecated tag that should be replaced

As it stands, I'd say the article would be put on hold at GAN, and might be passed if some of these concerns were addressed. Cheers Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Brief comments[edit]

Most of the above comments concern stylistic and organizational issues, most of which I agree with. However, I do not think the article is too long: at 55 kB (8820 words) readable prose size it is still within the suggested boundaries of WP:SIZE. Any major political figure BLP like this is going to be long, because there is much ground to cover and there has to be statement-by-statement citing.

But in addition, the article also has real substance issues, some of which were brought out in Talk:Bill Clinton/GA1 when the article lost its previous GA. For this article to reach GA/FA level, it requires the serious attention of a researcher/writer who's willing to spend time in the library. I'm interested in doing it in the fairly near future (I've done similar work on a number of other political BLPs), but I can't right now as there are some other articles I'm part way through on that I want to finish first. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As well as i, so let us finish are proyects we have and then come back to deal with the artical and it may reach the GA/FA. --Pedro J. the rookie 01:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • One comment I would like to make is that the 2008 presidential election is far too long compared with the rest of the article – half as long as the section on the first term. It's natural for recentism to creep in during prominent current events, but it's time now to cut back dramatically. A single paragraph should suffice. Good luck!  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sociology[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been greatly improved over the last 2-3 months and deserves a new rating. Hopefully by addressing any remaining faults it will be able to move on from class A to featured class. Tomsega (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


List of Real Madrid C.F. managers[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think it's close to FL status, but needs some improvements.

Thanks, Hadrianos1990 talk 05:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it has good chances to become FL. The expression "sack" seems too informal to me. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: In general the list itself seems to be in much the same format and contain much the same information as other lists of football managers, and is very clearly presented. A few specific points arise:-

  • As this is English Wikipedia, English equivalents should be given for a few terms (La Liga, Copa del Ray, Supercopa de Espaňa). This could best be done by way of a note.
  • You list only two references. They do not seem to provide all the information shown in the tables. For example, only a few recent performance statistics seem to be available on these sites, so where has the historic information come from?
  • Unlike other football management lists which have been featured, ther are virtually no in-line citations
  • All references need to be properly formatted, providing minimally title, publisher and access date.
  • Who is behind the Real Madrid portal site? How can we be confident that it is accurate?
  • In the text, the phrase "as well as those who have been in permanent charge" is unnecessary, since this is clearly the main object of the list.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


Nansen's Fram expedition[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This account of Nansen's most famous Arctic voyage has been written from scratch. Members of Project Norway have helpfully chipped in. Generally it's a joint effort, with me looking after the text and Ruhrfisch doing the maps and charts. These are still being developed, but the prose is ready for review. All comments and suggestions welcomed. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Looks like a solid effort.

Lede: "artefacts" The distinctive UK spelling will raise eyebrows among US readers. Perhaps "debris", or as you have it in the body "relics"?

  • "sunk off Siberia" Fair size territory, that. I gather the northern coast? Suggest saying "northern" or "Arctic".
  • "Fram'" May want to specify in the lede that this is a Norwegian word, as I imagine this is.
  • Final sentence of lede sounds very vague to me.

Background: "their leader". Perhaps say "captain" or "DeLong"?

Preparations: Was Nansen certain enough that the ship would pass across the pole to say "probably"? Small point, big ocean.

  • Nansen's words show that he was extremely confident; "probably" is a little on the cautious side. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Christiania Geographical Society". Was this the society's name then? the article that this pipes to isn't clear on that point. It might be nice if you could manoeuver the text to make it clear that Christiania was Oslo, not just that the meeting was held there. You do refer to the expedition leaving Christiania later on.
  • "Lieut. David Brainerd" Is it conventional to abbr. his title like this?
  • "being nipped by the ice" Nipped? If that is a technical term for ice doing something nasty to a ship, perhaps a more lay term would be in order, like "crushed" or "violently done to destruction as in all the best sci-fi movies"
  • Reasons why Nansen wouldn't take the money. Is it worth mentioning that it would have been bad politically for Nansen to take money from a Swede, given the political situation with Norwegian nationalism on the rise? For the same reasons, instead of national expedition, say "entirely Norwegian expedition" and insert "Norwegian" before "government"?
  • "private subscriptions". I more commonly see this as "private subscription".
  • "King Oscar" Oscar II, no?
  • "an Englishman, Charles Dick" I'd simply say "Englishman Charles Dick", unless you are afraid that "Englishman" would be seen as part of his name ...
  • "forestall him". Not 100 percent sure this is the best word, I know you mean "get there first", but that wouldn't actually stop Nansen from going.
    • I tend to think it is the best word available. He almost certainly wouldn't have got the financial support if, say, a Russian or American expedition had got in first, and I doubt he'd have wanted to go anyway, in those circumstances. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "ratio of" Perhaps state what a more typical ship would have a ratio of?
    • Neither Nansen nor Huntford give a typical ratio, they just say that Fram's ration of length to beam was unusual. I can add a footnote giving, by way of comparison, Discovery's ratio (one-fifth) but I don't want to magnify the point or do a lot of OR. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Lars Petterson" I take his nationality was discovered after sailing? I'd say, one way or the other.
    • It's not clear. Huntford says "his shipmates soon rumbled him" but doesn't say when. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

More later. Very well written, I am having trouble finding stuff to criticize.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Voyage. "On 9 September a wide lead opened up," This may be unclear to the non-sailor.

  • Revolution in polar travel methods: It may be a good idea to mention that these methods were widely adopted by later expeditions, if so.
    • This point is covered in the Assessment section. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Greely's" Even though Greely is previously mentioned, I'd wikilink it again, it has been a long time.
  • "his intention publicly" perhaps "his intention to the crew"?
  • "Thereafter Nansen thoroughly" After which date? I imagine 28 February, but it is unclear. Suggest "after the abortive departures" or similar language.
  • "It was becoming increasingly doubtful whether they had sufficient food to enable them to reach the pole and then make the journey to Franz Josef Land, unless the surface improved." Awkward. Suggest, "Unless the surface improved, they might not have enough food to let them reach the pole and journey to Franz Josef Land."
  • ", launched the kayaks which they fashioned into a catamaran by lashing sledges and skis across them," Again, awkward. Perhaps "converted the kayaks into a catamaran by lashing sledges and skis across them"?
  • Map: maybe include on it Cape Felder and Eira Harbor?
    • I'll have to consult my esteemed map-maker, but I see no problem here. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Kayaks drifting away. The plural is used. But Nansen retrieves "the craft". Were they in the form of a catamaran again?
  • "Drift (phase 2)" The first drift subsection is named "Drift (first phrase)". Perhaps come up with a different title for one subsection or the other, then eliminate the whole first/second?
    • I've regularised the titles, but I can't honestly think of better ways of heading the sections. Any inspiration on your part would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Fram had become a floating oceanographic" Fram wasn't then floating, the ice was floating.
  • Nansen right and his detractors wrong: Yes, he got the fact of the drift right, but didn't Fram come out rather further east than expected?
    • Maybe it did, but the sources are silent on this issue. Perhaps if Sverdrup had let nature take its course instead of trying to break out once Fram neared Spitsbergen, she would have drifted further west? That is speculation, however. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have anything more. Excellent read. I had to read it twice, once to find out what happened and then in detail for this review. Well done!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments, most helpful. I will address them shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I have addressed them all. Where there is no comment you can take it that I have more or less adopted your suggestions. I have commented on all other issues. Thanks once again. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
New section
  • "On 28 October it became evident that the ice would not break up, and the dogs were moved from the ship to kennels on the ice. On 5 October the rudder was raised to a position of safety..." If the dates are correct, it might be well to reverse the order, such that it reads chronologically.
    • 28 October was a mistake. Should have been 28 September. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "He committed suicide within a year of his return to Norway." From where? From Antarctica, perhaps? Not necessary, but it would read better, I think. We have him quarreling with Amundsen, but we don't know where.
    • Prose fixes should clarify these points. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "...a four-month voyage in the sealer Viking, ..." I'd have said aboard the sealer, not in. ('On the sealer' would work, too.)
  • "working as a curator in the Bergen Museum" In the museum, or at?
    • Thes last two points also fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

- Hordaland (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for these helpful comments which I will address shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Throughout the lede, Fram is referred to as "it". Most ships in the rest of the article are she/her.
  • Made it she/her for ships throughout, unless in a quote. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my nitpicking! Here's another: "In the face of much discouragement from regular polar explorers Nansen took his ship..."

I stop up at the word regular. Are these people who regularly explore polar areas? Regular as in ordinary explorers? Since Nansen had already done his Greenland trek and thus could himself be called a "polar explorer", perhaps it could say "...much discouragement from other polar explorers..." - Hordaland (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "regular" was used in the sense of "following normal practice". But you're right - its meaning could be misunderstood, so I have adopted your suggestion. And please don't stop "nitpicking"; your suggestions are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those who gave suggestions/advice in this review. It seems unlikely that there will be further contributions now, so I will probably nominate it at FAC later today, or tomorrow. Ruhrfisch has agreed to co-nom (he did the maps and charts). Brianboulton (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Richard Gavin Reid[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think I'm close to taking this to WP:FAC, and it's always good to have another set of eyes look it over before I do. I'm afraid that I can't be too specific with what I'm looking for; if I knew what the article's weak points were, I'd already have addressed them. Steve Smith (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

  • Some phrases are not written in a strict encyclopedic tone. For example, "an unsubtle attack" seems to reflect a certain POV. There are multiple instances of this type of problem, which for me would mean an oppose at FAC
  • Considerably better: there are still a few phrasings that could be improved (for example, "of cold comfort") and some unnecessary passive voice, but I would now support this at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The images have alt text, but the text for the first image is problematic (a "mand" with "brown hair" in a black-and-white photo)
  • The article links to Richard G. Reid, which in turn redirects back to this article
  • I assume all dollar values are in Canadian dollars? Should specify on first appearance, maybe by linking C$
  • Litre is usually abbreviated with a capital L
  • Should try to avoid very short paragraphs where possibleI merged some of the shorter ones, but deliberately left the last sentence of the lead in its own paragraph, because I think it pops better that way. Steve Smith (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "On in Alberta" (should be "Once in Alberta")
  • Should avoid linking the same term more than once, twice at most. Once you've removed some of those, you'll probably need to link some additional unique terms.
  • Two of his offices from the infobox (Treasury Board President and Provincial Secretary) are not mentioned in the article
  • FAC tends to demand a greater citation density than is present here, although so long as every fact is supported I don't think they can justly oppose based on that
  • In "References", Rennie is listed with "pp. 108". pp. is used for multiple pages, and other pages are cited in Notes.
  • Publisher for Finkel?

I'd probably oppose at FAC at this point, although I agree that it's close to being FA-level. Feel free to comment/disagree with any of these points. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! With regards to the fifth point, that's using {{convert}}, so I gather there's a reason for that. With regards to the tenth, I used to cite more densely, and got taken to task for it by Tony at my last FAC, so now I avoid consecutive uses of the same cite within one paragraph. As for the rest, I'll work on it. Thanks again. Steve Smith (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm striking out your comments as I address them; I'm doing so for my own reference, and I hope that's okay. Steve Smith (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
That's fine for all but the first one the list - when you feel you've fixed that, I'd prefer to review it myself. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good; I'll be glad to have you take another look at that. Steve Smith (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Resolute[edit]

  • While it is consistent throughout, is there any reason why this article is in British English rather than Canadian? While he was born in Scotland, he's most associated with Canada. Doesn't really need a change, but I am curious.
  • Basically, I'm quite clear on the difference between British and American English, but not so much on exactly where Canadian English fits on the spectrum. If you want to clarify in which ways the two are inconsistent (as applied in this article), I'd be happy to change it. Steve Smith (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed it immediately with the British date format (d/m/y) rather than the North American (m/d/y), but there are also small discrepancies - i.e.: the British "organisation" rather than the Canadian/American "organization". The entire article, as it stands, is consistently written in British English, and given he was born a Scot, I doubt it strictly needs to change. It is probably fine as is. Resolute 00:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "He emerged from the experience with C$160." I'm at a loss to understand the importance of this statement.
  • "were ultra vires the province under the Canadian constitution." Missing word? Should that read "ultra vires of the province"?
  • The 1935 campaign was one of the nastiest in provincial history. Is there anything along those lines that related to attacks Reid received or gave that can be noted?
  • Not really. As far as giving goes, the UFA's strategy was basically to rely on voters to be rational (oh, those crazy farmers). Brownlee did get in some good jabs, but I figured I couldn't justify including them here. As for giving, Aberhart was more about railing against the entire establishment than against individuals, and Reid was pretty innocuous in any event. Howson was somewhat nastier, but he seemed not to have targeted Reid individually much—Brownlee and McPherson, yes, but Reid seems to have been surprisingly non-entity-ish for a Premier. Steve Smith (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, I can't see much in the way of improvements necessary. Cheers, Resolute 22:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also to add, I have a book on the 100th anniversary of the UFA. I'll see if it has anything to add for this article. Resolute 22:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

World War I aces credited with more than 20 victories[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to put it up for FL soon (I'd like to get the whole series done). I've checked the FL criteria, and don't see any major issues, but I need fresh eyes to be sure.

Thanks, Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Bencherlite

A couple of things on a very quick glance; if time permits, I'll give it more of a "going over" another time.

  • Featured lists don't start "This is a list of title in bold" anymore - see some examples from recently-promoted lists at WP:FLL. Note that you don't have to have anything in bold in the opening sentence - see MOS:LEAD#First_sentence and WP:BOLDTITLE (same document, different sections). I'd expand the lead - it ought to be much more than two sentences.
  • The names should sort by surname, not first name - use {{sortname}}. This is dull to do, I'm sorry...
  • Oh, and you list the OBE / CBE in the key, but I can't find it in the notes. Did I miss it?

That's all for now. BencherliteTalk 00:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I redid the intro, removed the bold and reworked it into three paragraphs.
  • I will work on the surnames bit, but it'll take time. Done converting to sortname.
  • The key is on a separate footer template that is used over multiple lists, which combine at List of World War I flying aces-All, the OBE/CBE are used on at least one of those lists, if not this one. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 16:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
While I was waiting on my other peer review, I threw this list together basing it off of List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft. I have developed this list from scratch within the last week and would like any advice on what needs to be done to improve it. I have tried to make sure it is well sourced and thorough. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, ↔NMajdantalk 22:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking over it, I myself cannot see any major errors. The list is very thorough, and was understandable to someone like myself who does not even understand football all that well. While I haven't verified your citations, I noticed that every note is cited. I have very few suggestions, but believe they may be of service:
  • A right indented table of contents would serve well, and allow you to take the links to the References and Notes section out of the compact TOC.
  • "The 2010 NFL Draft will be held April 22-24, 2010 at the Radio City Music Hall in New York City, New York." should be referenced.
  • Can the table be made sortable? I'd like to be able to see, for example, all the players that were first round picks. Every column except for names, notes and reference is easily sortable.
Other than that, I can't see anything else. Good work! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I added an additional TOC and removed the References link from the "Jump To" TOC however, I feel the Notes section was still important enough to the main table to leave it in the "Jump To." I added a citation of the 2010 Draft. It would be very difficult to make this sortable as I would have to get rid of the multi-row header and get rid of the multi-row year columns (so instead of one 1940 cell covering nine players, there would be nine 1940 cells). Same change would have to be made to the references column.—NMajdantalk 16:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Outrage (Marcus Welby)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it is at or near GA status and would like anoher set of eye on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

  • I have looked at several TV episode GAs. This article seems broadly equivalent to these in overall quality, and I wouldn't expect there to be much of a problem in it being promoted.
  • However, I would expect there to be additional basic information in the lead. Most such articles give episode number in the series, the names of the writer and director, and the audience figures.
  • The plot section is rather short, and could be fleshed out. A longer plot section would give a better balance to the article's content, which at present is heavily skewed towards the controversy. This is unsurprising, since the controversy is clearly the most significant thing about the episode, but a more detailed plot would be an improvement.
  • In the Background section, do you really want to say "The titular Loring, a middle-aged man, suffered from high blood pressure, diabetes, alcoholism and homosexuality" rather than "The titular Loring, a middle-aged homosexual man, suffered from high blood pressure, diabetes and alcoholism"?
  • The word "zap" is slang and definitely not encyclopedic
  • Why is it necessary to list the "guest stars" separately in the infobox when there is a full cast list in the article?

There is not much more I can say. The article is well written, the references look good and there are no obvious MOS violations. I have made a few small-scale fixes myself. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Lostock Hall[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because at first had no peer status, until I started some work on it, and it was upgraded to a B-class. On September 16, 2009 I put the article up for GA nomination; however I cancelled the request a few weeks later, as there were a few copyright issues which needed resolving. These have now been fixed, and I'm looking to see if (1) everything is in order; and (2) if the article now is looking good enough to becoming a GA article.

Thanks, Pr3st0n (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This could eventually become a good article about what appears to be an interesting and charming place, but it's nowhere near GA in its present state. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead doesn't summarize anything except geography and early history. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a brief mention of the main topics of each of the main text sections. It would be OK to have four paragraphs in the lead for an article this complete, and they should include something about governance, culture, economy, education, and the others.
    The lead I was struggling with a little - I was hoping that a peer review might be able to shed some light as to where I was going wrong with it - your comments and advice have helped me immensely. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Origins and early history

  • Even if some of the text in this section comes directly from a public-domain source, I think any direct quotations should be identified as such and put inside quotation marks or blockquotes and should be clearly attributed to the source. Judging by the language, paragraph 2 might be copied from source 2.
    One of the copyright advisor's on Wikipedia Moonriddengirl helped me out with this, and left things as they were - I wasn't aware that quotations needed to be used. I would have thought the user who helped, would have known of this fact. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Sadly, Lostock's Hall became destroyed by fire." - "Sadly" is an editorial judgment or interpretation and would be hard to verify. I'd just delete the word. Or perhaps this paragraph is a copy from a source. I fixed the misspelling of "destroyed" before seeing the misspelling of "inherited", but if this is a quote that contains misspellings, fixing the spelling was the wrong thing to do. I can't be sure.
    Couldn't think of any other way to describe this, and used the word "Sadly". Any suggestions on other alternative words to use? Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    Nothing, just use the bare statement "Lostock's Hall was described by fire" If someone has described this event as sad then you could add, "this was seen as a sad event by . . ." and add a citation. NtheP (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
  • "gave the Hall and its 6 ½ acres" - All of the imperial measures should be given also in metric units; this one should be 6.5 acres (2.6 ha). I like to use the {{convert}} template for this, but it's OK to do them by hand.
  • "During the final months of the hospital existance," - "existence"
  • "It wasn't until 29 April 1985, the the first Day Care service took place." - Remove echo "the".
    Will look into these can fix accordingly. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ward Street bombings

  • "The most serious of these attacks to effect the village... " - "affect"
  • "was when the Leyland Motors factory came under attack during by a single bomber... " - Use either "during" or "by" but not both. I'll stop noting the individual proofing errors at this point, but it's clear that the whole article needs a thorough copyediting to find and fix errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
    Will look into these can fix accordingly. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikilink cenotaph?
    I wikilinked cenotaph purely to help as an aid to any younger researchers, who didn't know what a cenotaph was. There are some people out there in the world who think they are only called "War Memorials", and are not ware of their real name, cenotaph. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Governance

  • "Mr." and "Mrs." are not generally used as titles in Wikipedia articles.
    I wasn't aware of this, as I have come across other articles which use the terms "Mr." and "Mrs.". I Shall fix these accordingly. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Is "mayoress" an actual title? Is it a real word? Wouldn't a mayor who was a woman be called "mayor"? If so, her husband would surely not be the mayoress.
    "Mayoress" is indeed word used to describe a female mayor. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Geography

  • "The climate in Lostock Hall bares similarities to its northerly neighbour, the City of Preston. Both Lostock hall and Preston are situated to the west of the Pennines, which can be clearly visible on both dry, sunny days, as well as dark gloomy ones. During several periods of rainfall, Lostock Hall falls victim to many flooded areas, mainly around the junction of Emily Street and Leyland Road; Lourdes Avenue, just outside the school grounds; Croston Road (under the railway bridge situated beside The Anchor Inn), and also along parts of Coote Lane. Sandbags can be seen outside properties along Coote Lane, as precaution to sudden bursts of rainfall." - This whole paragraph is sourced to the Blackpool climate averages from the Met Office. The problem is that the source data bears little relation to the claims in the paragraph. That the Pennines are visible, that Lostock Hall often floods in certain locations, and that sandbags appear along Coote Lane appear to reflect original research rather than the Met Office data. The sources must clearly support the exact claims; otherwise the text violates WP:V because it can't be verified by readers. Please also see WP:NOR.
    Even though the climate between Lostock Hall, and its northerly neighbour, Preston, are the same, the Met Office data wouldn't necessarily show the finer details about localised flooding in their article. They only point out the flooding in more common areas. There are sandbags outside all the properties along Coote Lane; which is why I included this into the article. People visiting the village often wonder why the sandbags are there, so I was providing detail from a local point-of-view; without making it sound like myself speaking. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Demography

  • "The 2001 population density for inhabitants per square mile (2,065 /km²) was unknown." - If the density is known for square kilometers, it can be calculated for square miles. I'm therefore not sure what the sentence means.
    the only information given on this was "per square mile"; even though we're suppose to be in metric; most of Britain still uses imperial measures. Metric hasn't been officially brought into force yet over here. I could include an additional column to so conversions between metric and imperial. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "attained a level 1 as the highest qualification" - Should "level 1" and parallel terms be wikilinked or explained for foreign readers?
    I will wikilink "level 1" to help explain this for foreign readers. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Economy

  • Citation 13, which links to a photograph, is not a source for the claims in the paragraph. I will stop here.
    The source claims in the paragraph (which also uses Citation 13) describes a mill, to which is still used to this present day - I added the same citation to the image, to show what the mill looks like in its present form. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope these comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Overall, I would like to thank Finetooth for your review on this article, and will work hard to rectify the areas you gave advice on. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Small-town hero (talk)

I'm afraid I haven't had chance to read through the article, but I see that the "Modern day industries" section is lacking sources, and this is something that will need to be addressed. My biggest concern is with regard to the images used in the article, which appear to have been blindly tagged with {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}:

I found a usable photo of the Methodist church on geograph which I have uploaded at File:Methodist church, Lostock Hall.jpg. Small-town hero (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Pr3st0n (talk)

Firstly I would like to start with the images commented on by Small-town hero, if I may.

  • File:Map of Lostock Hall, 1892.jpg the source from this is the Ordinance Survey Map people, as the map is prior to the 1923 rule set by Wikipedia, I knew it would be safe to use - however, everytime I tried to add a source to it, I kept getting the "red link" errors, so gave up on it.
  • File:Lostock Hall, Watkin Lane c1955.jpg and File:Lostock Hall, Leyland Road c1965.jpg are both images which I purchased in 2007, from the Francis Frith website; the link to purchase any image from them can be found at the top right corner of their website. They posted the images to my home address, and both images have the watermark on them, which is frustrating, which I sure you can understand. The purchased images hang on a wall at my home, and where scanned onto my PC so that I could use them in the article. As I had scanned images which I had purchased, I didn't think I would be in breach of any violations.
  • File:Todd Hall, Lostock Hall, c1937.jpg is an image which I purchased from the Lancashire Lantern website; the link to purchase any image from them can be found directly underneath the image of your choice. They emailed the images to me, and again, the emailed image has the watermark on it. I have informed the company of this, as it could be an error on their behalf. As I had scanned image which I had purchased, I didn't think I would be in breach of any violations.
  • File:Pleasant Retreat Inn, Lostock Hall.jpg and the Pleasant Retreat group on Bebo are both mine. During my period of employment at the pub, it was agreed that a "group" should be created on a social network site - as most of our regular customers where members of the Bebo and Facebook websites; I created groups on both; and uploaded the image which was also took by myself onto both. You will see, especially on Bebo, that my full name "Gareth Forrest" appears all over it. I left there in December 2008, and passed on the moderator rights to the group to another member of staff, "Thomas Hamilton" also known on his Bebo account as "Phat Tom".
  • With regards to File:StJames, lostock hall.jpg, File:Our Lady of Lourdes and Saint Gerard Majella Church.jpg, and File:WatkinLaneUMFC.jpg; I followed the guidelines set out by the Genuki website here. Mr David Hawgood, the person it states to email; ensured me that he was emailing Wikipedia, to give permission for the images to be used, and that it would be fine to use them. Naturally, I won't know if you have received the email yet.
  • This image, was taken by myself; and although it looks identical to the photo shown on the website you supplied, I can indeed stipulate that it isn't. Naturally some images can seem identical when taken, especially if they are both shot from the same spot. I'm not to know where previous photographers have stood to take images now am I. This also applies for this photograph, and this photograph. Albeit, all 3 look alike, which is very ironic indeed. And without actually posting the negatives to you; I can't find any other way to back up the fact that I also used my camera to take photos of those 3 places.
  • File:Lostock Hall 10D MPD 27-07-68.jpg is my own photo, well my late grandfathers top be exact, to which his collection has been passed onto me. As you can tell, it is an original photo, which I have scanned onto my computer. Who ever owns this website has obtained a copy somehow, which is a little worrying to be honest. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware that the thread WP:ANI#Copyright concerns, User:Pr3st0n has been opened to discuss concerns about these photos. Additionally, as has been explained at User talk:Pr3st0n, purchasing a photo from a website does not transfer copyright. I have removed File:Lostock Hall, Watkin Lane c1955.jpg, File:Lostock Hall, Leyland Road c1965.jpg and File:Todd Hall, Lostock Hall, c1937.jpg from the article and tagged them for speedy deletion because of copyright infringement. The disposition of other photos are currently being discussed at ANI. CactusWriter | needles 15:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Denton, Texas[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see what improvements I can make to the article. I'd like to get it to GA status and then possibly FA if it's feasible. Also, I know it needs a good editor to go through and improve the prose. My English writing skills are somewhat lacking with English being my second language. Thank you. MahangaTalk 14:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MahangaTalk 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Review (Mcorazao)[edit]

Pretty nicely written overall. Here is my feedback.

Things I would recommend that you change

These are things that IMHO you should definitely change.

  • General
  • The inline citations need to be specific. For example, the article cites the Annual Program of Services directory. Instead it should cite a specific report with a specific page number.
Ok, I knew that.
  • The article makes substantial use of primary sources (i.e. information published by the topic being discussed). For example, when talking about Denton Regional Medical Center the article cites the medical center web site. When talking about geographic locations it is unavoidable that primary sources are going to have to be used but the article should try to look for secondary or tertiary sources as much as possible (I think there are a lot more secondary sources that could be found).
Attempted to add a few more secondary sources. It was a bit harder than I thought.
  • There are no "hard" sources cited. Generally a mark of a good article is a list of books listed at the bottom (usually the section is named "Further Reading"). This is not to say that web or news sources are not ok but, in general, if web and news sources are your only sources it makes the whole article a little dubious.
Made use of a public domain book in the history section. Included in the References section and Further Reading.
  • Some additional inline citations are necessary. I'll tag.
I removed some of those sentences since they were not included by me and I could not find a concrete source for them.
  • Most of the images lack alt text, which allows readers who can't see the images to learn what information they contain. You can find details about how to write alt text and where to put them at WP:ALT.
I'll get on this, although I know I'm not going to enjoy it. It seems so simple, yet so difficult.
  • Intro
  • The introduction mentions the results of two separate census counts. I realize that the point was to illustrate how much the city is growing but those details are best left to the demographics section. Keep statistics to a minimum.
  • History
  • The early history is a little disjointed. Maybe a little rephrasing that tells a little more of a story would be good (who was Otis Welch and, apart from the fact that people wanted a county seat there, what was his motivation for wanting to be involved in establishing a town?).
Still working on this.
  • "killed in an Native-American battle" - Not sure what that means. A battle of Texans against Native Americans? A battle between native tribes he got in the middle of?
Reworded
  • Economy
  • The section doesn't really give a clear picture of what type of economy it has and what the dominant industries are. If you look at Houston#Economy, for example, it talks about key industries and economic sectors and how they make up the economy. It only incidentally mentions specific corporations. Granted since Denton is smaller mentioning specific companies makes more sense but still only in the context of discussing the economic sectors.
Fixed.
  • The section spends a substantial amount discussing the the city government's cash flow. But the government is not the dominant player in the economy so going into all of this detail on the city's finances doesn't seem appropriate.
Removed and reworded.
  • The relevance of the statement on the Golden Triangle Mall is unclear. What does it matter that it is the largest mall? Does this mall actually represent one of the town's major economic hubs (is there a source)?
Good point. Clarified.
  • Culture and recreation
  • A little strange to start out the "Festivals and Activities" section talking about a discontinued annual event. If this is mentioned at all it should probably be moved to the end.
Moved.
  • Education
  • The library info is too detailed. Honestly I would debate if the library info needs to be there at all. If you're going to keep it I would reduce it to one or two sentences.
I noticed another FA city have a library subsection, so I thought I'd include it.
  • Notable natives and residents
  • Be careful about going too far to claim people are "from" Denton. I don't think Dr. Phil or Norah Jones really lived a long time in Denton. These kinds of sections can be tricky. If you can't establish that they lived in the city a very long time (say a decade or two) or that they at least consider themselves natives of the city then claiming they are "from" Denton has to be considered Original Research.
I've reworded it a little to de-emphasize Norah Jones is from Denton, but attended UNT. Remove Dr. Phil. All other people are natives or based in Denton, which I think deserves mention.

Things to think about

These are things that, if it were me, I would change but others may disagree.

  • Mentioning in the intro the founding and incorporation dates, who the town was named after, what people from Denton are called, and such seems like trivial info to include at the beginning. I would focus on summarizing the universities, the music scene, any other key economic sectors, state/national rankings, and anything interesting or important about the history.
Tweaked it a bit. I've looked at some other articles and incorporation dates are all included. I'd rather not remove too much from the lead because it's barely long enough as it is.
  • Separating out the history of Fry Street from the rest of the history doesn't really seem right to me. I would say Fry Street's history should be merged into the main history.
I agree. I'm not sure what to do with it since it includes: information regarding the historic area, the more recent fair, and very recent news regarding its development. Still working on this.
  • Ideally the Geography section should at least mention the natural geography (terrain, folliage, etc.).
Ok.

Hope that helps.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the lengthy review. It helps a lot. I'll get working on those issues. MahangaTalk 17:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. It's very much appreciated! MahangaTalk 18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Swaminarayan[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I list this article along with User:AroundTheGlobe and User:World. This article is about Swaminarayan, the founder of a modern Hindu sectm - Swaminarayan Sampraday. The article passed Ga in July. We need comments keeping WP:FA? in mind. How close is it to FA. Comments are required about layout, coverage, jargon (if any) and anything else you see that would improve the article. Thanks, Redtigerxyz Talk 05:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Nick Griffin[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Nick Griffin is to be a panellist on next week's BBC Question Time. The programme may generate increased views for this page (I don't know if it will or not), and I think its important that on such an occasion, Wikipedia should be able to present as unbiased and as neutral an article as possible on what is obviously a contentious subject. I have no support for Griffin or his policies, or for those of his peers, but in the recent GAR there was still evidence of my bias against him, in the edits I have made (I've probably written most of this article).

I'd very much like this to be reviewed quickly, so that the article is ship-shape before next Thursday's (22nd) broadcast, which has been reported regularly in the media. The article is already protected against vandalism.

Thanks, Parrot of Doom 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Steve Smith[edit]

This is a good article about a somewhat less good man. The prose is some distance from perfect, though I've tried to improve it where I can. It also uses some terminology that is unlikely to be familiar to all English speakers (me, for example). Some specific comments:

  • The article frequently uses a comma after the first item of a two-item list. I've removed those occurrences, but now I'm doubting myself: is there some British grammatical convention by which this is done? I've certainly never seen it, but, as I am loathe to admit, I don't know everything.
    • No there isn't really, so thanks for that :) Parrot of Doom 12:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest replacing the {{quote}} templates whose contents are not integrated into the article (i.e. all but the first, sixth, and eighth) with {{quote box}} or similar, as the current format seems to break up the text unnecessarily. For the three that are incorporated into the text, I'd advise removing the speaker's name, since it's clear from context.
    • I've put the Gordon Brown and Boris Johnson quotes in a quotebox, and removed one quote entirely as it wasn't really long enough to warrant inclusion (I changed it to prose). I've also removed those names as suggested. Parrot of Doom 12:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The adjective "strong" is rather overused here. I'd actually recommend eliminating all of its occurrences, since it doesn't really add anything and can be construed as being POV.
  • "During a union debate his affiliation..." I'm not familiar with the concept of a union debate. Is it a Britishism? Is there an article to which it could be wikilinked?
    • Possibly there is an article, but nothing specific. Union debates are simply debates held by the local student union (a grouping of students which exists to help other students through their education). Union debates are good training grounds for politicians, many of our current politicians would have been union presidents, leaders, etc. Parrot of Doom 12:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "He helped set up the White Noise Music Club in 1979..." Could a two or three word description of what this is be incorporated into the sentence?
    • I haven't really found anything, but most of the sources would suggest that it was some kind of 'white power' music club (hence the Skrewdriver line after this). Parrot of Doom 12:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "As a member of the National Front Griffin contested the seat of Croydon North West twice, in 1981 and 1983." While I gather he lost, some mention of the result of these elections would be good.
    • This has been frustrating. I haven't found a single reliable source for this, hence the incomplete table. I'm slightly nervous about putting it into prose without a reference, as such things can easily be overlooked with time. Parrot of Doom 12:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • User:Malleus Fatuorum has come to the rescue here, and found some sources, which I've added to the article. I've also made mention of the percentage secured, I think any other wording might lead to things like 'well behind the leading parties', and be a bit contentious. Parrot of Doom 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "He later stewarded a public Holocaust denial meeting hosted by David Irving." I'm not aware of this definition of steward, and I don't see anything in Merriam Webster that seems to apply. Would this be the same as chairing a meeting? Is that terminology used in the UK?
    • In Britain, if you're stewarding something it usually means that you're involved in some minor capacity, like showing guests the way in, stopping people parking their cars in the wrong places, making sure people get to where they're supposed to be, etc. Its a fairly general job role. Parrot of Doom 12:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Griffin re-entered politics in 1993..." In what capacity?
    • Unknown. The source simply says that he 'resurfaced into extremist politics in 1993'. Parrot of Doom 12:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Although Tyndall had in 1982 founded the BNP, its links to extremism helped Griffin in his 1999 campaign to replace Tyndall as BNP leader." Awkward and unclear. As I read it, what helped Griffin was Tyndall's extremism, not the BNP's (if the BNP had been more extremist, it seems more likely that it would have supported Tyndall over Griffin, no?). Anyway, I think the sentence should be rewritten.
  • "One of Griffin's changes included the party's strong emphasis on the removal of multiculturalism," There's a verb missing here. Did his changes include "introducing the party's strong emphasis", "eliminating the party's strong emphasis", "modifying the party's strong emphasis", or what?
    • Another good point, I've added 'moderating' as that seems to be most neutral. The BNP, and Griffin, still object to multiculturalism, although not quite in the same fashion as they once did (boots and fists) Parrot of Doom 12:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "...for less serious crimes such as juvenile delinquency." I'm not sure juvenile delinquency qualifies as a "less serious crime", since it can include murder, rape, etc. Juvenile delinquency is a type of crime defined not by the actions but by the people committing them, which strikes me as independent of seriousness.
    • Hmm, I think that might just be a language thing. Over here, anyone described as a juvenile delinquent is merely a minor troublecauser, someone who robs houses, steals cars, etc. I've never seen a murderer or rapist described as a JD in Britain. Can you suggest an alternative phrase, for readers not in Britain? Parrot of Doom 12:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • What about just saying "...corporal punishment for non-violent offenses"? Steve Smith (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • That would lose the "juvenile" aspect, which means that the punishment would only be applied to those under the age of 18. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I wasn't suggesting it as a synonym, but as a replacement: juvenile delinquency is given as an example. As the article reads now, corporal punishment wouldn't only apply to those under 18. Steve Smith (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of 2002–2009, I'm not clear whether the vote totals reported (58,347 vs. 8,993) were for all of Wales or South Wales West. The relatively low figures leads me to believe the latter, but the use of "BNP" as a subject, rather than "Griffin", suggests the former.
    • 8993 for the BNP (Griffin), 58347 for Labour (don't know the candidate name). BNP = 5.5% of all votes cast in the South Wales West region, which has about 160,000 voters. Parrot of Doom 12:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph of 2002–2009 is a weak spot, both because it's not made clear to whom he appealed and because it suggests that he defended questions, when I presume that he defended the BNP against the questions (otherwise I am confused).

That's it for now. More comments will come, either tomorrow or Monday. Steve Smith (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) -

  • "...and that the Labour government was attempting to influence the results of the following year's general election." This appears to me to be redundant; doesn't going after an alleged block vote necessarily mean trying to influence an election?
    • Its a watered-down version of the cited article, which "alleged the government was trying to demonise the BNP ahead of next year's election." Its a tightrope, trying to keep everyone happy, I'm trying to keep bias out of the article, no matter who from Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, as long as it's attributed to Griffin I see no problem with the stronger language. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • The source isn't really very clear on who said what, so I think its best to remain vague. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "...the day after it was broadcast on 15 July 2004." This is slightly ambiguous, in that it could mean that it was broadcast 15 July or that 15 July was the day after the broadcast.
  • "...charged with four offences of using words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred." In Canada, the word we'd use here is "charges" in place of "offences". I didn't want to change it in case it's British English, though.
    • In Britain, you're charged with an offence. For example, "charged with the offence of Armed Robbery" Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That's the same as here, but in Griffin's situation we'd say that he was charged with four counts of one offence (using words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred). Steve Smith (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "...debates at several university institutions." I know a university institution can be just part of a university rather than the whole thing, but I still think that replacing "university institutions" with "universities" would be more concise without losing meaning. I leave it to the article's regular editors.
    • I'm not sure - you can have separate institutions within the same university. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I realize that; I'm just saying that just as it's true that he had debates at several university institutions, it's also true that he had debates at several universities. They don't mean the same thing, but both are true, and the second seems to me to flow better. But I'm only here to give advice; I'll let the article's regular authors make the actual decisions. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree, I'll remove the 'institutions'. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "The two had met earlier in the year..." I assume this refers to Griffin and al-Masri?
    • Yes. I'm fairly sure the debate proceeded, but haven't ever found a reliable source. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Lake wanted Griffin to visit the university and explain the BNP's policies to lecturers and students. It was, however, viewed by some as an attempt by the party to establish a foothold on the university campus." I don't see any inconsistency between these two views that would justify the use of "however". They seem not only compatible, but mutually supporting. Am I missing something?
    • No, its another example of bias, and I've removed it. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

More to come later. Steve Smith (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) -

  • "It would restore the earnings link with pensions..." This didn't make sense to me absent context. Is there a wikilink that can be provided?
    • Its a British thing, basically there used to be a link between the state pension and the average wage. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Would something like "re-implement the indexing of pensions to the average national wage" or similar be accurate? It's a few more words, but I think it would be clearer to non-British readers (and I think Nick Griffin's a subject likely to be of some interest to non-British readers). Your call, though. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I see where you're heading, but the problem would be that most people in this country only know 'pensions earnings link'. I think a wikilink would suit better, I'll have a search around for a related article/section. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's unnecessary to give the dates of his various interviews in the body of the text (though they should of course be found in the footnotes).
    • I disagree - Griffin has, with greater popularity, moderated and changed his views and the policies of his party. I think its best to keep the dates in, so people don't get confused with the timeline. Have a look for "Nick Griffin The Cook Report" on YouTube, this was well before he because mainstream, and that's the history he has to overcome. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Your point is well-taken. In that case, though, I'd still prefer to generalize somewhat (something like "In 2001 he stated that Hindus and whites had both been targeted in that year's "Muslim" riots. The same year, he claimed that radical Muslim clerics..." I think it's possible to provide temporal context without listing the date and publication in which every comment is made; for readers who want that information, it's available in the footnotes. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I've had a think about this, and I think I'll leave them as is. I was going to change them but then, there are doubtless times where Griffin has appeared on the same channel or programme more than once in a year. It isn't a biggie though for me. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "...a decision by the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the BNP's membership criteria." This could use elaboration: we're given Griffin's response to the investigation, but nothing about the basis of the investigation itself.
  • Though I recognize that this is somewhat inevitable, the "Policies and views" section sometime speaks more about the BNP than about Griffin.
    • The BNP is however primarily directed by Griffin, and the article does mention this. I included those policies by request, at the recent GAR. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I know there's only so much you can do, and you do establish Griffin's primacy in BNP policy-development. Wherever possible, if you have sources showing the BNP and Griffin expressing the same view, I think you should use the one that attributes it directly to Griffin. But year, there is some inevitability there. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have some concerns about sourcing: swaths of the article seem to rely on primary sourcing, including old versions of the BNP's website and YouTube-hosted videos of press conferences. This is supposed to be a tertiary source, in which we let secondary sources interpret the primary sources for us.

I don't think that this article is FA-ready: before it went there, I'd want so see a shift towards secondary sourcing, a better job of establishing the context of some statements, a better narrative structure (with a focus on Griffin himself), and at least two or three more copyedits (I could do another once I've re-acquired some distance from the article). Good luck! Steve Smith (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

    • I don't think its a problem to use primary sources in these instances. The YouTube video is linked from the BNP's site, and appears to be their 'official' channel, and its indisputable that it is Griffin making the comments in the video. It certainly isn't a copy-vio from a major news source, its a very amateurish job, and appears to have the best view of events. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, I didn't mean I was concerned with the accuracy or copyright status of the sources (my concerns would be much stronger if I was). The issue is that when using primary sources, you're either going to provide a bare listing of facts (which is fine in some cases; I often use primary sources to source vote totals in elections) or insert a degree of your own analysis. Besides that, we're supposed to use secondary sources to decide what's important and worth including: if Griffin gives two speeches, and secondary sources ignore one but report on the other extensively, we're supposed to take from that that the second speech is more important, and should be given greater prominence in the article. It's easy for two editors to write radically different articles about the same subject relying on the same primary sources, but somewhat more difficult to do with secondary sources, since you're relying on the analysis (implicit and explicit) of the secondary source authors. Anyway, this article's pretty good, and people drawn to it on Thursday shouldn't be disappointed; I just don't think it's ready for the bronze star at this juncture. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the comments. The trouble is, most of the online sources are very heavily biased against him. We had to remove one (see the talk page) as it was almost certainly full of made-up nonsense, and that was from The Times! Parrot of Doom 21:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
          If mainstream media are frequently hostile, this is worthy of note, with qualification/attribution ("The Times alleged...") Geometry guy 22:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Geometry guy[edit]

I've watchlisted the page for Thursday (the broadcast is compatible with my timezone), but I'll base my comments on the idea that you might want the article to have some of the gloss of a featured article candidate in case it receives significant attention.

That would be excellent, I hadn't originally planned for FA but the article is now getting into quite good shape, and I think it may just pass. Feel free to chop and change as you desire. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

When the prose suggests intention or implication (implicitly or explicitly), be sure that it is sourced. Here are a few examples.

  • In the lead, "...since becoming leader of the BNP he has distanced himself from these opinions" suggests a causal relationship, which is probably true, but needs to be sourced, and I'm not sure that the material in the article does this. Instead, the next sentence ("He is a critic of aspects of Islam") might be used to set his views in context, by noting that he remains critical of aspects of Islam (in contrast to his moderation in relation to Sikhs, Jews, Hindus etc.)
    • I can't really think of anything in the article that isn't already sourced. Certainly several sources demonstrate that he has distanced himself from his more right-wing history. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      Yes, but do the sources make the causal link that he has done this because he became leader? (They probably do, but is this clear?) Geometry guy 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I think they probably place the same emphasis on this change as the article does. Its undoubtedly true, but the article (I think) doesn't actually say that his BNP leadership has caused this shift in policy. Parrot of Doom 22:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In the first section "Undeterred, he later founded the Young National Front Student organisation" is there a source saying he was undeterred?
    • The first source after that says "did not dampen his enthusiasm". Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "This realignment was designed to position the BNP alongside successful European far-right groups, such as the French Front National." Surely, but does a source credit this as design?
    • "In 1999, Griffin began the long process of making the party electable in emulation of the successes of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France and Jörg Haider in Austria. " Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "As a teenager he had accompanied his father to a National Front meeting,[1][11] and by 1978, he was a national organiser for the party." This is confusing. Did he become a national organiser as a result of attending one meeting?
    • Probably not, but there isn't yet a reliable source that says so more conclusively. Its unfortunate, most of the material available online is somewhat negatively biased, and what isn't, is the exact opposite. Its hard to pick out whats true, and whats false, but generally I think we've managed ok, User:Slatersteven has been excellent at finding faults with the article, leading to its improvement. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "As a result the party became more radicalised, and a dissatisfied Griffin,..." Are "radicalised" and "dissatisfied" sourced?
    • Yes, straight after. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My remaining comments concern the prose, which is pretty decent, but might benefit from the attention of a good copyeditor. I rate myself only as A minus here, so I will just add a few general comments.

  • Long noun phrases are hard to read: the first sentence of "Early life and education" is an example. Also don't try to say too much in one sentence.
  • Try to find the best (most interesting and active) subject for each sentence: "The National Front had, since the election of the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher, seen a distinct drop in its membership" is a good example. Membership of the National Front is crying out to be the subject here, and this would also fix another issue: the subclause does not need to interrupt the main clause.
    • Would 'The National Front's membership suffered a steady decline following the election of the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher"... be better? Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      Yes, but if I had copyedited the original, I would have written: "Membership of the National Front declined significantly following the election of the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher". (Substitute "steadily" or some other adverb for "significantly" if it would be more accurate.) Geometry guy 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I've changed the article to this wording, it works for me. Parrot of Doom 22:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Omit needless words: "The location of the venue..." is one example; similarly "does however maintain" could be "maintains" (leaving interpretation to the reader).
    • Thanks, my grammar is improving with experience but I miss things like that. I've removed 'the location of' Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a dislocation between the prose and the Timothy King quote.
    • I may have originally added a line to introduce the QC, but in truth, I think its quite obvious how the quote fits in. I could put it in a quote box but I'm not sure how it would effect the layout. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      My feeling was that it might be easier to integrate the Gordon Brown quote into the text, leaving the Timothy King quote as a right quote box, but trust your own judgement. Geometry guy 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Have a look now, see what you think. Parrot of Doom 22:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
        Still disjointed: we need to know at least that Timothy King was the defense lawyer for Griffin and this was part of his closing statement. Geometry guy 22:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If I have time in the next few days, I will comment further. Geometry guy 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, its much appreciated. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome, and thanks for your clarifications. Geometry guy 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

List of fish of Hawaii[edit]

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

Thanks, - Drew Smith What I've done 08:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. You need a lead which is referenced by reliable sources.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. Every fact in the list needs to be referenced. If you have a reference that has most of the info add it to General references.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  3. In the future please add categories.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  4. You should add ALT text to your images.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  5. I suggest nominating for DYK after creating an engaging lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, let me thank you for taking the time to review my list. Now I have a few questions/comments:

  1. What is ALT text, and how do I add it?
    1. Wikipedia:ALT text is meant for people with screen readers and is meant for accessibility. It's simple. You add "|alt=" to the images as a parameter and describe the image as if you were describing it to someone on the phone.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
      1. Did the alt text on all but the sunfish. I wouldn't know how to describe it if I tried. - Drew Smith What I've done 22:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. Most of these fish are scattered throughout several different incomplete lists, but I have also found a single list that lists them all. Would that one source be good enough? Or should I list the incomplete lists as well?
    1. What is the source you have? I have to check if it's reliable first.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
      1. [10] - Drew Smith What I've done 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
        1. This looks like an unreliable source, since it's not by a corporation. What other references did u find?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
      2. Hawaiiscubadiving.com, I own the guide sold here, and some of the Hawaiian names are listed here. Other than that I have a book that lists close to 1000 fish by area, and about half of the fish on my list are in the book. - Drew Smith What I've done 22:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  3. You mentioned I should nom for DYK, but what exactly would be DYK worthy?
    1. How many fishes and how many only survive in hawaii.
  4. I knew beforehand that I needed a lede, but couldn't think of anything to write. Any ideas?
    1. The number of fishes, types of fishes (predator, vegetarian), where are these fishes? At what coast?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. - Drew Smith What I've done 21:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Poundland[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This retailing article was reviewed just over a year ago when it was in this state, and has since grown significantly and achieved GA status in that time. Long-term aspirations are to get it up to FA status (I know it isn't at that stage yet), but as there has been alot of expansion since the last review, I think it would help having another one.

Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 09:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and nicely illustrated. To make FA, though, the article's prose will need to be more polished. This might be the toughest of the FA requirements. I see redundancies, dangling modifiers, and awkward sentences. In addition, the article has problems related to the Manual of Style guidelines. I've tried to indicate specific places in the first few sections that need polishing, and I'm hoping these will serve as examples. Perhaps you can enlist the aid of a copyeditor who is on the list at WP:PRV. One thing that really bothered me was the inconsistency in the number of Poundland. Is it singular or plural? In the U.S. it would be singular. In any case, you start with "Poundland is" in the first sentence but later in the lead you use "Poundland have enjoyed strong sales growth". "Is" is singular, but "have" is plural. This inconsistency bothered me the whole way through the article.

Lead

  • "Established in April 1990 by Dave Dodd and Stephen Smith, Poundland stock a variety of around 3,000 different products, such as home and kitchen-ware, gifts and healthcare products, many of which are brand name and clearance products." - I notice a pattern of repeating the same noun several times in a sentence. This sentence, for example, repeats "products" three times. It would be easy to add a little variety. Suggestion: "Established in April 1990 by Dave Dodd and Stephen Smith, Poundland stocks a variety of around 3,000 kitchen-ware, gift, healthcare, and other products, many of which have brand names." (I'm not sure what "clearance products" means in this context since everything sells for the same price.)

Formation

  • "The retail chain was founded in April 1990 by Dave Dodd and Stephen Smith with a starting capital of just £50,000, claiming to have introduced the concept of single-price retailing." - The starting capital didn't claim to introduce the concept. Suggestion: "Claiming they were introducing the concept of single-price retailing, Dave Dodd and Stephen Smith founded the retail chain in April 1990 with a starting capital of just £50,000."
  • "Growth continued throughout the early 1990s, with 6 stores by December 1991 and a further 7 a year later." - Generally numbers smaller than 10 get spelled out; i.e, "with six stores by December 1991 and a further seven a year later".
  • "A difficult year was during 1995, when Smith failed to plan for additional warehouse capacity, and it soon became apparent their retail growth was pushing the capacity of their warehouse past its limits, with stock theft reaching unacceptably high levels." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction, and "a difficult year was during 1995" seems awkward. Suggestion: In 1995, Smith failed to plan for more warehouse space, and retail growth pushed their storage capacity past its limits. In the same year, stock theft reached an unacceptable high."

Early 2000s

  • "with its 150th store opening in Northampton in mid-2006 and a gross turnover of £311 million in 2007, up from £281m the previous year" - Combinations like £311 million need to be held together with no-break (nbsp) codes to keep them from being separated on computer screens by line-break. I usually add them to things like "150th store" or any digit–noun combination that I think ought to be kept together. I added a couple of codes to the lead, but I'll leave the rest to you. WP:NBSP has details.
  • "as Poundland revealed it had invested £20-25 million... " - Date ranges, page ranges, and ranges like this one take en dashes rather than hyphens; i.e., "£20–25 million".
  • "when actually they're better during normal economic conditions, but are very robust to manage well despite the state of the economy" - "difficult rather than "robust"?
  • "Poundland operate a recycling initiative where they will give money for old mobile phones, whilst at the same time making charitable contributions and helping the environment." - "Whilst" and "amongst" should be replaced by "while" and "among" throughout the article.
  • "Poundland operates a recycling initiative where they will give... " - "through which" rather than "where"?

Late 2000s' economic crisis"

  • "Despite this, Poundland have not been totally immune to the recession, with the retailer being forced to close down stores which they deem to not be financially viable, even if well positioned." - Sentences that use "with" as a conjunction can generally be re-written more clearly. Suggestion: "Despite this, Poundland has not been totally immune to the recession. The retailer has been forced to close stores that are not financially viable even if well-positioned."
  • "have kept the same single price point of £1 for 18 years and during that time have always absorbed duty and increased supplier costs without raising its price point." - Tighten "price point" to "price"?

References

  • The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent. Most of the existing citations seem to use a combination of d-m-y and yyyy-mm-dd. You can choose one format or the other, but they should all be the same.
  • Some of the citations, such as 33 and 47, lack access dates.

General

  • The images lack alt text, which explains the content of the images to readers who can't see them. It takes a bit of practice to write these, and they are not the same as captions. For information on how to write them and where to put them, see WP:ALT. You can also look at what other editors are doing with alt text by visiting WP:FAC.
  • I might suggest moving the Poundland truck image to the right so that it runs into the page instead of away.

This is not a complete line-by-line review, but I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Space debris[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently completed a re-write of the article on space debris. I'd like to move it to FA, as I think this is a topic of some interest to a wide audience, yet it remains relatively unknown outside certain circles.

Thanks, Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting article and while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into this, it needs a fair amount more work before it would stand a chance of passing FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Biggest problem I can see is that the article needs more references, for example the first paragraph of the Micrometeorite shielding section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
With the exception of the paragraph mentioned, can you be specific about what you believe needs a cite? I'd prefer to avoid an endless rush in the FA (which is likely unavoidable anyway)
My basic position is that a ref at the end of a paragraph covers the whole paragraph (or back to the previous ref). If there is a six sentence paragraph with a ref for sentence two and no refs for the last four sentences, then those four sentences need a ref (even if it the same ref as for sentence 2). For the rest please see what I wrote above. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Current refs 73 and 84 (as two examples) are just titles with linksm but internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Th two refs fixed. NASA server is down so the date on the second one will have to wait.
Huh? Ref 73 is still just "73. ^ Space weather" These were also just examples, there are several other refs that are incomplete - like 90, 91, 96 (not a complete list, please look at the refs and see where they are missing things). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:HEAD says that section headers should not repeat all or part of the title of the article if at all possible, so things like "Sources of debris" should just be "Sources" and "Characterizing debris" could just be "Characterization", as two examples
I'm not sure I agree that this is applicable in this case. The article is long and if you go to places like Google these appear directly. I am going to err on the side of readability in this case
OK, you can fix it now, or you may have to fix it at FAC - your choice. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Also avoid vague time references like "current" or "the past ten years" - use the actual dates ("as of 2009" instead of currently or now)
Cannot find an example of this. A statement containing the "past 30 years" appears, but that's as a direct quote.
Searched "current" and found three examples 1) However, studies have suggested that even the current ITU requirements are not enough to have a major effect on collision frequency.[42] and 2) The U.S. Strategic Command maintains a catalogue currently containing about 19,000 objects, in part to prevent misinterpretation as hostile missiles. and 3) In any event, the cost of launching any of these solutions is about the same as launching any spacecraft. Johnson has stated that none of the existing solutions are currently cost effective.[28] Missed that the past 30 years was in a direct quote, but the phrase introducing it uses "recent" (In a recent historical overview, Kessler summed up the situation bluntly:) where giving the year of the study (2009) would be clearer. A search on "recent" found 14 matches, several of which could use years or more specific dates. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of the language seems POV or at least unencyclopedic - for example in the lead the use of "Our" seems unencyclopedic in " Our ability to find objects in low earth orbit (LEO) falls off quickly below 10 cm in size, while for higher orbits..." while invaluable in Although Whipple's work pre-dated the space race, it proved invaluable when space exploration started only a few years later. seems POV (if it is a quote from a reliable source, then it would be OK).
Fixed.
  • I think of "debris" as a singular word that refers to a collection of objects (like an army is singular but made of many soldiers). The problem is that the article is written as if it were a plural word (debris ... are) Space debris, also known as orbital debris, space junk and space waste, are the objects in orbit around Earth created by humans that no longer serve any useful purpose.
I do not understand this one. To me, "space waste" is, as you note, a "singular word that refers to a collection of objects", in the same way that "garbage" can refer to a single item or a collection of items. Am I missing the point here? Wait, I got it, I removed a "the" from the first sentence, I think that cleans it up.
If the normal usage for space debris is "space debris" are, that is OK, but I think that the more normal usage is "debris is" (a Google search on "debris is" gets about 1,180,000 hits, while "debris are" gets "180,000" hits - seems to be OK, just less common). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but not all the headers seem to be in there. The article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD
I believe the LEAD follows LEAD. In particular, I believe it covers all salient bullet points of the issue. Can you be more specific as to what items in the LEAD are not fleshed out in the body? Got it: RORSAT section has been added to the main body.
  • The language is generally good, but could use a copyedit before going to FAC.
Copyedit is next on the list. I will invite a wikifaery I know.
  • Arthur C. Clarke wrote A Fall of Moondust (not Asimov). Not sure if the story is really that relevant to this article either.
I think the Fall mention is important in-context. This was a matter of some concern at the time, to the point where it became a book. Think about the scientific issues of the modern era that have done the same and then ask if you think that's worth mentioning.
As I wrote above, Asimov did NOT write this novel (Clarke did). This needs to be fixed. Keeping the novel in or not is your call. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Per the WP:MOS units should be given in both metric and English units for most articles (is there a space styke guidleine that metric only is OK?). If English units are needed,, the {{convert}} template is very useful.
I will convert.
  • Abbreviations should be spelled out before first use
  • The article has some short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be either combined with others or perhaps expanded where possible.
Can you be specific on the short sentences? That seems like something I can knock off quickly.
They are short paragraphs (not sentences). Look for paragraphs that are only one or two sentences long and fix those. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the paragraph mentioned, can you be specific about what you believe needs a cite? I'd prefer to avoid an endless rush in the FA (which is likely unavoidable anyway)
Th two refs fixed. NASA server is down so the date on the second one will have to wait.
I'm not sure I agree that this is applicable in this case. The article is long and if you go to places like Google these appear directly. I am going to err on the side of readability in this case.
Cannot find an example of this. A statement containing the "past 30 years" appears, but that's as a direct quote.
Fixed.
I do not understand this one. To me, "space waste" is, as you note, a "singular word that refers to a collection of objects", in the same way that "garbage" can refer to a single item or a collection of items. Am I missing the point here? Wait, I got it, I removed a "the" from the first sentence, I think that cleans it up.
I believe the LEAD follows LEAD. In particular, I believe it covers all salient bullet points of the issue. Can you be more specific as to what items in the LEAD are not fleshed out in the body? Got it: RORSAT section has been added to the main body.
Copyedit is next on the list. I will invite a wikifaery I know.
I think the Fall mention is important in-context. This was a matter of some concern at the time, to the point where it became a book. Think about the scientific issues of the modern era that have done the same and then ask if you think that's worth mentioning.
I will convert.
Can you be specific on the short sentences? That seems like something I can knock off quickly.

Sorry to dump this right back to you, but I'm also working on another major re-write so I'm trying to batch things up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Smackbot got some of them. Is there one that does unit conversions? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a couple or questions/comments on Talk:Space_debris that have not yet been responded to. Can you look at them Maury? Matthew C. Clarke 01:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I copied your replies into my comments above and replied to most of them (unless you said they were already fixed). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
OK I think I got most of them. A bot did the units conversions and links. Serveral of the refs have no author information, like the NASA ones, so I left them alone. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to put the ISS article up for PR once again as a prelude to a fourth FAC, in an effort to prevent the troubles we've had with the last three. The plan is to iron out every single niggle we can find, so as to be able to present an article for FAC that is as near to 'perfect' as is possible in the Wiki framework. As a result, I've messaged each editor who commented in one of the recent PRs, GANs and FACs, in addition to WikiProject Human spaceflight. What I'd like is for everyone to state whether they feel their original concerns have been dealt with, if they have any new concerns, and if they feel the article will meet the FA criteria. This will, hopefully, give us some confidence and a reasonable support base at FAC if the article does meet the requirements. Your comments are greatly appreciated! Colds7ream (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

PRs: 3, 4, 5
GANs: 4
FACs: 1, 2, 3

Question I looked at my oppose back in March - it was based on the fact that there is an abundance of non-web material that was not consulted for this article. Entire books have been written on the station, but none of them had been consulted. The article was based primarily on websites, etc. How has this been rectified? Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've cited a few books where they contained relevant content - for instance the current (as of 25 September 2009) refs 23, 32 and 40. We've also gone out and found several relevant papers, such as current refs 33, 61, 62, 69, 74 and 112, and, in a few cases, some original source material, such as the official Memoranda of Understanding between nations (refs 79-81), in addition to the odd newspaper article. We've also added several non-NASA websites to the list. The trouble, as mentioned previously, is that, given the ongoing nature of the ISS, published works become quite outdated very quickly; for instance, a search for 'International Space Station' on Amazon.co.uk ([11]) yields four published books (that aren't reports). Two were published prior to the Columbia accident and thus are of little use to us, one is in use in the article, leaving only one that we could possibly add (which costs £20). Colds7ream (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

RJHall comments:

  • While it is in a good state, I think the lead could perhaps better serve as a succinct summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. The entire second paragraph of the lead lists the participants, while this is barely mentioned in the article. I'd expect a summary arrangement to show one paragraph per major section and at least one sentence for each important subsection.
  • There are three consecutive short sub-sections: Attitude control, Altitude control and Microgravity. Perhaps these could be combined into a single section titled "Orbit"?
  • I'd still like to see a little more coverage of safety issues, such as debris impacts, EVAs and radiation.[12][13][14][15][16]

Thanks for addressing most of my concerns in the prior review.—RJH (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Righto - I'll get working on these points as soon as. Colds7ream (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I've merged the attitude and altitude control sections into a new 'orbit control' section - not sure about adding the microgravity section as well, though... Colds7ream (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've also rehashed the lead - that looking better? Colds7ream (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
...and now I've added a section on safety! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks good. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I searched for publications about ISS and some results are here. One book was published in 2008. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes - that's the one I referred to earlier - unfortunately I cannot justify spending £20 just to add some book references to an article here, when I have plenty of medical textbooks to buy. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if anyone else fancies buying it, please do add it to the reference list! Colds7ream (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick image comments: Hi, I am a tad busy these days, so I cannot check all the images but I note that the following images are still used since my last check and repeat the issues here.

  • The Canadian flag in the logo: A recent design that would still be within 50-year Crown Copyrights. The Coat of Arms are copyrighted, so what states this flag's design to be "free"? The Maple leaf is certainly not simple geometric shapes or such?
  • I'd invite you to look over the licensing details of File:Flag of Canada.svg, which suggests that we're OK as far as that's concerned. Colds7ream (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg: as stated, it is quite hard to believe that Soviet space agency's Mir cosmonauts (who took the picture as stated by NASA, and not NASA as stated on Commons) surrendered their copyrights to the US agency during a time when relationships between the countries were frosty. My email to NASA received no reply (as stated on their site, emails are not a good way to obtain replies). Phone calls would get better results but I am neither in the States nor in a convenient time zone to pursue this approach, so efforts should be pursued by American editors to ensure the photo is clear for use by all. Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments - The prose needs to be improved before the article is renominated. The grammar is generally okay, but the flow of the prose is poor, which makes the article a chore, rather than a pleasure to read. It is not engaging. There is a problem with over-linking and (Italy, Earth, Moon and Sun, are examples. The writing is often vague and I lost count of the number of occurrences of "various" and "variety". Many time-sensitive phrases also occur such as "8 years and 329 days" and "currently aboard". Other odd sentences and phrases include:

  • "The International Space Station... is the largest satellite ever launched into orbit." The source does not say this, and given that the ISS was assembled in orbit, this statement lacks credibility.
  • This is odd, "This means that scientists on the ground have swift access to their data and can modify experiments or fly new ones as and when required, benefits generally unavailable on specialized unmanned spacecraft." I would avoided the expression, "this means that" and what exactly does "fly new ones" mean?
  • Here "conduct science daily" I think "scientific experiments" would be better.

And in the same sentence there is "a wide variety" and "as well as". In fact the whole article would benefit from checking for redundancy, I recall having seen at least one occurrence of "in order to".

  • There is inconsistency (and WP:MoS breaches) for example in the use of all three of U.S., US and United States of America. The whole article should be checked against the MoS.
  • Here, "Finally, in addition to the scientific and research aspects of the station", the "finally" is redundant.
  • In this sentence "Researchers are investigating the relation of the near-weightless environment on the ISS to the evolution...", the "relation of" does not properly connect to the rest of the sentence.
  • This sentence illustrates nicely the problems with the lack of logical flow common in the article. "Several planned pressurised modules have been cancelled, including the Centrifuge Accommodations Module, for producing varying levels of artificial gravity, the Habitation Module, which was to serve as the station's living quarters (sleep stations are now spread throughout the station), and several Russian modules, including two Russian Research Modules, planned to be used for general experimentation." Breaking this into smaller sentences would help and please try to not to cram too many facts into single phrases and sentences—this makes the prose difficult to read and dull.
  • Here, "In this configuration, as shown in the image to the right, the beta gimbal was used for the main solar tracking," I suggest not referring directly to images. It distracts readers from the prose, and sooner or later, another editor will decide that the image in question looks better elsewhere in the article.
  • Here, "A typical day for the crew begins with a wake-up at 06:00, followed by post-sleep activities and a morning inspection of the station." Please must we have "post-sleep activities"? What on earth does this mean? The same with "137 non-distinct visitors".

James, I hope these comments are useful, please don't take this personally but I think the article would benefit from fresh input—you might have grown too close to it. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Graham. I'm well aware that I'm far too indoctrinated by the prose, but unfortunately whenever I ask for outside assistance all anyone does is say 'you needs to change this' - to what, exactly? Surely it would be simpler in these cases for the reviewer to make the changes themselves instead of expending words listing problems and then hoping another editor (who inevitably ends up being me) will make the changes. I've got to the point now where I more-or-less can't improve the prose, as its mostly my own. I need a new editor to help out with this prose and give it a major sort-out instead of either listing endless issues or making ridiculously minor changes. I was hoping one of the many editors I messaged about this review could help in this area. Colds7ream (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I was invited to review the article not to copy-edit it. I understand your frustration, given so many failed nominations, but many of the points I made above are examples of problems that occur throughout the article. I would love to help out and I have no problems with being bold, but I don't have the spare time. I am amazed by the apparent lack of interest shown by members of the human spaceflight project. Graham Colm Talk 16:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
OK Graham, I've been doing some work, and I think I've dealt with your points 2, 3, the US-specific part of 4, 5, 7 and 8 - how am I doing? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
In a nutshell—very well. The article is much improved and were this a FAC, it would be one of those where I am prepared to comment and help out rather than oppose. This does not mean that I still think a lot needs to be improved, just a few tweaks here and there. I have been bold and deleted most of all those occurrences of "various" but if I have altered the meaning, I apologise.Graham Colm Talk 15:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much! :-) Fair enough on the 'various', thanks for clearing them out. Anything else I can be getting on with while waiting for replies from others? Colds7ream (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Get rid of "currently" and "now". An article is not a newswire, updated daily. Use formulations such as By September 2009 the ISS was x ...
  • There is some argot: "de-orbit". Plain English is better.
  • Sentence fragment: "Does not include consortium satellites or multi-national satellites."
  • A copyeditor would help reduce the wordiness.

Best wishes. Kablammo (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Update:

Just to keep everyone updated:

  • I've put in a request for a thorough copyedit at WP:GOCE in an effort to do something about the prose - let's see what they do! :-)
  • I've been sent a copy of the book that was published in 2008, and will get working on integrating it into the article.
  • I'm planning on sorting out the lead as soon as I get a free afternoon to give it some justice. I'll also do something about safety issues when I get a chance.

In the meantime, anyone got any comments on issues not already covered? Colds7ream (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've given the lead a going over and sorted out some of the smaller niggles people were bringing up - looking better? Colds7ream (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Thanks, Flyguy33 (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. Compare your list with Poker Hall of Fame which was recently featured.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. You need expansion to encompass info about the criteria of induction, the history of the institution and any related info...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. You also need to give references to your table.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Project 86[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to shoot for FAC. It is currently at GAN and will probably be there for a month. That leaves time for a peer review.

Thanks, Noj r (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 20:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
All three websites are approved sources of information by the Christian music wikiproject.
  • But in a nut shell,
    • Christianity Today is a magazine started by Billy Graham, and also operates online.
    • Cross Rhythms is a UK based online website that also runs a radio program. They marked as a source on Google News and have appeared in CCM Magazine.
    • Jesus Freak Hideout is an online website that has conducted dozens of interviews and is a member of the Gospel Music Association -- Noj r (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
A discussion of sources may be further informed with information on this page.
Speaking of sources, why the unusual Notes / References split? Dan, the CowMan (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I was following the style of other FA articles like Stereolab. I like this format better because you can contain multiple sources in one reference link versus having one link for each reference. -- Noj r (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is broad in coverage and well-illustrated. I have suggestions mainly about prose and style issues, image licenses, alt text, and layout.

Lead

  • "The current line-up consists of bassist Steven Dail... ". - It would probably be better to say, "as of 2009" than "current" since things may change by 2010.
  • "The band was formed by Schwab and former drummer Alex Albert as a way to positively influence people." - It would be good to make "positively influence people" more specific here and in the main text. In what specific way(s)?
  • "However, communication disputes arose and Project 86 was dropped from both labels." - Ditto for "communications disputes". What does that mean?

1996–1999

  • "Their self-titled debut was produced by Brian Carlstrom, who helmed albums by multi-platinum outfits... " - I don't think "helmed" is a real word. Suggestion: "Brian Carlstrom, who had overseen albums by multi-platinum groups, produced their self-titled debut album... ".
  • Words inside direct quotations shouldn't be wikilinked. Beck is an example.

2000–2003

  • "The group worked on their sophomore record with renowned producer Garth "GGGarth" Richardson." - Delete "renowned"?
  • "Formatted as a concept album, it told the story of a character attempting to gratify himself and find fulfillment in modern society." - Tighten by deleting "gratify himself and"?
  • "The group spent over fourteen months recording demos for Atlantic, who invested half of a million dollars into the project." - Atlantic is a "which". Digits are a bit easier to comprehend than words for big numbers. Suggestion: "The group spent more than 14 months recording demos for Atlantic, which invested $500,000 in the project."
  • "The group opened for Taproot on their self-titled tour in fall 2002." - It might not be clear to all readers what "opened" means in this context.
  • "Tooth & Nail still owned part of the band's contract, but communication disputes led Atlantic to buy their share." - Shouldn't that be "its" share since a company is an "it" rather than a "they"?

2003–2006

  • "A subsequent investigation took months for the band to rectify." - I'm not sure what this sentence means. Who conducted the investigation? Does "rectify" mean "clean the mud off" or "collect damages"?

Images and sound files

  • The article lacks alt text, which describes the information in the article's images to readers who can't see them. It takes a bit of practice to write good alt text, which differs from caption writing. You can find an explanation at WP:ALT, and you can look at recent samples of alt text at WP:FAC.
  • The licensing information for Image:TheSchwab.JPG is incomplete. It does not provide a source for the original image. Was it self-made with a digital camera? If not, who was the photographer?
  • It's generally better to have subjects looking into the page rather than out. Image:TheSchwab.JPG would probably be better if positioned on the right.
  • Image checkers at FAC might not be able to accept an unverifiable claim that Jesus Freak Hideout has given permission for Image:Stephen Dail.jpg. It might be that you'll have to ask the image copyright owners to upload and license the image or to e-mail the image with permission for a free (public domain) license via Commons:OTRS.
  • On my computer screen Image:Stephen Dail.jpg overlaps two sections. Generally it's better to place images inside a single section.
  • Four fair-use OGG files in one article may be hard to justify. You'll be asked if they are all necessary for a reader's understanding of the text.

Heads and subheads

  • Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
  • The word "and" should replace ampersands unless they are part of an official name.

References

  • Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe I have addressed Finetooth's concerns. Thanks again for reviewing the article! -- Noj r (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sportsperson of the Year (Czechoslovakia)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for a Featured list. Before I do so, I would like to ask other Wikipedians to look at it and express their opinion.

Thanks, Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • What is the necessity of identifying whether a male or female won the award by color?--Crossmr (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
In sports males and females usually compete in separate disciplines. I think it can be useful to see, whether the person got the trophy for achievements in a male or in a female discipline. In the lead there are also numbers of male and female trophy winners, the colours help the readers to check them. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I am not sure that the color codes meet WP:ACCESS - might need to also have a symbol for men / women / pairs
    • I hope it does. I think the contrast is sufficient and it reads well. I would prefer colours to symbols, but if more people share this opinion, I can change it.
    • I had a look at it once more and I turned the colours lighter, so that the contrast is bigger. Now I think the text reads better. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I did some minor copyedits to the prose - if I introduced any errors or made things worse, please revert.
    • They were OK, thank you.
  • I would make the caption clearer - identify the sport (Artistic gymnast Věra Čáslavská ...) and perhaps mention here that she is the only four time recipient or that she won it the most times
    • Done.
  • Per the MOS, metric units should also have English units given (so fix things like World record of 65.22 m in Sokolov, Czechoslovakia) {{convert}} may help here
    • I think sports achievements are always written in metric units on the international level, but it makes no harm and so I added the convert template as well.
  • Watch stray commas like Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain – 1st,[57] (between 1st and [57])
    • Corrected.
  • In the Team awards, since the lead already said that all but one team awards were given to Czechoslovakia national teams, does it really need to say "Czechoslovakia national motorcycle team" for example? Could it just say "National motorcycle team" (we already know these are all Czechoslovakian teams).
  • Done.
  • Is there a reason why the team award was not given for several years? If this is known, could it be added?
    • Unfortunately, this information cannot be found anywhere. I keep looking for it, but it seems the article will have to stay without it. Thank you very much for the review. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Charlie Chaplin filmography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because Charlie Chaplin is one of the major contributors to the development of the art of screen comedy and also to the art of cinema in general. The previous incarnations of the Chaplin filmography weren't that detailed or well organized. I beleive that my version is an improvement. I've used the filmographies that have attained "Featured List" status as a model for this one. So, give a look, tell me what you think, and perhaps watch a Chaplin film or two in the meantime.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A tidy list. Prose needs some attention, though.

  • Text
    • "He was born in London and began his film career in 1914 with Keystone Studios, where he established his tramp persona." Need to add the information that he went to America, and clarify that he began his film career there.
      • Changed. The info is now more detailed and clearly states that he went to America.
    • "...through first First National" The "first" is redundant. And lose comma after First National
      • Fixed.
    • The parenthetical note (He denied these allegations) needs to be absorbed into the sentence. Thus: "...Chaplin came under attack with allegations, which he denied, that he was Communist sympathizer."
      • Changed per your suggestion.
    • Sentence needs reorganising: "Having remained a British subject, he found his American re-entry permit rescinded while travelling to England in 1952 to attend the première of his film, Limelight." Suggestion: "He had remained a British subject and, after travelling to England in 1952 to attend the première of his film, Limelight, his American re-entry permit was rescinded."
      • Also changed per your suggestion, except that "after travelling" is worded as "while travelling". Acording to the Robinson bio, Chaplin received the news about the rescission while sailing to London from New York.
    • "...after nearly two decades away..." - "away" is redundant
      • Changed.
    • Sentence needs completing: "The following year Chaplin's score for Limelight received the Best Music."
  • Tables
    • What is a split-reel?
      • Changed to explain that a split reel is "two films on one reel".
    • Can an indication be given as to the length of a reel, otherwise descriptions such as one-reel or two-reel have little meaning.
      • Changed. No explanation is given but I've now hyperlinked "reel" several times in the document.
    • It might be worth noting the name of the producer for A Countess from Hong Kong
      • The name of the producer (Jerome Epstein) is now listed.
    • Cartoons: What does this actually mean: "Chaplin "appeared" as himself in the following animated cartoon shorts"? If the cartoons were depictions of Chaplin but he had nothing to do with the productions, then they should not be in his filmography.
      • Cartoons have been dropped.
    • Likewise, biopics made after his death shouldn't be included, not even as "Addenda"
      • Ditto (The "Addendum" section has been alotted "hidden text" status.)
      • I have also reworded some of the text in the intro section and also in the beginning of "Chaplin's official films".

Not much else to quibble at. Looks broadly in line with other featured filmogaphies. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the suggestions. If you can give it a second look I'll take any other suggestions into consideration. After that I'll request feature status. BTW, is it okay to strike through your suggestions, or should I have left them the way they are? Jimknut (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


Maggie Simpson[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to see it become an fa

Thanks, Pedro J. the rookie 17:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have archived this per Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Repeat_offender. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Aliso Creek (Orange County)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has already been through one PR but failed FAC, so I am requesting another PR to clean this up before nominating for the second FAC. Aliso Creek is a really insignificant watershed in some ways, and almost any website or book that mentions the creek has been used as a reference. The article has no problems with prose or organization, really, but I need to identify which references to keep and which to remove, as that is what made it fail FAC.

Thanks, Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 02:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I have far fewer suggestions this time. I did a bit of minor proofing and added some nbsps to things that might look awkward if separated on computer screens by line break. WP:NBSP has details. Later, I'll give the whole article another read-through and post anything else I might have to say below these comments, but I wanted to post this batch without delay.

Geography

  • I'd suggest moving the Land use box up a bit to eliminate the text sandwich between it and the Aliso Canyon image.

Water quality

  • The two-line blockquote is too short for a blockquote. WP:MOSQUOTE has details. Just a regular quote within the text would be better, methinks.
  • I don't think the big green text box will survive FAC. I can't seem to find a guideline about this just now, but for one thing the big box creates a text sandwich with the storm-drain image. I don't like the green color (a subjective criticism), and I don't think the box adds anything. Why not use plain text for this?

Wildlife

  • The steelhead image bumps into the "Vegetation" subhead on my computer screen. Moving the image up about three lines would fix this.

First inhabitants

  • ,s>"In the contrary, some seventy major archaeological sites... " - Should that be "even so" rather than "in the contrary"?

Urbanization and development

  • "Taking advantage of the creek's high winter surges, ranging from 0 to 404 acre feet (0 to 500,000 m3) monthly, an A. J. Stead proposed in 1934... " - Either something is missing after "an" or "an" should be deleted. I'm guessing that some kind of identifier for A. J. Stead is missing.

References

  • The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. Most of them in the existing citations take the form yyyy-mm-dd. My recommendation would be to change all the nonconforming ones to yyyy-mm-dd. Citation 2, for example, has two full dates, and the first one is March 6, 1936. It should be 1936-03-06. The dates in the main text have to be internally consistent too, but they don't have to be the same as the citations. I didn't notice any problems with the main text date formats.
  • Citations should be as complete as possible. Typically for refs to Internet sources this would include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. Some of these are incomplete. For example, the dates of publication for citations 35 and 36 are missing even though they are easy to find. By the way, citation 35 says "latimes.com" for the publisher, but standard practice would be to use Los Angeles Times and not bother with "latimes.com". The publisher for citation 39 is Orange County, and the publication date is 2008. And so on. These details and tweaks make it easier to see how old a supporting document might be and to find things, especially if a link goes dead.
  • I'll have to give some more thought to your question about which refs are OK and which might not be. Generally, newspapers, books, and magazines and web sites published by newspapers, magazines, and governments are considered reliable sources while many dot-coms might not be. I avoid dot-coms if I can find clearly reliable sources to replace them. Sometimes a personal web site by an established expert is OK, but generally personal web sites, blogs, and opinion pages do not qualify as reliable. If no reliable source supports a claim, I don't include the claim. I hope this sort of general answer is useful. WP:RS has more.
Finetooth (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I've revised the article based on your comments. However, (I am scared to the bone bringing this up) I am unsure if current ref 5 (the "FPCP" ref) which has some 20 citations throughout the article, should be moved to the "Works Cited" section and each reference replaced with "FPCP, page ...". I really hope I won't have to do this. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 22:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the way you've done it is fine. Sometimes I've listed long PDF documents in a "Works cited" section so that I could cite specific pages numbers or small ranges of pages via separate short notes like "Jones, pp. 11–16". That can be clumsy, though, if it causes a proliferation of separate notes with only slightly different page numbers. Some editors argue that it's better to do them exactly the way you've done the FPCP notes, with a single ref=name for the whole document. Since the PDF document in this case is only 41 pages long, I think you have a strong case for leaving the FPCPs they way they are. I doubt that this will cause a rumpus at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for saving me again. Do you have any comments on the quality of the references? I removed about 5 that they complained about at the last FAC. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 00:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll look again. I had to go away for awhile, and when I came back I finished flipping the nonconforming date formats to yyyy-mm-dd in the citations. I think I caught them all. Finetooth (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I ran the link checker tool that lives here. It's the same tool used at FAC, and it finds a dead url in citation 28. This is the source for a direct quote from the Clean Water Act, so it has to be fixed or replaced. I'm guessing that another government source will have the same information. You might Google "Clean Water Act California" to see what you can find. Any dot.gov should be reliable. The link checker also sees a problem with citation 53. This is the source for four claims in the article, and it looks fixable to me. It's part of the set of Orange County documents that you've cited elsewhere in the article. Even though they are dot-coms, they look like RS government sites. I think you can probably find those maps at the site and fix the problem, which may merely be a syntax error of some sort. More to come. Finetooth (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> I see the source of some other minor problems in the citations. This is not something you could know without messing around with the citation templates quite a bit, and it confuses lots of editors. The "cite web" and "cite news" templates don't behave in exactly the same way. A peculiar problem that often arises is that "cite news" has a place for the publisher and a place for the work. It would seem logical to put Los Angeles Times in the publisher slot, but this prints it without italics. In fact, though not apparent, the Los Angeles Times is the work, and if you put it in that slot, the italics get added automatically. In some cases you've used "cite web" for newspapers, and in other cases you've used "cite news". Rather than swapping the templates, my work-around is to add the italics to the newspapers in the publisher slot in "cite web" and to move the newspapers to the work slot in "cite news". I've fixed a few of these, adding the publication dates as well in yyyy-mm-dd format. Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the travel and recreation site dot-coms like www.biketrails.com are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. The good news is that usually most of the same information can be found at a government web site. You can find a government source for at least some of the bike trail data, including trail names and lengths, here. In a case like this, adjust the claims in the text to what can be supported by the RS. Delete claims not supported by the RS or (tougher) find another source or sources to support the original claims. If I were writing this article, I'd just use the minimal government data. Finetooth (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The www.cagenweb.com site is basically a personal web site and is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. You might find similar information in a book about Orange County history. Local historical societies may have published or unpublished materials. Newspapers often have columns with details about local history; sometimes you can do on-line searches for this kind of information. Google books are another possibility. It takes a lot of digging sometimes to find this sort of stuff. How much digging you decide to do depends on how important you think it is to the article. Finetooth (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed some of the links you specified; I also added the OC Parks link. I haven't been able to find a replacement URL for ref 28, though. There's also a Los Angeles Almanac, however, I've already cited that in the article, maybe I'll add a few more citations. Otherwise, the reference section looks pretty clean of these links. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 15:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I added some missing data to the existing citations and moved some things around within the citations as noted above, but I see more that needs to be done. Examples are the lack of italics on the newspaper name in citation 7, lack of an url or access date in citation 44, blocks of italicized material that are a bit mysterious, such as "University of California, Irvine, Department of Environmental Analysis; University of Colorado, Boulder, Department of Geological Sciences; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Department of Geology and Geophyiscs; Leighton and Associates; San Diego State University, Department of Geoloogical Sciences" in citation 21. Fixing these is tedious, but each one needs to be as accurate and properly formed as possible. Questions may again arise about the Tom Chester citation (number 20) and the Los Angeles Almanac citation (number 48) because these appear to be personal web sites. If you use them, you'll be asked to show why they should be considered reliable. The Almanac might be one person's notions of the facts; how can we be sure? A good rule of thumb is to anticipate these sorts of questions and to either (1) find a clearly reliable source or sources to substitute for the doubtful ones or (2) prepare convincing answers or (3) delete the claims. With Chester, it might help to note that the article you cite is listed here as part of the State of California Department of Conservation's "California Geotour", but that might not be enough. Who is Tom Chester, and why should we consider him to be a reliable source? Finetooth (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the Chester citation does give a works cited list; the info given in it fits well with the other sources used in the article. It does introduce some new facts, but it looks pretty true to me. Actually, I'll replace it with one of the references I found for Santiago Creek, which is from a geology journal, so that's fixed. As for ref 48, the Los Angeles Almanac, I've found in Google Books a better replacement. I'll go finish that right now. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 19:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Have any more comments? Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 03:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> I haven't looked at the article for about a week. I'll take another look today. Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Some really tedious work remains to be done on the citations. I spent an hour or so this morning tracking down and fixing some of the problems, but I have to move on to other projects. An url is not a publisher. Thus you need to track down the publisher for each article with something like "www.water.ca.gov" in the publisher slot and replace it with the name of the publisher. The url shouldn't go anywhere in the citation templates except the url slot; delete any that appear in another slot such as the publisher slot or the work slot. Instead of adding notes explaining the search parameters for the GNIS ciations, it's customary to link directly to the source page. A special "cite gnis" template is one way to do this. I added it to citation 3 so you can see how it works. I spiffed up a few more things in the main text and crossed a few things off the list above. Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. This seems to be a big problem in many of my articles, actually. But what should go in the "Work" slot? Or should I just leave it blank? Anyway I'll go correct these right now. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 20:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen the "work" parameter in anything but the "cite news" template, where it's used for the newspaper name, which is the work. (The newspaper publisher might have a different name). I'd suggest deleting it from the "cite web" templates to avoid confusion. Finetooth (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, in the cite web template the "publisher" is the website, e.g. University of ..., and the "work" would be the series of articles or the certain group that made it, e.g. the Department of... . If I remove the "work" parameter from the cite web templates, where is the thing I put in the work parameter going to go in the reference? Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 21:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The university or other entity is the publisher. The website is the url. Finetooth (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I mean, in the "publisher" slot, it would be, for example: "University of..." instead of "www.something.edu", which is what mostly prevails in the article. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 00:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I see what you mean, I'll go correct those. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 00:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dhaka Residential Model College[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, this article has been well-written and I want the article to be featured. I have done a massive editing in the past few weeks. This is why, I am expecting editors' comments and suggestions concerning this article. Please help to review the article to be thoroughly well-written and excellent.

Thanks, Tanweer drmc (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A brave effort, but there are serious problems with this article's prose. I have only checked out the lead, and have found problems with nearly every sentence:-

  • What is the purpose of adding the phrase "including school section" to the first sentence? Isn't the college actually a school for boys that has adopted the name "college"?
  • Why say that it serves grades 3-12, rather than giving the age range? The grades are not universal - for example they are not used in the UK and won't be understood there.
  • The term "self-governing" is rather vague. Does this mean that the school is completely independent of all external control? Is it self-financing?
  • Unless you briefly explain, many of your readers in English Wikipedia will be unaware that Bangladesh was part of Pakistan until 1971, so won't understand why the school was founded by the Pakistan government.
  • "schools cum colleges" is an awkward and imprecise phrase. It would be easier to refer to simply as a school, as you do later in the article?
  • "...in Dhaka as well as in the country." Since Dhaka is in the country, the phrasing is unnecessarily verbose. Just say "in the country".
  • Refs [3], [4] and [5]: it is not necessary to show within the quote the text being cited.
  • It is not encyclopedic to end a sentence with "etc."
  • "The campus of this institution is larger than any other schools and colleges in Dhaka city." Wrong grammar, should be: The campus of this institution is larger than that of any other school or college in Dhaka city." But having earlier made the point about the institution's size, I womder if the sentence is necessary at all.
  • "Today..." - when is "today"? Needs to be time-specific, e.g. "In 2009..."
  • "4000" needs to be written "4,000"
  • "another 80 non-teaching staff" - the word "another" is redundant
  • "The institution trains number of engineers, doctors,..." The words "number of" are redundant. In any event the institution does not train engineers, doctors etc. That kind of advanced training doesn't take place in schools. It may be true to say that many of the school's students have later trained as engineers, doctors and the rest.

Perhaps English is not your first language. If that is the case you really need to work with an editor with substantial expertise in English, to help you improve the prose throughout the article. There is also a problem with the article's tone. To be frank, it reads at the moment like promotional material on behalf of the school (this is often a problem with school articles). For example, the exhaustive list of curriculum subjects is of no interest to the general reader. The information on debate and quiz contest is overdetailed. Conversely, the history of the school's almost-50 years is very skimpy.

I am sorry to sound negative, but if you can attend to the points I have raised here, you will have improved the article. I note that it is currently a candidate for Good Article status. My view is that it is not close to GA; perhaps, however, the GA review will provide more pointers by which the article can be further improved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Tanweer Morshed's comments: Thanks a lot Mr. Brianboulton for the suggestions that you have made. You are right that English isn't my first language. Anyways, according to your suggestions I have rectified the Lead section of the article. I surely want to attend all the points you've described. And I will do that at any cost. But because of being busy with real life, I can't do that right at this moment. Whenever I am free, I will try my best to amend the article. More suggestions are welcome. Thanks again for your contribution. Tanweer (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Key (basketball)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to list this on FA and this article could use some cleanup, plus other grammar or jargon things that need to be sorted out.

Thanks, –Howard the Duck 19:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

  • The lead is a bit short. It should summarize the whole article
  • Make sure it is comprehensive (does it cover all the basketball leagues?)
  • Is www.rolltide.com a reliable source?
  • Images need alt text

Chris!c/t 19:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

    • Lead is pretty easy to remedy, I'll do something about it.
    • Basketball is played either on NBA or FIBA rules, and almost all other leagues comply with the either of the two (although there are hybrids). We can't possibly have rules for every league. I know of one and I can source it, but I dunno the others if they do have deviations
      • Right, but all the notable leagues (e.g. college league, Olympics, etc.) should be mentioned.—Chris!c/t 19:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
        • College leagues in the U.S. use NCAA rules, pro leagues in the U.S. use NBA rules, while other countries and practically all international tourneys use FIBA rules, although some modify their rules as a compromise between the two, But in terms of the "key" it's either the NCAA, NBA or FIBA, there is no middle ground on this, although some courts have both marks on the court but they use only one code's mark on a game. –Howard the Duck 13:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
          • This is just my advice. As long as the article is comprehensive, I think you are fine.—Chris!c/t 05:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The PDF from rolltide.com is identical to the original NCAA one which has been deleted/died.
    • Alt text will be dealt with later. –Howard the Duck 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Question, with the first three photos virtually showing the same thing, is it a good idea to give them identical alt texts? How about for the fourth one (the drawing)? –Howard the Duck 13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Nothing wrong with that. The drawing still needs alt text.—Chris!c/t 05:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Done. The first one, is "quite" different as the last two photos. –Howard the Duck 16:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Skins (TV series)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it for many months, and feel it is becoming mature. I'm running out of ideas for improvement and how far off it is from becoming a Good Article. Any help much appreciated!

Thanks, PretzelsTalk! 20:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A few things:
  • Add a bit more to the lead if you can. The first paragraph is mainly a listing of issues. You could maybe add something about it's critical reception.
  • There's a couple references that need to be formatted properly. They're currently just links. (ex. ref #2).
  • "There is also a Skins bot for Windows Live Messenger." - explain what the Skins bot does. I have to click on the reference to know this.
  • Refs 21 and 31 are dead links.

Cheers and good luck on GA. MahangaTalk 14:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Mahanga. I've fixed up all the references, and expanded the bot section. I'm unsure of how to expand the introduction though... PretzelsTalk! 16:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I would look at the article and see if the lead sufficiently summarizes the text. You can add stuff about its reception and also a sentence about the creation of 'skins parties'.
MOS:BOLD generally advises against using bolding for emphasis except in the first sentence of the lead. I'm not sure if other tv related articles use bold to highlight character names. MahangaTalk 17:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Historian[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I plan on nominating this article for FAC, so I would like feedback on its readiness. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Moni3

I read through the article, starting at the literary elements and skipping the plot section. I thought the discussion on genre, style, and themes was interesting and engaging, and aside from some minor questions (who says the reviews were "at best, mixed" -- odd to see it in quotes if it can be expressed without, or attributed to a single writer) found it quite well written.

I have not read The Historian so I don't know if it is the sequence of events which are convoluted or the sentence structure in the Plot section, that seems to diverge in style from the rest of the article, but some of the passages in the Plot section are stunted and out of place it seemed to me. The following passage is in the article now. It starts with some graceful sentences, then switches to shorter ones that appear to be disconnected.

The bulk of the novel focuses on the 1950s timeline, which follows Paul's adventures. After meeting with Paul, Rossi disappears; smears of blood on his desk and the ceiling of his office are all that remain. Certain that something unfortunate has befallen his advisor, Paul begins to investigate Dracula. While in the library, he meets a young, dark-haired woman reading a copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula—Helen Rossi. She has become an expert on the subject. Paul tries to convince her that a librarian is trying to stop them from researching Dracula. She is unconvinced, but tells Paul that she is the daughter of Bartholomew Rossi and that she is going to publish the definitive work on Dracula to punish Rossi for abandoning her. Later, the librarian attempts to stymie their research and attacks and bites Helen. He is then seemingly killed in a car accident in front of the library.

That, and I can't get away from "stymie" being a character from Our Gang. What about something like this:

The bulk of the novel focuses on the 1950s timeline, which follows Paul's adventures. After meeting with Paul, Rossi disappears; smears of blood on his desk and the ceiling of his office are all that remain. Certain that something unfortunate has befallen his advisor, Paul begins to investigate Dracula. While in the library, he meets an expert on Bram Stoker's Dracula, a dark-haired woman named Helen Rossi; he endeavors to convince her that their research on the historical figure is being impeded by a librarian. Rossi remains skeptical, and continues to work on publishing her definitive work on Dracula if only to punish her father Bartholomew, himself a researcher of the Transylvanian vampire, for abandoning her. Rossi is attacked and bitten by the librarian following his attempts to hinder their progress, and he subsequently dies in what seems to be a car accident in front of the library.

Just there I had to struggle to find several different ways to say "Dracula". What are your thoughts on dividing the Plot summary into three parts under third level headers?

In the rare occasions I write about novels, they are usually ones I love dearly. I do my best to convey how much I love the books I write about in the language in the article, without compromising encyclopedic tone or going off the melodramatic deep end. I worry that the article on Tipping the Velvet is dull and the specialness of the prose and the liveliness of the characters and writing is lost, or I have failed in expressing it. So much that I wonder what Sarah Waters might think if she reads it. To connect this to The Historian, I don't find that the prose moves well in the Plot section. I think it can be fixed easily, however, but all I can think to say is that it needs movement and emphasis on what is...again (sorry)... so moving about the story. Let me know if you have questions or want clarification. I can be rather obtuse sometimes. --Moni3 (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I would appreciate any suggestions you have for how to improve the plot summary. I've adopted the paragraph you revised wholesale. This section has been the hardest for me to write - I can't gracefully explain the intertwined timelines. Perhaps that is because I don't particularly like this book or think it is well-written, so that may be coming through in my description of it. I find the novel convoluted and the timelines inelegantly linked together. Dare I say it is plodding? I like the scholarly elements of it and how the author conveys the excitement of scholarly discovery, but other than that, I was disappointed (although, oddly, I remembered liking it - a reread does nothing for the book, however). The GA reviewer suggested a one-paragraph plot summary (something like the first paragraph of the plot summary) and hinted that the rest of the plot summary was so incoherent it was best to leave it out. Do you think that would be a better way to go? Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, goodness. I have to say that I am a bit relieved that you don't especially like this book. I guess I picked up on your "meh" tone. I can't imagine what you were trying to convey if you were coming from an approach where you really, really loved it.
Suggestions: the third level header plot summary can be seen as an example in Fingersmith (novel), not for the length or detail, but for the way it's laid out. I think the synopsis in Fingersmith is way too long. Is there a way to marry the brevity necessary in just getting the point across and the complexity of the plot and all the characters? I don't know really what the most important action or characters are to portray in the plot summary, but if you slice it up I can try to assist. Sometimes too, when I get specific criticism about leads or some such, I deconstruct it and start over with bullet points, then turn that into prose.
I also have to add that I spied a link to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies on your talk page during one of my many bouts of insomnia and I laughed my ass off through the entire article. April 1, 2010 main page article? I took the torch from Karanacs...shall I pass it to you? --Moni3 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: My God, this is a difficult book! Hats off for the attempt to decypher it, it fair wore me out, all 704 pages of it. My comments so far only cover the lead and plot summary. Many of these are suggestions which you may choose to ignore.

  • Lead:
    • "a remarkable $2 million" may be true but reads as opinion
      • I'm going to leave this, as it is sourced and readers need to know that the amount was large. Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Slight ambiguity: "The Historian is not a horror novel, but rather an eerie tale." "Rather" can mean "instead", which I suspect is your intent here. Or it can mean "inclining towards" as in "I'd rather like to try". Perhaps a slight rewording is in order?
    • "It is concerned with history's role in society and representation in books..." may well be grammatically correct, but would read more smoothly with "its representation..."
      • Unfortunately "its representation" would refer back to society and therefore be incorrect! (I think I used to have that, actually, and switched to this to avoid the pronoun problem.) Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Comma required after "particular theme"
    • "to land at number one" reads rather heavy-footed; "to reach number one"
      • Interestingly, it didn't really "reach" - the first week it was released it was already at number one. Can you think of a better way to word this? Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "However, some reviewers criticized the book's structure..." In view of the previous sentence the word "reviewers" could be deleted here.
    • Is it possible to give a time reference to the final sentence, e.g. "and as of 2009 was planning a film adaptation"?
      • Added "as of 2007" since my sources on the film are from 2007. Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Plot summary
    • I think Moni's suggestion of a subdivision (Parts I, II and III) is a good one, which would help navigation through the summary.
    • I have a slight problem with "The unnamed sixteen-year-old narrator". The "Note to the Reader" which prefaces the book makes it clear that the story is being told retrospectively, 32 years after the main events described, so strictly speaking it is being told by a 48-year-old woman remembering her sixteen-year-old self. It might be an idea to clarify this in the first paragraph of this section.
      • Placed age earlier in plot summary and clarified that the novel is told retrospectively. Awadewit (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "As a result, Rossi researched Vlad Ţepes," should be "Ţepeş"
    • Punctuation: "Rossi traveled as far as Istanbul, however, the appearance of curious characters and unexplained events caused him to drop his investigation..." First comma should be semicolon
    • I agree that "stymie" as a verb jars in this context. The suggested alternative version of the paragraph flows slightly better than the original but doesn't offer much more clarity to those who haven't read the book. I would rewrite the second part of the paragraph along the following lines:

While in the university library he meets a young, dark-haired woman reading a copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula. She is Helen Rossi, the daughter of Bartholomew Rossi, who has become an expert on the subject of Dracula. When Paul attempts to convince her that one of the librarians is trying to prevent their research of Dracula she is unpersuaded. She tells Paul that she intends to publish the definitive work on Dracula, to punish her father for abandoning her. Later, the librarian in question attempts to obstruct Helen, then attacks and bites her. Paul intervenes and overpowers him but he wriggles free. The librarian is then run over and apparently killed by a car, in front of the library.

      • Copied almost exactly. Awadewit (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Next paragraph: Suggest begin "On hearing..." rather than "While..." It isn't necessary to say "in the 1970s", since we have already been told that Part I begins in 1972.
      • I think we do have to mention we are back in the 1970s since the previous paragraph is about the 1950s. Awadewit (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The last sentence of this paragraph would more logically be the first sentence of the next, and it should be possible to avoid the repetition of "during the 1950s"
    • Ambiguity? "Helen and Paul conclude that Rossi might have been taken by Dracula to his tomb" - whose tomb?
      • Grammatically, "his" refers back to "Dracula". Awadewit (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "He has access to the archive..." - could this archive be identified, e.g. the Dracula archive?
      • This refers back to the Sultan Mehmed archive mentioned in the previous sentence. I don't think it is necessary to repeat it. Awadewit (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Suggested reconstruction for end of paragraph: "They also see the librarian who was killed in the United States, who later attacks one of the librarians assisting the group. Helen shoots the vampire librarian—who has been following them—through the heart, but he does not die."
    • "From Istanbul, Paul and Helen travel to Budapest ... to meet with Helen's mother, who they believe may have knowledge of Rossi—the two had met during his travels to Romania in the 1930s" I don't quite follow the sense here. They believe the mother may have current knowledge of Rossi; the phrase after the mdash appears misplaced. I would end the first sentence after "Rossi" and then continue: "For the first time Helen hears of her parents' torrid love affair—the two had met during Rossi's travels to Romania in the 1930s. Helen reads letters..."
    • "...forgot the entire incident" – a torrid love affair is not really an "incident". Perhaps "experience"?
    • "Upon reaching Sveti Georgi, Paul and Helen find the interred Rossi..." That's a bit cryptic. Suggest: "After many difficulties Paul and Helen discover the whereabouts of Sveti Georgi. Upon reaching the monastery they find Rossi's interred body in the crypt and are forced..." etc
    • After "She survives and decides to hunt him down and kill him" it might be useful to say that Paul's letters end here.
      • I'm not sure how important that is - there is already too much information in this plot summary! Awadewit (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That completes my comments on the plot summary. I will return to the rest of the text after a brief interval. Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Further comments: A little hurried, because I shall be away for several days after today, but as you will see I had few issues with this quality article.

  • Composition and publication
    • The first two paragraphs are background, rather than composition or history, and could perhaps be subheaded separately. And, in my view, it would help a general understanding of the author and the writing of the book if it was made clear that she is not herself an Eastern European (if only by adding in the second sentence "...her father, an American professor of whatever, was teaching..." etc.
      • I've renamed the section "Background and publication" and added two subheadings: "Biographical background" and "Composition and publication". I'm not sure about labeling her father "American", as I really know nothing about him. I've added that the family moved from the US to Europe for a year. I hope this helps clarify the situation. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Couple of nitpicks:
      • "The rights (plural) to the book were(plural) then auctioned off and Little, Brown and Company bought it (singular)..."
      • "Publishers Weekly explained the high price as a bidding war..." The high price resulted from a bidding war, but was not in itself a war.
        • Excellent catch! Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Genre and Style
    • Old literary argument: "repulsed" or "repelled" in "...both fascinated and repulsed by Dracula"?
      • "Repulsed" to me has overtones of physical repulsion, which is an important part of both stories. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Slight ambiguity: "Yet, Kostova shapes Dracula into her own character." She "shapes Dracula into a character of her own making".
      • Sorry, I don't see the ambiguity. Could you explain it to me? Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
        • "Character" can mean personal attributes/characteristics, as well as someone in a fictional work. I wanted it to be clear that the latter meaning was intended, but the point is minor. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "The novel's tone and structure place it within the serious literary tradition for which Kostova was aiming." Has this tradition been defined earlier in the article? If not, there should be a word of explanation as to the tradition she was aiming for.
      • The reviews I read assumed readers would know what this tradition is, so they don't define it. It is a problem, because, of course, not everyone agrees what "serious literature" is. I'm worried that if I defined the tradition here, I would be inserting OR. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Themes: no issues with this section
  • Reception
    • A bit more date information would help; when did she begin her promotion tour and, more particularly, what was the book's publication date?
    • The "Baker" who praised Kostova's prose should perhaps be reidentified as nancy Baker of The Globe and Mail.
      • As she is already identified, I don't think this is necessary. Awadewit (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I had forgotten who she was; the full name may have helped me remember. Not important. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Other than that, the section looks fine. I see that someone other than me found the book "ponderous".
      • I keep wanting books about scholars to be better! Awadewit (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • No comments on the Awards or Adaptations sections

Overall: the quality is there, only the final polishing necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Comments from completely involved Casliber

Funny, in hindsight that was/is/will be the bit that is the most awkward. Think of this as an exercise and challenge in being able to present a three-timed-sequenced timeline into a succinct and easily legible summary. I am trying to make some time for this, just have to deal with some arb stuff :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Update from Awadewit - I now have a herniated disk and cannot sit at my disk and edit. I'll have to return to this when I feel better. Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're sitting at/on your disk, does this not exacerbate the problem? Try your butt. Helpful me. --Moni3 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
OUCH - okay, I have now freed up a bit of time to do more relaxing things. Will look at the page anon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Colin (talk · contribs)

I enjoyed reading this and it reads very well. I have skipped the plot section because I haven't read the book.

  • I got a wee bit confused with the second paragraph of the "Composition and publication" section. On first reading it, I thought it was a mini-bio but trying to work out where she spent her life at various times was difficult. For example, the foreign-sounding surname (which I see later she got from her Bulgarian husband) made me think she was born and raised in Slovenia (spending a year in the capital). Then I realised I shouldn't really be worrying about piecing together her life because the purpose of the first half of this section is to show what influenced her to write this story. (Perhaps the section heading is wrong since much of the section is pre-composition?) Given this purpose, should the sentences in the second paragraph be inverted? Rather than saying "As a child, she...", "As an undergraduate at Yale University, she...", "In 1989, she...", "While Kostova was in Europe, ..." Could we say "She listened to recordings of Balkan folk music as a child, and ...", "She sang in and directed a Slavic chorus while studying as an undergraduate at Yale University", "She and some friends traveled to Eastern Europe in 1989,", "The Berlin Wall collapsed while Kostova was in Europe"? Perhaps there are other reasons that suggestion doesn't work. Maybe it would make the paragraph's sentences just a jumble of facts.
  • I've retitled the section "Background and publication" and added subheadings "Biographical background" and "Composition and publication". I've also adopted many of your suggestions for rewording the sentences. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This is better now and the "The family moved from the US to" helps. Colin°Talk 11:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I found this sentence surprising: "She even found a vampire-killing kit at the Mercer Museum, which had a pistol, silver bullets, a crucifix, a wooden stake, and powdered garlic." The tone "She even found" makes one think she had gone to extraordinary lengths (and seems a bit informal) but then the actual thing she found sounds more like an ACME vampire-movie kit than something serious. Is finding historical items in a museum noteworthy? There must be something special about this, or you wouldn't mention it, but it doesn't come across.
  • I meant the "even" to indicate that a vampire kit is a bit odd. How could I convey this better? Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is with "found"? Can you find something that is on open display? Or was it in the archives? Then we could say so. Did she just come across it when visiting the museum? Then we could say "came across" rather than "found". Or did she visit the museum because she heard it had vampire stuff. Then we could say she "visited the Mercer Museum to see a vampire kit, ..." I find it a bit odd that a US museum would have a vampire kit. Was it "real" (in the sense that the person owning the kit really was afraid of vampires) or was it just some items from an old movie set? I can't read the source and suspect it doesn't go into these details. Perhaps it is just my mind running away here and nobody else's mind started down that path... Colin°Talk 11:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
As you anticipated, the source does not go into detail. I wondered about this as well. I'm guessing it was in an archive (but that's only a guess). It is "real" vampire kit from the 19th century, but I'm not sure how serious it was. I wanted to do an article on Vampire kit when I read about this, but I haven't been able to collect enough material yet. Here are some kits and replicas. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Do we need to wikilink any of the "cities and countries which the story traverses". Should the six audio book actors be wikilinked? Who did the voicing of Dracula that was so criticised?
  • Wikilinks removed and I'm not sure if the audio book actors have enough press coverage to rate an article. I'm not sure who did the voicing of Dracula. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Colin°Talk 14:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary - I've worked on the plot summary some more. I've removed some more details and tried to clarify still further. Let me know if this has improved the flow of the plot summary at all. Awadewit (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


William Longchamp[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to take it to FAC and need to know what context is missing to make it intelligible for non-medievalists. Also, prose flow concerns and jargon would be helpful.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made some edits, mostly general copyedits, but also to add some context. Sometimes it seems kind of choppy, I think because it is broken up by the references. The legacy section sometimes also seems a little disconnected, like it's a bunch of random facts stuck together. It might benefit from some more copyediting, but otherwise all the facts seem to be in order. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Malleus hasn't touched the article yet, this is pretty much all my prose working here, so that's probably part of the problem with the choppy prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally clear, certainly broad, stable, and neutral. I made a few minor changes by adding nbsps, a pound sign, and changing a word here and there. I got confused by the sentence about the renewal of the legation and the return of Geoffrey. (See my note below). I'm doubtful about the double infobox and the resulting text sandwich. Here are a few suggestions and a couple of questions.

Infoboxes

  • I'm not used to seeing two infoboxes in the same article. Would it be better to render the information in one of them as straight prose? Could the infoboxes somehow be combined?
    • the infoboxes cannot be combined, unfortunately. I can remove one, but check Nigel (Bishop of Ely) or Hubert Walter, where these two are deployed together without any fuss from the FAC crowd. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead

  • I wikilinked pounds to "pounds sterling" in the lead and added the pound symbol to the main text, but you might want to use the pound symbol in the lead too. It looks funny to me spelled out.
    • Hm. The problem is that it's not really a "pound sterling" though. It's a "medieval pound" which is the predecessor to the pound sterling (somehow, or something like that. Currency and economic history are not my strong points...) It's probably not totally inaccurate, but in medieval history it's not unsual to spell out "pounds" rather than use the symbol. This becomes more common the earlier you go in the history. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikilink "Holy Roman Emperor"?

Background and early life

  • Should places like Hereford, Wilton, Ross, Wales, Dover Castle, and others be wikilinked?
  • "The family was originally of humble background, but had risen through service to King Henry II of England. The family originally was from the current village of Longchamps, in Normandy." - You might re-cast slightly to avoid starting two sentences in a row in almost exactly the same way.
  • "Two of Longchamp's brothers became abbots." - Wikilink abbot?
  • "He served in Henry II's chancery before he started serving Richard." - Wikilink or briefly explain "chancery"?
    • linked and explained Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Chancellor and Justiciar

  • "the increase in the price of having chancery documents sealed may have been to help Longchamp recoup the cost of office" - What does it mean to "seal" documents? Who raised the price, Longchamp or the king? What was the price?
    • Clarified somewhat. You paid to have the chancery afix the great seal to your documents, in order to authenticate them. I don't know what the price increase was to, quite honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "He sent judges throughout the country to visit the shires." - Wikilink shire?
    • done.
  • "Supposedly Richard paid 1500 marks to the papacy... " - Wikilink or briefly explain "mark". Can it be expressed in pounds as well so that we have some idea how much it cost compared to the cost of buying the office of chancellor?
    • A English medieval mark is 2/3rds of a pound. Linked and added conversion to pounds. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputes with John

  • The infobox and the Lincoln Castle image create a fairly extreme text sandwich.
  • "Eventually, Walter reached a compromise between the two where Gerard was confirmed as castellan and John relinquished the castles." - "through which" instead of "where"?
  • "Longchamp's legatine commission from the papacy had expired in the spring of 1191 with the death of Pope Clement III,[18] which removed one of Longchamp's power bases.[25] By the middle of summer 1191, Clement's successor Celestine III had renewed the legation,[2] but in September 1191 Henry II's illegitimate son Geoffrey, now Archbishop of York, was arrested by Longchamp's subordinates when he landed at Dover." - I got lost here. Celestine III renewed the legation. OK, but why does it matter that Geoffrey landed at Dover? What's the connection?
    • Clarified to have the connection "... By the middle of summer 1191, Clement's successor Celestine III had renewed the legation,[2] but a further complication in Longchamp's administration happened in September 1191 Henry II's illegitimate son Geoffrey..." it was just one more complication in Longchamp's life. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Exile and return

  • "Richard rewarded Longchamp with custody of Eye" - Wikilink Eye?
  • "Longchamp did not return to England after he left with Richard in May 1194." - This almost contradicts the first sentence in the paragraph. Did Longchamp only stay in England for parts of February and May and all of March and April? Maybe the chronology could be clarified a bit.
    • I've extensively reworked this chronology, let me know if it makes more sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Death and legacy

  • Wikilink "Le Pin"?
  • "Angevin possessions on the continent"- Wikilink Angevin to House of Anjou?
  • "Some have seen in the assembly that met to try Longchamp in 1191 a precursor to the gathering at Runnymede in 1215 that drew up Magna Carta." - Would it be helpful to elaborate a bit on the connection?
    • Added a bit more. See if that helps? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Finetooth, I'll keep plugging away at these over the next several days, now that RL has calmed down somewhat. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it generally discouraged to use primary sources directly? I'm not sure if that counts as "original research" or not (I do it all the time, without really thinking about Wikipedia rules). For example, in the legacy section, it says Austin Lane Poole says Gerard of Wales said such-and-such...why not quote Gerard directly? Presumably what Gerard says is not controversial so there there shouldn't be anything special about what Lane Poole says. Same with William of Newburgh at the beginning, and others I may have missed. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't actually have editions of those works, keep in mind I was originally a Anglo-Norman specialist, and never finished grad school, so never taught, so I just don't have later primary sources. I generally avoid using primary sources except for translations of quotations, but in this case, I don't have the translations so I have to use secondary sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay, that's a good point. It's also difficult when Lane Poole doesn't even say what his source is! The Gerard reference apparently comes from his Life of Geoffrey of York though. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm seeking to promote it to featured list status. It has already received a peer review to which everything was dealt with, so I need second opinions. Be picky please :)

Thanks, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Jafeluv

Lead:

  • "910.4 kilometres (565.7 mi) of provincially and municipally signed and maintained highway routes within the city" – Does this include the numbered city roads, or just the highways?
  • Is the shortest road really such a notable feature that it warrants mention in the lead?
  • The lead is awfully short, and doesn't mention the distinction between "King's Highways", "secondary highways" and "city roads", for example. Defining the terms would give the reader a better overview and encourage them to read further.
In regards to the first comment, the "King's" highways are the provincially signed, the numbered roads are the municipally signed. Should I clarify that in the lead? I think I put the shortest road comment there only for a DYK nomination, because the instructions there gave the impression that the hook had to be in the lead. I've also got the longest, however. Should I remove both, or just the shortest? Good idea on the last point, I'll see what I can do there shortly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Types of roads/King's Highways:

  • "Like the rest of Ontario, the King's Highways in Kawartha Lakes are designated with an shield shaped sign topped with a crown, with the highway number in the centre and the word ONTARIO below, and called King's Highways, a term adopted in 1930." – Might be better to chop up the long sentence.
  • I don't think the word "crown" needs to be wikilinked, it can probably be assumed that the reader knows what it is.
  • "Though generally one lane in either direction, several short sections with two lanes in one direction as a passing lane are scattered along the highways." – The first part is missing a verb, and I think "scattered along the highways" is redundant since it's already mentioned that there are "several short sections". Also, consider using "although" instead of the more informal "though".
  • "The other 5" – I think 5 should be spelt out. There's probably a section about that in the MOS somewhere...
  • "Highway 46, now Kawartha Lakes Road 46" – No need to wikilink both, since both point to the same article.
Fixed everything. I believe Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers would be the section. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Types of roads/Secondary highways:

  • "These were downloaded to Victoria county" – Capitalize "County".
Fixed - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Types of roads/City roads:

Fixed - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This section needs citations. For example, what is the source for the given total length of the roads?
Will fix the first one. The source for the figure is taking a map that shows the roads, figuring out the exact length using google maps, referencing the map, and then adding those up. I'm not sure how to present that, and its one of the things I've been trying to clear up (every editor asks that one). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I think it should at least be indicated somehow where the figure comes from. While routine calculations aren't considered original research as long as everyone agrees on the result, I can see people at FLC asking questions if it's not clarified where the information is from. Jafeluv (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

King's Highways:

  • "from the south to the north", "from the west to the east" – I'm not a native speaker, but somehow "from south to north" sounds better to my ear. Maybe this depends on the variant of English used? You seem to use "from east to west" in the City roads table (road number 8).
  • All the list sections have a lot of redlinks, while some entries are not linked. Is there a logic to this? I usually recommend removing redlinks as much as possible before FAC/FLC, unless they're there for a good reason.
  • Nice work with the sorting functionality of the tables.
Fixed the first couple things. The redlinks are there solely to promote the creation of those articles, but I wouldn't strongly object to their removal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

City roads:

  • It's not necessary to wikilink "Kawartha Lakes" every time.
  • "Bexley-Laxton Township Line" → "Bexley–Laxton Township Line" – I think this calls for a dash rather than a hyphen, per WP:ENDASH.
  • "Formerly Highway 505, prior to 1997." (several instances) – "Formerly" is redundant here.
Fixed the first and last (Added a bit on the last too, as only part of the route was Highway 505. Isn't ndash for instances where you'd use "to" when speaking? From 1967 to 1999 (1967–1999)? Its Bexley and Laxton Township Line essentially. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I think "Bexley-Laxton Township" would indicate that there was one township, called "Bexley-Laxton". Using the dash makes it clear that there are two townships. Dashes indicates disjunction, while hyphens indicate conjunction. However, it's a very minor issue, and by no means uncontroversial (see the MOS talk pages on how heated the debate can get about such a trivial topic). Jafeluv (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

References:

  • The sources are almost exclusively maps, which is not a great indication of notability. However, #4 seems like a good source.
  • Reference #1 gives a "page doesn't exist" error.
  • Reference #6 gives a "secure connection failed" error.
Reference one has been taken down for some reason since I started the page, but is probably available on the internet archive. Reference 6 works fine for me, but I'll see what I can do. The maps are the main research tool in terms of the facts and the numbers. I don't believe notability is an issue with county road systems, seeing as many counties in the us have featured list articles. Unfortunately, we just do not have a website that lists all the information in Canada, so I have to break out a measuring tape and string. Any thoughts on what I could do on this one? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Images:

  • The road number images are a nice touch. They help describe the road signs to the reader and they also make the tables look good.
  • File:Trans-Canada Highway shield.svg needs a non-free use rationale for this article.
Would I add that to the image or is it something I add to the image link in the article? I think you pretty much gave the same rationale I would in the point above! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You need to add it to the image description page. There is already one for the Trans-Canada Highway article, see if you can use the same rationale. If not, you can add your own – see guideline. Also make sure that the use of the image in the article conforms to all of the non-free content criteria, particularly #8. People at FAC/FLC are pretty strict about non-free images having the correct fair use rationales (and rightly so, since it's a legal issue). Jafeluv (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Would it be a lot of work to add road numbers to the map? I think it would make it a lot clearer which road is where.
Not a lot of work, but it'll take some time. I know there's a way to use coding to put text over the image, so maybe I could do that instead... - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That would work too, although wouldn't doing it that way mean that when the reader clicks on the image to see the larger version, the numbers would disappear? Jafeluv (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Alt texts look good.

General:

  • The article should probably be in Category:Kawartha Lakes, Ontario.
  • I'm not sure what the numbered road sign example in the Types of roads section adds when all the road signs are shown in the tables anyway. It might work better if that one was removed and the causeway image moved higher (and possibly made bigger).
The main purpose was to show a much larger and more detailed sign. I suppose you feel it isn't necessary when one can click on any of them t see a large image? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it's necessary since the article already contains about 50 or so such images, and the reader can see a bigger version of any of them with one click. The fact that the signs are referred to as "shields" could be added somewhere in the text. Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a source for that (Though it would never be contested by someone in the area), and I felt its less likely to be picked on as an image caption. I'll see what I can do when I get off work later - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 12:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Jafeluv (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I responded to everything... and made the likewise changes in the article. Still have a couple things to do that you suggested however, and I need responses on a couple others. Thank you for the review! :) Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty. I think with the exception of modifying the map (which takes me some time as I have to make it on gIMP and trace it into Flash in order to make it an svg), everything is done. Care to give it a last once for any other problems? I think it's ready for its second shot at FLC. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
After making an attempt, I don't believe I can label the roads. First off, the numbers would be blurs at the resolution of the image on articles. Second off, since many of the roads twist and wind, I'd have to label each road several times along its length. The whole image would come out very messy. My end goal is to make articles for each road and have a map for that road. Any thoughts? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Edward I of England[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it just passed GA review and I'm thinking of taking it to FA. I'm pretty happy about the general shape of the article now, but there is probably still some issues with language that could be worked on. A copyedit would be welcome, but also comments on general readability and understanding would help.

Thanks, Lampman (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lampman, the first thing that strikes me is that the lead is too long. I know it's made to look longer by the infobox, but even taking that into account, I think it could use some tightening. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've made a few additions, mostly just links; I didn't think there was much else I could improve. It has everything I would expect to read about Edward and goes into great (but not excessive) detail. I agree that the lead might be too long, but he did have a long and active life, so it would be difficult to shorten it. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for help and advice. I cut a couple of sentences from the middle paragraph of the lead, but I think it's hard to do full justice to the man and his reign with a much shorter lead than this. Lampman (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • General -
    • Measuring Worth, which is what {{Inflation}} uses, starts at 1264, so suggest you convert monetary units.
    • You need Alt text on your images.
    • Strongly suggest finding a better copyeditor than I am. The prose seems a bit stilted and wordy, neither of which problems I'm well suited to fixing, unfortunately.
    • Sources seem like you're using most of the most important and authoritative ones. I do note that there isn't much use of journal articles, might double check with any articles listed in the ONDB entry or Here for information that might be helpful.
    • One suggestion is to have a general map with Scotland, Wales, England and Gascony on it to help orient readers.
  • Lead -
    • "After the Battle of Lewes, Edward was given as hostage to the rebellious ..." wasn't he captured at Lewes? Might reword to "After the Battle of Lewes, Edward was a hostage..."
    • "Edward's reign had two characteristic phases." Characteristic implies to me that it's emblematic or iconic. I think a better phrasing here might be "Edward's reign had two main phases." because neither phase was "iconic"
  • Childhood -
    • "17/18 June 1239" isn't going to be readily understood by most readers, suggest "17-18 June 1239" of "the 17th and 18th of June 1239".
    • "baronial reform movement" might link to an article on that? Or something?
  • Early ambitions -
    • "... when he took sides in a local conflict in Gascony, a stand that ran contrary to his father's policy of mediation." what side did Edward take?
    • Magnates - for some reason, folks at FAC don't understand this word well, suggest a quickie explanation of it.
  • Civil war -
    • "... mutilated in the field." Wouldn't it be "on the field"?
  • Crusade -
    • ".. rest had to be raised through a lay tax, which had not been levied since 1237." .. you link "lay tax" to Laity, but that's kinda an easter egg link, as you'd expect that phrase to link to an exact tax. If there isn't a link for the exact tax (which was it, by the way? A subsidy? Or a fifteenth or similar?) you should rephrase to "a tax on the laity" and keep the link on just laity.
    • Ah, I see, it's a twentieth. Should explain exactly what that means and what was taxed.
  • Administration -
    • "The inquest produced the so-called Hundred Rolls, from the administrative sub-division of the hundred."... the first hundred rolls are from 1255, so this is a bit misleading in implying that these rolls were the first. Suggest rewording to "The inquest produced a new set of so-called Hundred Rolls, from the administrative sub-division of the hundred."
    • suggest a quickie explanation in the article of who Bracton is.
    • Should the various statutes and legislations be italicised? I think they should...
  • Welsh wars -
    • "Problems were exacerbated when his younger brother..." I think you need to clarify that the his here is Llywelyn, since the last person mentioned was humpreh de bohun.
    • Is Madog a son of Llywelyn? Need to clarify and/or explain briefly in the text.
  • I've taken the liberty of doing some copyediting. Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • Please check for snakelike sentences, such as the two in a row beginning with "Though the endowments"
  • What does this mean: "but the English triumph would eventually prove deceptive"?
  • Is it Almain or Almein? I see both. Ditto Lusignan/Luisignan.
  • Inconsistent formatting, this note: G.W.S. Barrow, Robert Bruce and the community and realm of Scotland, p.80
  • Missing from refs:
    • Brand, Paul (2003).
    • Carpenter, David (1985).
    • Carpenter, David (2007).
    • Davies, Rees (1984).
    • Denton, J.H. (01 1989).
    • Maddicott, John (1983)
    • Maddicott, John (1989).
    • McFarlane, K.B. (1981).
    • Morris 2009
    • Parsons, John Carmi (2004).
    • Parsons, John Carmi (1984).
    • Prestwich 1980
    • Helen Cam (1963).
    • Tout, T.F. (1920).
    • Waugh, Scott L. (2004).
    • Tunzelmann, Alex von (2008-07-31).
  • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla[edit]

October 2009[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it as a possible featured-article candidate, and given the nature of the topic, I'd appreciate input from uninvolved editors, as well as editors with specific expertise.

Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Brief comment: This is one of the most significant articles that has come for review recently. I have read it, and the various debates on the talkpage, with great interest. I am reasonably well-informed on Middle East history since the Balfour Declaration, and am familiar with most of your sources. I will add some detailed comments shortly – I'm temporarily distracted by chores. I am sorry this has had to wait so long for attention here, but at the moment PR reviewers are desperately scarce, even more so than at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Brian, thank you very much for looking at this. Please take as long as you need. It's quite an important issue with the Israel-Palestine debate, and so more than ever we need to get right (factually and in terms of balance) before taking it to FAC. It's hard to find uninvolved, but knowledgeable, editors—especially those willing to spend the time—but that's precisely what this needs. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

More detailed comments (not an exhaustive list):-

  • Text: No major issues at all, the prose is clear and compelling. I have not done a line-by-line nitpick operation; that may be necessary later, but first things first. Just a few minor points:-
    • In almost all my sources "Ramla" is given as "Ramle" or "Ramleh". A footnote could draw attention to these alternative spellings. (People often mistake the place for Ramallah, so it's best to guard against all confusion)
    • In the lead, could the words "and the subsequent war" (or similar) be added to the end of the first sentence. Readers should be aware from the beginning that the occupation of the two towns was an act of war.
    • In the final section of the article I have problems reconciling "The population in Lod as of 2001 was 66,100, 19.7 percent of them Arab" with the later statement: "A fifth of the town's population are Bedouins who have set up illegal dwellings on agricultural land, as a result of which they receive no municipal services, such as trash collection or sewage disposal." Together, these statements imply that all the town's Arab population are Bedouins living illegally on land. Should the latter statement read "A fifth of the town's total Arab population..." etc?
  • Sources
    • No real criticism here, the range of sources is impressive. People will always say "Why don't you use so-and-so" but with thousands of sources at your disposal you can't quote them all. I find I often prefer to read sources who are a little detached from the actual events, which is how I discovered this. Coughlin was the Daily Telegraph Middle East correspondent and later became Foreign Editor of the Sunday Telegraph. In his book he says: "There were, undoubtedly, occasions when Palestinians were forced to flee at gunpoint, one of the most infamous examples being the expulsion of some 50,00 Arabs from the twin towns of Lydda and Ramleh..." He notes that this expulsion had been preceded by earlier actions, such as the evacuation of the Katamon district in Jerusalem, pointing out that although many leading Arab families did "decamp for more serene destinations, ... the majority of Jerusalem's population who were made refugees during the war left their homes as a result either of intimdation or brute force."
    • The American writer Arthur Koestler visited Ramleh on 15 May and reported thus: "The Arabs were hanging about in the street much as usual, except for a few hundred youths of military age who have been put into a barbed wire cage and were taken off in lorries to an internment camp. Their veiled mothers and wives were carrying food and water to the cage, arguing with the Jewish sentries and pulling their sleeves, obviously quite unafraid. ... Groups of Arabs came marching down the main street with their arms above their heads, grinning broadly, without any guards, to give themselves up. The one prevailing feeling among all seemed to be that as far as Ramleh was concerned the war was over, and thank God for it." (Promise and Fulfilment Macmillan & Co 1949 pp. 270–71)
    • If you want it I can give Bernadotte's comments in full on the condition of the Lydda refugees after his visit to the Ramallah camp. He had earlier rather dismissed the towns' occupation as "certain minor military successes to the Jews." (To Jersusalem, Hodder & Stoughton 1951)
    • There is an interesting bit of information in Tom Segev's book on the 1967 war. He says: "In 1949 Israel offered to readmit 100,000 refugees as part of a peace settlement, but the plan failed and Israel rescinded the offer." Do any of your sources confirm this? I can't remember reading anything about it in any of the histories, and Segev doesn't footnote it.
  • Balance: It will be very hard to convince all readers that the article is a fair and neutral account. That is the way with articles on such contentious and emotive subjects, which is why they rarely come to FAC. In my view the article comes close to fairness and neutrality, but some aspects require further explanation in the interests of balance. In particular:-
    • In the "Strategic importance" section I think it should be pointed out that Jerusalem's 100,000 Jews had been cut off from the yishuv between February and June 1948. Repeated efforts by the Israelis (Operation Naashon and the violent Latrun battles) to open the main Tel Aviv – Jerusalem road had failed, the seige being precariously lifted by the opening of the "Burma Road" just before the June truce. Mention of these facts might explain why Ben-Gurion had an obsession about Lydda and Ramleh, and wanted them neutralised.
    • Interesting though they are, I think that three verbatim quotes from George Habash is too many, given Habash's future role, and tend to unbalance the article. The danger is that readers will think: "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he."
    • Likewise, I think ending the article with a deliberately poignant quote is strong journalistically, but not encyclopedically (if such a word exists). It certainly doesn't contribute to a neutral tone, and should perhaps be reconsidered.

I'd be pleased to have your thoughts on these issues. I may well have more comments to make presently. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all very interesting and helpful. Some preliminary responses for now:
  • It would be most helpful if you could tell us what Bernadotte said about the Lydda refugees in the camp.
  • I know about the 100,000 offer mentioned by Segev, but I don't know whether there's anything specific about Lydda/Ramla. I will try to find out.
  • Good point about footnoting alternative spellings in case of confusion with Ramallah. Added to an existing footnote.
  • Will add the points you make about the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road to explain Ben Gurion's obsession.
  • You're right about Habash. Will fix. Done.
  • Arthur Koestler's observation is very interesting; will add it to the article. Done.
  • You're right about the Bedouin percentage being confusing. Will try to reconcile the sources.
  • Heh, I love that ending. :) It seems to sum up the tragedy of the current situation. I think I'd like to try to hang onto it unless the objections become overwhelming.
  • I'll add to the lead that this was part of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Done.

This is great, exactly what's needed, thank you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

    • Bernadotte, p. 200:-

Before we left Jerusalem, I visited Ramallah, where thousands of refugees from Lydda and Ramleh were assembled. I have made the acquaintance of a great many refugee camps; but never have I seen a more ghastly sight than that which met my eyes here at Ramallah. The car was literally stormed by excited massing shouting with Oriental fervour that they wanted food and wanted to return to their homes. There were plenty of frightening faces in that sea of suffering humanity. I remember not least a group of scabby and helpless old men with tangled beards who thrust their emaciated faces into the car and held out scraps of bread that would certainly have been considered quite uneatable by ordinary people, but was their only food. Perhaps there was no immediate danger of this camp becoming a breeding-ground of epidemic diseases that would spread all over Palestine. But what would happen at the beginning of October, when the rainy season began and the cold weather set in? It was a thought one preferred not to follow to its conclusion.

(Don't feel you have to use this quote just because I typed it all out!) Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2010[edit]

I've returned to this article after a break, and would like to try to bring it to FA status. Reviews from uninvolved editors would be very helpful, and Brian if you're willing to have another glance through it, that would be very much appreciated. The last version I can vouch for, btw, is at User:SlimVirgin/Lydda3.

I've dealt with the points you raised before, Brian, except that the ending is the same, and I haven't included the 100,000 return offer, because it felt like going off track a little (though I'll look it up again to refresh my memory). But otherwise I think your points have all been added, removed, or clarified. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've opened this as a new peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle/archive2. I had to do that to get the bot to list it on the PR page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

List of pistols[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I reckon it has the chance of becoming a featured list. My main concerns are:

  1. that the table needs to be one long one and not one for every letter
  2. The intro is too long
  3. There aren't enough references
  • and too many red links

I will accept any comments/ suggestions for improvement so that this article can become a featured list

Thanks, Ajpralston1 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in a peer review we suggest things to be done to improve the list, which the User does. Could u do 1-3 of your suggestion?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point! Maybe the wording on my part didn't help but all i wanted was an opinion on whether the table needed to be one long one or not etc and whether i could nominate it for featured list yet, i wasn't asking or expecting people to do it for me, just for tips and hints on how to make it ready for nomination. Whether my concerns above will hinder it when its reviewed or not?! Ajpralston1 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I didn't understand what you meant but now I do. I'm mainly a Featured list reviewer and just came looking for more reviews over here because most FLCs are now reviewed. So I can help you in indicating what is missing for FL statusl. First off the intro isn't too long. It just need to be in sections instead of third level sections with maybe types as the header. The A-Z sections should be removed and the list should be one lang list so it can be sorted according to whatever the reader wants for example according to type or country or even manufacturer. The Table of contents should be a normal one, no need for this contents thing. You need to give the general reference of the information and the specific inline citations for info that isn't in the general info. With a bit of dedication and hard work you can get this list near feature quality within a week or less. Then you can nominate it as a Featured list candidate. I'll give you suggestions along the way. Each time you finish something just type done which I'll see in the watchlist and will give more comments. Start with the tables and references and we'll proceed from there.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Have completed all points mentioned. I await further suggestions and comments. Whats your opinion on adding a medium sized picture gallery at the bottom? Any good? Ajpralston1 (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. Is this list complete? Does it have every pistol ever created in the world?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. WPFirearms isn't a reliable source and World Guns is a dead link. Provide better references please.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. There are four types of pistols. I suggest dividing the list into four sections to have a distinction between each type.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No its not all the pistols ever created. Will that hinder it? Have split types of pistols into sections, when you say have a distinction between each type, do you just mean to compare them? Removed WPFirearms reference although i don't know why world.guns isn't working as it was yesterday. Will continue looking for more references. Ajpralston1 (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the criteria of FL is that they be comprehensive so this would hinder it...And I don't understand which pistols are what type. There should be a column in the list for the type of the pistol or the list should be split into the different types. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Have added type column. Working on references. Whats next!! Ajpralston1 (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Why aren't there any Multi barelled (MB) pistols? And only one Single Shot pistol exists? The list isn't comprehensive and needs a lot of expansion.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. Remove World Guns and Gallery of Guns from general references. These aren't reliable sources.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. Why are there references at the bottom of the list? you listed those already in General references...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Beretta M 1934, FN model 1910 and more on List_of_World_War_II_firearms#Handguns aren't listed in this list. Make sure all are.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. Add all pistols from Category:Beretta pistols, Category:Semi-automatic pistols and its subcategories and Category:Pistols and its subcategories to the list. You need a solid reference where those pistols are defined. You could also just reference every single pistol you list there for the accuracy of the information...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Quick question, is the way that I'm referencing the guns OK as I don' want to do that for all the guns only to be told that its wrong. Thanks Ajpralston1 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is wrong. You aren't allowed to reference to Wikipedia articles. You could however use those articles to get references like from Minebea_PM-9 you can get the japanese reference where it states the year of the gun and the data... You need Reliable Sources. You should also you {{cite web}} for your references, with all possible parameters filled.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up for me! Ajpralston1 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
How's it looking? Source column any good? Ajpralston1 (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Much better and please remove the wikipedia references. (TABOO)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Just need to add references but the pistols are all added! Obviously if I find any new ones I will add them as go along. Ajpralston1 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it is ready for featured list nomination? Ajpralston1 (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm looking to re-attempt FAC, and am looking for further criticism/feedback so as to make the process as painless as possible. Any help would be immensely appreciated.

Thanks! Strombollii (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: The article seems clear, interesting, and professionally written to me, a non-scientist. I have a small number of suggestions.

  • The images lack alt text, which they will need for FA. It's a good idea to add them in any case. Alt text describes the essence of images, maps, and charts to readers who can't see them. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it, and you can look at recent examples of alt text via WP:FAC.
  • The article has a relatively large number of extremely short sections. It might be worth considering merging, for example, the five subsections of "Diagnosis" under the single head, "Diagnosis" and eliminating the subheads. The FA article on Tourette Syndrome handles the "Diagnosis" section this way. Alternatively, perhaps some of the short sections could be expanded.
  • Part of the licensing information for Image:Friedrich Daniel von Recklinghausen.jpg could be a problem. The source url is circular in that it links to the image itself rather than to a page at the host site with information that a fact-checker could use to verify that Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire de Médecine is indeed the source. The fact-checker(s) at FAC are likely to ask for a more illuminating url.
  • The source url for Image:Illu thyroid parathyroid.jpg returns a "page not found" message. The url has probably moved within the site, and it would be good to track down the new url and to replace the old one.
  • I believe X-ray takes a big X even in the middle of a sentence. I see several "x-ray"s in the "Radiology" and "Fine needle aspiration" sections.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


The Ex-Girlfriend[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for a second peer review because I was, sort of, adviced to when it was at FAC. It was unclear to me what work should be done, I hope a reviewer can clear it up for me.

Thanks, --Music26/11 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is fairly well done, but I agree that the prose could use a bit of polish. So here are some suggestions for improvement. By the way, technically you are supposed to wait 14 days after an unsuccessful FAC before opening a peer review. It has been that long already (sorry for the delay)

  • There are free images of Jerry Seinfeld, Jason Alexander, and Larry David in their articles - I think any of those would be preferred over an image of Tony Bennett (who does not actually appear or sing in the episode, if I understand correctly)
  • The image is simply for illustrational purposes, I chose it because (on my monitor) it is exactly the size of the section and doesn't pierce through the "production" header.--Music26/11 10:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, it just seems odd to have an image of someone who does not physically appear (or sing) in the episode. I would think a picture of Seinfeld or Alexander or David would be more useful. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The Cultural references section seems the weakest to me - it seems to go into too much detail and explains the obvious (Sinatra). On my monitor it is about 2/3 as long as the plot, which raises some WP:WEIGHT issues. I do not write TV articles, so it may be this is fine and I ma just being picky.
  • These sections are becoming more and more frequent in TV episode articles, that's the reason I created it. At the previous PR, the length and notability of the section was also an issue. Articles such as "You Only Move Twice", "Hell is Other Robots" have similiarly-sized cultural references sections. However, if this becomes a major issue at FAC, I'm willing to remove it.--Music26/11 10:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I am OK with a paragraph on cultural references, but think part of the problem was that the prose there needed to be tightened, plus the odd choice of the image (see above). Even now, I wonder why there is a mention of Steve McQueen? If Jerry mentions him in the show, I would make it something like During a discussion with Elaine, Jerry mentions the 1958 film The Blob and its star, Steve McQueen. If he does not mention McQueen, why include that odd fact here? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Overall the language is decent, but I agree with the FAC comment that it does not really flow well - wil try to point out some examples.
    • The episode was written by series co-creators Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld, and directed by Tom Cherones, and was inspired by one of Larry David's personal experiences. This sentence has the director in it which kind of breaks up the thought, (written by, inspired by might be smoother). What if it were just The episode was written by series co-creators Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld and was inspired by one of David's personal experiences.? (I think the MOS says the article should just use David's last name). The "directed by Tom Cherones" bit could be added elsewhere, perhaps to the next sentence, so something like Directed by Tom Cherones, "The Ex-Girlfriend" was the first episode of the show filmed at CBS Studio Center in Studio City, Los Angeles.
    • What if the Sinatra part were something like After George receives a bill from his chiropractor, he asks "75 bucks? What, am I seeing Sinatra in there?" Singer and actor Frank Sinatra coincidentally died the same day the last episode of Seinfeld was aired on NBC.[1][2][3] Not even sure the "singer and actor " part is needed, but probably safer to keep it in.
  • Yeah lets keep that in for the 1% of the population that doesn't know who he is:P.--Music26/11 10:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I think tightening the prose improves flow, but better logical order also helps. In the Production section, my understanding is that a show is first written, then cast, then rehearsed and filmed, then edited, and finally broadcast. In this section we learn about writing, then about scenes cut prior to broadcast (editing), then a scene changed before filming (library to Monk's), then the table read and filming, then casting Tracy Kolis, then details about filming and reusing extras.
    • If it were me I would start with writing, then go to casting Kolis, then talk about filming (and make sure to put the two mentions of Monk's together so perhaps start with that, then the sets and car trick and reusing extras), then scenes cut before broadcast.
    • Suggestions for tighter / smoother prose: The opening scene in Jerry's car, in which George discusses with Jerry about breaking up with Marlene, originally had George proposing to Jerry that he stage his own kidnapping ... (already know it is Jerry's car, who else would George be talking to? could keep the second Jerry if needed)
    • Originally, the scene in which Jerry tells George that he is dating Marlene took place in a library, with a librarian repeatably [repeatedly] shushing George and Jerry and kicking them out of the library at the end of the scene. The location of this dialogue was changed to Monk's Cafe, a regular hangout spot for the show's main characters, because Jerry and George's,/s> [the] dialogue had nothing to do with a library.[1]
    • The first table read of the episode took place on October 17, 1990.[, and it] It was filmed in front of a studio audience six days later, on October 23.
    • Suggested change to something like "The Ex-Girlfriend" was the first Seinfeld episode to be filmed on stage 19 of the CBS Studio Center in Studio City, Los Angeles, California. The majority of season one had been filmed at the Desilu Cahuenga studio, in Hollywood, California, where The Dick Van Dyke Show had also been filmed.[8]
    • The chiropractor's waiting room, in which George finds he was charged too much for a visit to the chiropractor, was the only new set that appeared in the episode.[1]
    • Though the scenes in Monk's Cafe were filmed at CBS Studio Center, the exterior of Tom's Restaurant, a diner at Broadway and 112th Street in Manhattan, was used as the exterior for the cafe.[9]
    • Auditions were held for the part of Marlene; [A]ctresses who auditioned for the part [of Marlene] included ...
    • I would use start instead in commencement of the First Gulf War.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


Gravity (Our Lady Peace album)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like this article to try to reach for Good Article Status, but I'm not sure it's the best it can be. Please make suggestions, grammar, wording, cohesion. etc...

Thanks, Publichall (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I note that you wish to nominate this for GA. I've looked at a selection of album articles that are already GA and I would say this is not hopelessly distant from that standard, although a fair bit of work is still required. Here are some points for your attention:-

  • Lead
    • I've noticed that most album articles, in the first sentence of the lead, give brief identifing details for the band, e.g. "British post-punk", "Chicago-based rock band", etc. I suggest that you do the same.
    • Lead, first paragraph: "The album became a worldwide success, topping charts both in Canada and the U.S. with the hit singles 'Somewhere Out There' and 'Innocent'." Unclear: did the album itself top the charts, or was it the individual songs that did this independently?
    • "This was their first album to feature their current guitarist, Steve Mazur..." You should delete "their current" (who knows how long he will be this?), and I suggest you begin the sentence: "Gravity was the group's first album to feature guitarist..." etc
    • "December 2001", not "December of 2001"
    • The word "respectively" in the final lead sentence is unnecessary.
  • Background
    • Spiritual Machines and Raine Maida (first mention) need links
    • "Rather than forcing Mike to change, they mutually decided to part ways." I don't think "forcing" is the right word - how could they "force" him to change?
    • The quote in the second paragraph is too long. Use a brief verbatim extract and paraphrase the rest.
    • Maui needs to be linked at first mention, and there should be some context given How come they were in Maui?
  • Recording
    • "seeked"?? I think "sought"
    • Link Bob Rock at first mention
    • Why is the quotation in italics?
    • "Spiritual Machines" should be italicised
    • Duncan Coutts should be linked. Is he a band member? If so, say so
    • Explain that "Made of Steel" and "Do You Like It" are song titles from the album
    • "wasn't" is somewhat informal; should be written as "was not"
    • "lo and behold" should be enclosed in ndashes, not hyphens
    • Link Jeremy Taggart on first mention, and say who he is.
  • Release and reception
    • Small "r" for reception in title
    • The section begins "Despite this success..." The nature of this success needs to be summarised (chart positions, sales, awards etc)
    • "Vocalist Raine Maida's signature falsetto is scarce on the album, with his overall tone changing as well." This statement should be cited, and should probably lose the "as well"
    • Single sentence paragraphs should be avoided. The second paragraph of this section is too inconsequential to deserve a mention, and I would get rid of it.
  • Track Listing: could be tidier - equalise distances between columns (wikitable?)
  • Bonus DVD: what is this, not mentioned in text?
  • Release history: Untidy table - information is not properly aligned
  • References: many are not properly formatted, lacking access dates and other information.

I hope these comments are helpful I am not watching peer reviews at the moment, so if you want clarifacion on any of these points, or want me to look again, please leave a note on my talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Tanna japonensis[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like it rated, I think it meets B-class requirements, and could perhaps be progressed towards GA.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, well-illustrated, and a good start. I'm not a scientist, but I have a few suggestions from the point of view of a generalist familiar with Wikipedia.

Characteristics

  • How much does the average Tanna japonensis" weigh?
  • How many wings do they have? What is the typical wing span?
  • What are their flight patterns? How far can they fly? Do they typically stay close to where they were born, or do they travel far or migrate?

Habitat

  • What prevents Tanna japonensis from spreading to the Korean peninsula or to Vietnam or to the west of China or elsewhere? I'm assuming the answers to this might be multiple, but the article doesn't say.
  • The second paragraph is unsourced even thought it contains information that is not common knowledge. It's a good idea to provide a source for any claim that might reasonably be questioned and to provide at least one source for every paragraph in the article.
  • Is anything known about the origin of the species? Did the population appear to emanate from any known geographic center?
  • What factors make Japan the best place for this insect?
  • A map of the habitat range would be helpful.

Ecology

  • This section is awfully short. Would it be useful to change it to "Life cycle" and add data about reproduction, life span, diet, social organization, and defense mechanisms?

Subspecies

  • This section is awfully short as well. What endangered the subspecies? Did the people of Okinawa do anything specific to protect the subspecies?

Layout

  • The existing layout suffers from many images squashing little text. It should become easier to amend the layout as the text sections expand. Generally, it's a good idea to keep illustrations and photos inside the section or subsection they relate to and not to allow images to overlap section boundaries or to displace the article's edit links.

General

  • Would it be useful to add a section about the insect's cultural importance? You mention television shows in the "Call" section, but perhaps more could be said. Do the insects have any effect on economies? Do people eat them? Do the insects eat crops that have economic value? The 1960 postage stamp suggests that they are admired by humans? Does that postage stamp have a history that would explain something about the cultural value of the insect?

References

  • The middle reference (Nakao, Shunichi) does not seem to be cited in the article.
  • It would be good to track down more sources, if any can be found.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Conservation biology[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has received lots of attention in the past year. This article has expanded in size, it thoroughly covers the entire subject area, and is well cited. It does not have a rating in the importance scale, but is should be rated very high since Conservation Biology is arguably the most important biological topic of our time.

Thanks, Thompsma (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a quite interesting article on an important topic; however, the lead does not seem to be a summary of the whole article, and I think it might improve the article's flow to put "History" first and to organize the material chronologically, as far as that can be done. The writing is a bit uneven; some sections are specific and well-supported, while others seem vague, idealized, or theoretical rather than verifiable. The article could use a good top-to-bottom copyedit to find and fix many small errors. Here are a few more specific suggestions.

Lead

  • MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead is more like the introductory paragraphs of an essay than a summary or abstract of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include material in the lead that is not developed in the main text sections.
  • "The concern stems from estimates suggesting that up to 50% of all species on the planet will disappear within the next 50 years, which has contributed to poverty, starvation, and will reset the course of evolution on this planet." - There's a bit of a mix-up here because of the switch in verb tenses. The future disappearance of species can't have already contributed to poverty and starvation. Perhaps this would be better: "The concern stems from estimates suggesting that up to 50 percent of all species on Earth will disappear within the next 50 years; this will re-set the course of evolution and contribute to poverty and starvation."
  • "Conservation biologists research and educate on the trends and process of biodiversity loss, species extinctions, and the negative affect this is having on our capabilities to sustain the well-being of human society." - Wikipedia generally avoids using the first-person (I, we, mine, us, ours) in this way. Better would be "Conservation biologists research and educate on the trends and process of biodiversity loss, species extinctions, and the negative effect these have on the ability of human society to sustain itself."
  • "Organizations and citizens are responding to the biodiversity crisis through conservation action plans that direct research, monitoring, and education programs that engage concerns at local through global scales." - Vague. The essence of this is "People are responding to the problem with plans and programs." I'd suggest either deleting the sentence or saying something more specific.

Sixth extinction

  • "(see also [64][65])." - All the citations should be in-line here and throughout the article.
  • "over the course of the earth's 4 billion year history" - I like the more specific meaning of Earth with a big "E"; numbers smaller than 10 are usually written as words, and the triple adjective needs hyphens. Suggestion: "over the course of Earth's four-billion-year history".

Status of oceans and reefs

  • "The largest period of decline occurred in a dramatic "bleaching" event in 1998, where approximately 16% of all the coral reefs in the world disappeared in less than a year." - "during which" rather than "where"?
  • "The oceans are threatened by acidification due to an increase in CO2 levels." - It might be good to spell out CO2 on first use, thus: "The oceans are threatened by acidification due to an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels."

Insects and other groups

  • "There are serious concerns also being hailed from taxonomic groups that do not receive the same degree of social attention or attract funds as the vertebrates do, including fungi, lichen, plant and insect[12][29][30] communities where the vast majority of biodiversity is represented." - "Hail" isn't something a taxonomic group can do, and the sentence is a bit wordy. Suggestion: "Researchers have also raised serious concerns about taxonomic groups that do not attract as much attention as vertebrates. These groups include fungi, lichen, plant, and insect communities representing the vast majority of biodiversity."
  • "which has infested 470,000 km2 (180,000 sq mi)" - Generally in Wikipedia the primary unit is spelled out and the secondary unit abbreviated in a particular way. I like to use the {{convert}} template because it spells and abbreviates correctly in addition to doing the math; e.g., 470,000 square kilometres (180,000 sq mi).
  • Threats to biodiversity
  • "leaving them 'not-so protected' - Generally double-quotes are preferred to single-quotes; i.e. "leaving them "not-so protected".
  • "beca