Wikipedia:Peer review/September 2008

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

Michael Atiyah[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as preparation for WP:FAC. It could probably do with some feedback from non-mathematicians.

Thanks, R.e.b. (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WillowW comments

OK, R.e.b., you know that I like you, and I have nice memories of our work together on Emmy Noether. So please don't take it amiss if I give you my personal opinion: the article is not close to being ready for FAC. I feel the chief problems are these two:

  • I fear the present article is unintelligible to almost every reader. I cringe at saying this, since my own articles are rarely intelligible. But I do know some basic math and physics, including some index and fixed-point theorems; and I wrote photon, including the gauge-symmetry and quantum-field-theory parts. But this article is light-years beyond that level, and I have to admit that I understood basically nothing of your description of his work. If that's true for me, then imagine what it would feel like for our English-literature friends, Awadewit and Scartol. Please don't write us off from the beginning. You can sacrifice some of the details at the top-level article and incorporate them later into more technical daughter articles.
  • With the exception of the biography section, the article reads like a collation of lists: list of collaborators, list of publications, list of awards, etc. Please understand that we readers don't need such lists; we can always get them from online publication databases, or from Atiyah's CV and his Conflict of Interest forms. ;) We don't need a list of every problem Atiyah has ever worked on, or every publication he's issued. Rather, we need you to make sense of his work for us, to organize his publications into themes and story-arcs and narrative. Motivate the problems, set them in the context of other work and great trends in physics/math, that sort of thing. To help create space for that narrative, you might consider farming out some lists into daughter articles, e.g., those of his collaborators, students and publications, as we did (in part) for Emmy Noether.

I sympathize, I really do, and I hope you don't think I'm being unnecessarily harsh or critical. Sometimes I'll ask my better educated friends here (from grad students to professors) to review a geometry or physics article that I've worked months on, articles that I've always striven to make intelligible and which can't be that complicated, if I can understand them. :) And yet, despite my mightiest efforts to explain and the wealth of my excellent thesaurus, my friends often give up and say, "it's way over my head." Examples would be the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector or the problem of Apollonius, both of which I'm sure must seem trivially simple to you. Your task is a quantum leap or two in complexity beyond those — but I feel that we have to at least try to make our articles readable. Experts don't need — and I daresay won't read — a Wikipedia article on their own subject; it's for everyone else's benefit that we're writing, don't you agree?

With sincere best wishes and hopeful prospects, Willow (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Geometry guy adds
I would agree with Willow's assessment here. Luckily I got to copyedit the Biography section before her review :-) as it was also a bit of a list (of job titles and places). I got a bit stuck after that, but Willow's suggestion to develop daughter articles sounds like a good way forward.
There is one issue I would like to add in the light of "Rather, we need you to make sense of his work for us". I would modify this to say "Rather, we need you to use reliable secondary sources to make sense of his work for us" (where "you" is really anyone who wants to help improve the article: I'm in!). In my view, the current weaknesses of the article are ultimately caused by its heavy reliance on primary source material, i.e., Atiyah's papers, recollections and remarks. This is illustrated (for example) by the large number of quotes attributed to Atiyah. These are not, for the most part, notable, and certainly not what makes Atiyah notable.
It is a crying shame that there isn't (to my knowledge) a decent biography of Atiyah (i.e., a researched, authoritative book). So we shall have to make do with Mactutor and the various mini-bio's that are available. We also need to bring out the human side more. For instance, Atiyah has been quite politically active: see e.g., his 1995 Royal Society Presidential address (available on JSTOR) for his views on nuclear weapons.
However, R.e.b. has gathered a lot of good and useful material here, and I am optimistic it can be forged into a great article in time. In doing so, we need to remember that whatever the motivation for bringing this article to FA standard, it is first and foremost an encyclopedia article, and should be written with that in mind. Geometry guy 10:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This confirms what I'd been suspecting about the article: the sections are either boring lists, or incomprehensible. (I'd been sort of hoping that reviewers at FAC would be too busy counting citations to actually read the article and notice this.) As far as I know there aren't really any serious secondary sources on Atiyah or his work (only a few eulogies in journal issues in his honor and so on), and his life outside his mathematical work seems to have been uneventful. It is clear from your comments that fixing the problems with the article will require someone who has complementary skills to mine. R.e.b. (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Willow returns

Be comforted, R.e.b.; the lists aren't boring, and incomprehensible things are often fascinating — or at least so I get told. ;) If you truly care about bringing this article to FA, then I for one — and I think G-guy, for two — will help you give your dream a "local habitation and a name", if not the bronze star. What are friends for? :)

On the other hand, you'll have to be patient with me. When I took on the Universe last year, I said, "I'm all too apt to take on more than I can handle..." But this article is way more scary to me than the Universe, so I'll need time to get up to speed, and I can't promise to be ready even by April of next year. For one thing, I need to find a new job and a new place to live.... :(

I wouldn't despair about the secondary sources. I'm less strict-minded than G-guy on that. I believe we can avoid WP:NOR and still give a compelling, sweeping narrative of Atiyah's work without parroting someone else's work. On the other hand, I'm admittedly a creature of faith, faith that sometimes overreaches itself. Still, I feel we must try, in all good faith, and hope that you feel likewise. :) Willow (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

After meditating awhile on your comments, I've decided that the sections on his work probably wont be a problem. The folks at FA presumably expect math to be incomprehensible and just check it for spelling errors and citations, and wont notice (or care) that it is even more incomprehensible than usual. On the other hand, the sections about Atiyah himself are really boring and need some serious rewriting; at the moment they are little more than a dump from his CV. The 2 books by Yau might have something useful in them; I havn't looked at them yet.
I don't feeling strongly about FA status so don't go out of your way to help unless you really want to. The only reason I'm thinking about it is that it would be amusing to have the article, with some serious math, on the front page for his birthday, but it's not a big deal. (And it would be nice to have a change from those endless main page articles on obscure songs and video games.)
I'm sorry to hear about your job, though I'd be surprised if it takes long to find another. You presumably already know about What Color is Your Parachute?; if by some chance you don't, go and get a copy. R.e.b. (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your thoughtful and kind words! :) I'll try to be helpful to you when the time comes, but I probably won't be able to do anything useful for months. But if you'll allow me some friendly and well-meant advice, please try to make the article more narrative, more story-like, even on the math parts. I'm worried that you'll have trouble at FAC otherwise; not all those reviewers are mere reference-counters and dash-spacers, and some may insist that you make the math comprehensible. :P Willow (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. I think my parachute has no colour of its own, like a mirror. :( It seems to reflect whatever I'm dreaming of. Willow (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with Ricardo's law of comparative advantage, I don't do narrative. R.e.b. (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Schubert's last sonatas[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am hoping to make this article GA; I don't believe it will reach FA. Any comments would be welcome.

Thanks, Gidip (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - First of all, the lead section needs to be expanded into three paragraphs. It might also need some copyediting. Greg Jones II 15:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Alton[edit]

  • "In a letter to Probst – one of his publishers, dated October 2, Schubert mentioned..." — subordinate clause should be made clear here.
  • "The first theme shifts from C minor to C major - another Schubertian feature, and contains many..." — same. Dashes need to be dashes too (—), not hyphens (-). Super-picky, I know, but that's what people like to get you for, unfortunately.
  • Because I'm a huge stickler for this, and for that reason only, I'm going to need to see more citations around the "Structure" section of the article. These sections of articles tend to be very OR, and synthesizing your own conclusions, however obvious they may be, is, unfortunately OR. ("the penultimate chord is highly unusual for a closing cadence...for Schubert's time." — for example. Who says? If you, then that's OR.)
  • I would appreciate more linking, it 'increases the volume' of the article by many times, adding various points of departure for the reader. Some words you could link include most of the key signatures, technical musical terms (ternary, coda).. I see that you've done it a couple times, but the guideline that I follow so as not to overlink is once per L2 heading.
  • I prefer to do this, but I'm not sure if people hate it: I like to link some specialized musical terms to Wiktionary, just because a large part of the readership might not be familiar with basic terminology like forte, and I know I need help when you start talking about things like "tonal stasis".
  • "The inner movements were sketched up to the barline..." — as far as I know, barline refers to a line between any two measures. The "music end" (final barline), perhaps?
  • "Schubert's mature music often manipulates our sense of time..." — I'm wary of using "our" here. Maybe "one's"?
  • Citations always go after the puncutation. (cf. Wikipedia:Footnotes#Ref_tags_and_punctuation) Unfortunately this is the case for 90% of your <ref> tags...
  • Repeating the above, the lead must be expanded greatly. It should summarize the entire article in a couple paragraphs.
  • On reading the talk page, it seems like this is a merged article. It really looks like it would benefit from ancillary articles though, not the least of covering the sonatas themselves, so that in this 'comparison' article you can focus more on the overarching concepts and ideas.
  • You reference Charles Fisk frequently. Who is he? Elucidate his credentials on first mention.
  • "appearance of the three piano pieces D. 946...", "and the string quintet, among others..." — It seems odd to me to juxtapose the definite article with lower case letters, when referring to a specific piece. I would advise to capitalize the piece names, such as "String Quartet", when it is in fact the name of the piece and not a genre.
  • "dedicated to Johann Nepomuk Hummel, whom he greatly admired - a pupil of Mozart, composer (a pioneer of the Romantic style, like Schubert himself), and leading pianist..." — again, clean up the clauses.
  • "(in major mode works) or to the relative major (in minor mode works)..." — mode, to me, refers to Musical mode, as in lydian and dorian. It sounds weird to me to hear 'major/minor mode', but it might be just me.
  • Regarding the section "Extramusical connotations and suggestions of a narrative": here I start getting the feeling that there are outside ideas pulled in to be made relevant to these three sonatas. At this point in this large article, you have to consider what information this article needs as a core. It might be more appropriate to have a separate article addressing the phenomenon in a general sense, and then clarify how it applies in these sonatas only in here. Rather than describe the entire technique in this article. See, your lead for this section "Schubert's mature music often manipulates our sense of time and forward movement." implies that his 'mature music' includes not only these sonatas but his other later works as well. The whole section up to cite #51 doesn't seem to be specific to these sonatas, since it's outlining the technique in a very general since. In this way, I think that material should be cut. Moved, preferably.
  • I feel the same about "Beethoven's Influence". It might benefit to create a separate article (somewhat like "Beethoven's influence on Schubert") if these are not the only works in which it is apparent. Just so the basics of Schubert's admiration of Beethoven don't have to be repeated several times.
  • "Beethoven's Influence" should be "Beethoven's influence" anyways, unless Influence is a proper noun somehow.
  • You visit the idea of them being presented as a set, but it isn't mentioned later. In the reception section you mention briefly "the final trilogy", but I'm just curious, was that idea abandonded by interpreters of these pieces? Besides Brendel's staunch support of them as a set, did other pianists recognize that they were such unified works, or is it merely of interest to musicologists?
  • "As mentioned above, Schubert's last..." — I personally don't like self-referencing in any form. I don't think the corresponding guideline (WP:SELF) agrees with me, so, your call.
  • "Schubert was a great admirer of Beethoven, and..." — I prefer to use the composer's full name first time around. Some people might think you're talking about Johann van Beethoven... Same thing here ( influenced by it: Schumann and Brahms.) (style of Liszt and even of Schoenberg) and the performers here, especially, because I don't know who they are (performance, Schnabel and Erdmann, are known).

This is an incredibly detailed article, and goes to an unprecedented depth of understanding. I learned a lot going over it these couple times. I am very excited for this article to become one of the gems of the classical music articles. It seems well on its way toward being recognized as such. ALTON .ıl 08:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


Sergei Bodrov, Jr.[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm not going to nominate this article to good or featured articles. I simply want to know your opinion about the language in this article: is it good or poor and does it need improvement.

Thanks, --16:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Slav9ln (talk)

Ruhrfisch comments: While a lot of work has gone into this, it is nowhere near FA quality and needs some work for GA. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • 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. The first sentence is typically the most important / notable informaion about the subject - I think that would be the fact that he was the lead actor in several films, not just his father. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs a major copyedit - the first sentence in the lead has no verb, the last sentnece of the lead has no punctuation, and there are phrases like In his childhood he liked to be alone and "successfully handled with himself"[2]. that make no sense and seem to be poor translations (what is an "ashman" too?) Ask at WP:PRV for copyedit help.
  • Article does not follow MOS:QUOTE - it uses {{cquote}} where it should use {{blockquote}}, but block quotes are only for quotes that are at least four lines long. Most of these quotes should just be in the text.
  • Refs are a mess. Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Article needs more references, for example whole paragraphs are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Refs need to give enough info that an interested person could look up the source and check it or learn more. New York Times article needs date of publication, author, page. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks for your help! I'l try to follow your advice where it's possible. But I haven't understood what should be done at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Thank you --Slav9ln (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My main purpose was to know the quality of translation, the level of language used in article: if the language is poor or rather good, if it needs improvement.--Slav9ln (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The quality of the translation appears to be fair to poor - as noted there are places that just don't make sense in English, maybe they would if I spoke Russian. It definitely needs improvement. The backlog is a list of other requests for peer review that have not yet been commented on. There is no obligation to do so, but if you see something there and want to comment on it, feel free to. That is how I found your article to review. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Fuller[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm hoping to bring this article to featured article soon. I'm curious particularly about length, the lead, and the sections on Legacy and Beliefs to see if they are up to par. Many thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is beautifully done and is nearly ready for FAC, in my opinion. I have a few minor suggestions for improvement.

  • You asked about the lead. I think it's good, but I'd consider breaking the long middle paragraph into two paragraphs to give the reader a bit of a rest. The break point could come pretty naturally between the sentence ending with "higher education" and the sentence starting with "She became the first editor... " Perhaps the change would necessitate adding a phrase or a sentence to the new third paragraph to smooth the transition.
I'm worried that might make the paragraphs a bit too choppy. What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a toss-up. Go with your best judgment. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You asked about length. I think it's about right. If you decide to shorten it a bit, I'd suggest trimming the second paragraph of the "New York Tribune" section. Fuller's part in the Poe affair seems minor, and most of the information in the paragraph is not about her. I wouldn't throw the whole paragraph out, but I'd try to squash it to its essence: she annoyed Poe by butting in.
I was thinking more about expansion rather than shortening. But I do agree about the section relating to Poe. I tend to focus heavily on Poe-related events (as you might imagine). I'll summarize better. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm awfully fond of concision, and I wouldn't make the article any longer. Reader fatigue sets in at some point. If something important is missing, I'd suggest a swap rather than an add so that the total doesn't keep creeping up. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The sections "Legacy" and "Beliefs" seem fine to me, most interesting.
  • The photos "Birthplace and childhood home" and "Memorial marker" will need to be moved elsewhere because they violate the MoS guideline suggesting that images not be placed directly under second-level heads.
I kept the birthplace home image on the left because it's sort of "facing" right... I know it's not a portrait but it seems reasonable to me. What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
My concern is that it violates the MoS guideline that says, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes." See MOS:IMAGES. I don't think it will get through FAC where it is. You could move it to the right, or you might move it down to the middle of the subsection if you want it to stay on the left. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Early life and family", a sentence says, " ...Timothy Fuller did not run for re-election so that he could help John Quincy Adams with his presidential campaign in 1824..." How about "...Timothy Fuller, in order to help John Quincy Adams with his presidential campaign in 1824, did not run for re-election"?
Done. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Assignment in Europe", a sentence reads, " ...Italy had been left in various pieces, part of which was under the control of the Papacy." How about " ...Italy was divided into small states, some controlled by the Papacy"?
It wasn't "some" as far as I know, but one large piece. And none of the pieces were really legitimate, as I understand, so "states" might be a misnomer. Someone might know better than me. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Urk! Yes, sorry. I don't know the history either. My thought is that "left in various pieces" sounds like a weasel. "Various" is the red flag here. So is "part", come to think of it. It would be better to hunt around for some more data and make the statement more specific. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Death", "chastised her personal life" might better be "said disapproving things about her personal life".
How about "criticized"? The phrase "said disapproving things" isn't nearly as harsh as it should sound, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's good. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Legacy and criticism", "... Browning was also a strong admirer, but believed that her unconventional views were unappreciated in the United States and, therefore, she was better off dead" is a bit ambiguous. Probably "her unconventional views" should be replaced by "Fuller's unconventional views".
Yeah, this was poorly-written; fixed. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the article says, "She compared herself to Fuller in her own move from Boston to New York, saying that it was not a good place for intellectuals, despite the assumption that it was the best place for intellectuals." How about "She compared her own move from Boston to New York to Fuller's, saying that New York... "?
Much better. This was a difficult sentence to write! --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The constructions including digits modifying units or other nouns need to be glued together with no-break codes to prevent them from being separated by line-wrap. Two examples are "50 years" and "34th birthday". I fixed one or two others, but I didn't fix them all.
I'll work on this in a bit. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you find these comments to be helpful, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps from the backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Finetooth! Your copy edits were extremely helpful... it's always better getting a fresh pair of eyes to catch your poor writing. Thanks again!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You are most welcome. I'll be watching this one and cheering you on. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (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.) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

William Hanna[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I really admire William Hanna and would like to get this to FA. Listing here as a prep. FYI, several have tried but no one has found a free image of him. I've been working this hard for three weeks so far. Any help appreciated.

Thanks, RlevseTalk 01:42, 20 August 2008 (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.) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, left you question at User_talk:Ealdgyth#Wikipedia:Peer review/William Hanna/archive1. RlevseTalk 21:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is why findagrave isn't considered reliable HOw to submit graves. It's similar to a wiki. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
But in this case it is accurate. So what do we do in such a case? RlevseTalk 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
But how long may it stay accurate, that's the issue. In this case, I'd leave it in with the book cite to back it up. Call it a courtesy link, if you will. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, both in for now. Thanks for help. RlevseTalk 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Ruhrfisch comments

  • Generally well done, these will mostly be nit picks. There are a few places where it seems to be missing something, for example Over the next 17 years Hanna and Barbera worked exclusively on Tom and Jerry,[20] directing more than [?] cartoon shorts, winning great popularity and a number of Oscars along the way.[19] Since they won seven Oscars, I would say that here too. fixed
  • I would also mention more of their MGM film career in the lead, particularly Tom and Jerry. Also the lead makes it sound as if T&J was their work after MGM cut their cartoon department, but Chuck Jones and others directed more T&J after H&B left MGM, so this seems misleading or downright wrong. fixed
  • I would identify the characters in the lead image in a caption fixed
  • I think a case could be made for including a fair use image of Tom and Jerry here. found a PD one on Commons
  • Odd word choice "live action" usually means something different than a cartoon in Tom and Jerry relied most on live action instead of dialog.[18] strike "live"? chg'd to motion, on the other one added link to article on films with real people and animation
  • I have never seen {{rp}} before - I found it distracting. Joseph Priestley House uses ref tags and may be a better system here respect the opinion but not a valid oppose at FAC, all systems have + and -
  • Any chance for more critical commentary on Hanna and his work - I think his MGM film work was great, but agree that their TV animation left much to be desired.refs just seem to talk about what I said, how money caused a cut in animation quality
  • The article seems a bit hagiographic, which may be a problem at FAC. worked
  • I also think this needs a copyedit for polish - there are several places where it could be made smoother. worked

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

More comments from Ruhrfisch
  • I do up to three peer reviews a day and don't do copyedits - sorry. Try asking at WP:PRV for copyedit help.
  • I reread it and think the lead needs a lot more on his 27 year film career - see WP:WEIGHT worked
  • PR is suggestions only - I had never seen RP citations, if they pass FA and you like them, no problem (though I think they are ugly - sorry) see above
  • Hagiography - it is more sort of the general tone - sounds like he was a very nice guy, but here are a few ideas
    • he died of throat cancer, so my guess is he was a smoker - if so, include that "A life-long smoker, Hanna died of throat cancer in ..." no rs found for that, only 2 non RS
    • The article on Fred Quimby says the animators working under him were often at odds with him etc - can any of this sort of material be included?done
    • How did Hanna react to criticisms of the violence in Tom and Jerry, or of the compartivley low quality animation used in his TV shows? can't find anything
    • Many of the older Tom and Jerry cartoons feature an African-American maid character who is sometimes censored or revoiced in modern versions. Was there any criticism of this (many of the cartoons of the day had racial stereotypes in them)? Did he ever talk about it or respond to criticisms?can't see that he talked of it, this is discussed in the T&J article and since Hanna doesn't talk of it that I can find, seems off topic
  • The lead says Hanna-Barbera won seven Academy Awards and eight Emmy Awards. which is not quite true, as Hanna and Barbera won seven Academy Awards working for MGM (not as the corporate entity H-B) clarified
  • I would rename the Early career section "Film" and rename "Television career" just "Television" (WP:HEAD says not to repeat the name of a header in a subheader if possible, and he worked 27 years in film so "Early career" seems a bit of a misnomer fixed
  • I would move Ruff and Ready, a TV show, to the TV section fixed
  • Watch for needless repetition, one example (of several) from end of Early career and beginning of TV sections This fizzled, and in 1957 he reteamed up with his old partner Joseph Barbera to produce their first series The Ruff & Reddy Show,[8] about a dog and cat that are pals,[6] under the company name H-B Enterprises, soon changed to Hanna-Barbera Productions.[27][28] Television career In 1957 Hanna and Barbera struck out on their own and formed Hanna-Barbera Productions, first ... fixed
  • Some things seem to contradict themselves - were Tom and Jerry based on an earlier cartoon or were the a fox and dog that became a cartoon about a cat and mouse (my guess is the idea of fox and dog predated the first proto-Tom and Jerry cartoon, which led to the real T & J - if so, make this clearer) the ref itself isn't totally clear on how this unfolded, so I rm'd the fox/dog part
  • Or when did Quimby leave? For a brief period following Fred Quimby's retirement in 1956, they were also in charge of production.[17] but later we read that Hanna and Barbera were placed in charge of MGM's animation division in late 1955;[27] this was short-lived, as MGM closed the division in 1957.[28] so is it 55 or 56? ALso more needless repetition. fixed and clarified

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Last thoughts - I read the Hanna-Barbera article and it says the company was founded as side-venture in 1944. It also mentions some other things that are not in this - my guess is you've read all of this, but it still might be useful (even though it is not very well sourced). Second, it seems to me that Hanna was first an artist, but there is relatively little on him as an artist. Who came up with the designs of the various characters? Who made the decision to have Tom and Jerry be mute (mostly)? That sort of thing. There is also not a lot of critical reception. I think there could also be more on him as a business man who headed a major anumation studio. I fear without this kind of material the article (which is quite good as it is) will seen as lacking comprehensiveness. Finally, I realize it is easy for me to say do this and do that and yet I do not know the sources or material available. It just seems to me that there must be more out there somewhere - I really hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC) working on it, good inputs, as for the 1944 side business, there' almost nothing on it, and yes those refs are not that good or detailed, there's also very little on him as a businessman, yes, very little on him as artist, that was more Barbera anyway and he probably did the designs, very little on critical reception or as businessman besides what I've mentioned.

NOTE: I found User:Limetolime at WP:PRV and he did a copyedit and said he felt it was ready for FAC. See my talk page. RlevseTalk 19:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


List of British monarchs[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is close to the FL standards. What is missing?

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs quite a bit of work - but I'm interested in helping out! Firstly, lead is pretty short. I've seen shorter, but 4 lines is a bit. I also unbolded the title, since it's not the same as the actual article name. I won't comment on anything else in the lead, since it can be reworked once it's expanded, and we can go from there.

Under each subheading, you'll need more information than just a brief line. Also there's a citation needed template... this article needs way more citations, particularly on dates and places.

Why are all the prose for each section italicised?

The references are... bad. A random mix of homemade websites, with a few good ones. They need to all be consistently reliable. These were British monarchs... there's tons of books about them, on Google Books. I'll go through and add references for each monarch using a reliable source. There's much work to be done before this can be featured, but it's something that can be achieved I think. Good luck! how do you turn this on 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Choess (talk)

  • Largely agree with the previous comments. I'd suggest expanding by discussing both the geography and a brief outline of the politics leading up to the Union.
  • I would change the coat of arms; it's anachronistic in comparison to the list. See coats of arms of the United Kingdom this Commons category, which has the several Royal coats of arms used during 1707–1801.
  • The italicization does seem odd.
  • I would suggest going to a library and looking for a good print source for birth and death dates, spouses, etc. and making uniform references to that rather than to the scattering of websites. Fraser's "The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England" would probably be good for this. 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Note for self: look at List of English monarchs Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Matthew Jarvis[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to get it to GA status and would like to know if there's any tweaks that need to be made.

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi there, I'll be reviewing this article. Just the article - nothing personal - so please don't be offended by anything I write as its not a personal criticism of your work. I'll list things dispassionately. Please address these points by inserting '''DONE''' where necessary.

  1. who plays for Wolverhampton Wanderers - consider "currently playing for Wolv.."
  2. After an unsuccessful spell as a youth team player for Millwall - cite reference please
  3. he began his professional career with Gillingham, making his Football League debut for the Kent team at the age of 17. - consider "he began his professional career at Gillingham, aged 17 years." - the link to the club will tell the reader it is in Kent.
  4. for the "Gills" and became - consider removing "Gills", if that slang isn't addressed in the Gillingham article then you could perhaps add it.
  5. he has gone on to establish himself - change to "he has established himself" as you have already said "After" in the same sentence/
  6. but was released by the club, - remove the comma, no need for a pause
  7. On 4 November 2003, at the age - remove the comma, and consider changing to "aged" instead of "at the age".
  8. He came on as a 76th minute - assume the reader does not understand football, and reword to explain. Perhaps "started the match", or "was substituted for", etc.
  9. but later claimed via his agent - I'm not sure what this means - did his agent say something, did the player instruct the agent to say something, or did the player issue a statement through his agent? Clarify, also, who is his agent? It should be easy to find out.
  10. but Jarvis instead chose to join Wolverhampton Wanderers of the Championship - what is the Championship? Is it part of the club's name, or a separate league? Clarify.
  11. He finally made his debut - WP:peacock
  12. Personal Life section - I'm not sure this should be at this point in the article - perhaps integrate the information here into the player's biog, after the lead section?
  13. wikilinked dates - No need to wikilink dates any more, as per WP:Dates

Overall its a very good article, I think it could possibly do with a little more biography before his football career, perhaps some information about his education, training before being signed (academy training perhaps?), brothers and sisters, etc. I see no reason why it shouldn't progress to GA once these points have been addressed. Good luck! Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Montreal[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed the article on Montreal for peer review because I have been working on this article a lot since its last peer review, and I want to know what the article needs to bring it to the next level (either GA, A or FA). It has over 100 sources (about twice as much as before) and evidently needs some more in the locations I've pinpointed. Any sort of commentary is useful in improving the article. In particular with regards to the way its written, information to add and remove, missing sections, layout, tone, etc. I want this to be a great article and with your input I can help to bring it there.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Thanks in advance, MTLskyline (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Dtbohrer

  • A lot of "citation needed" tags (but you already know that).
  • Some of the sections need to be summarized more.
    • I really think the whole "Neighborhoods" section should only be in its own article. (Of the cities I checked that were FA, a few cities (Cleveland, Ohio & Detroit, Michigan for example) had a section for neighborhoods (and they were at most 3 paragraphs) the rest either didn't mention them (Hamilton, Ontario) or had it as a "see also" (Minneapolis, Minnesota).
    • All the "Culture" sections should be merged and condensed.
    • "Transportation" should be split to a "Transporation in Montreal" and then summarized in the main "Montreal" article (there's a tag for that already in the article)
    • The "Road" section should also be merged with "Transportation" and with the majority of info moved to "Transporation in Montreal"

This is just a brief review of the major problems. I'll add more later. --​​​​D.B.talkcontribs 01:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Onychodus[edit]

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

I want to see if it is ready for Feature Article nomination. I except any kind of criticism to better this article.

Thanks, Liopleurodon93 (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think it needs some work for FA. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • What is here is nice, but it is a bit short. One of the criteria for FA is comprehensiveness, so shortness in an article may be a sign of something missing. There are five FA articles in Category:FA-Class Palaeontology articles that may be good models for ideas and examples to follow. Several dinosaur articles are also FA.
  • The lead is fairly short and has two paragraphs with only two sentences each - could these be expanded or perhaps combined? 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
  • Article needs more references, for example The upper jaw, containing 30 teeth which decrease in size posteriorly, is well preserved in many individuals. Juveniles have six tusks, while adults have three. or The group of onychodontiformes, described in 1973 by the late Dr. Mahala Andrews, was characterized by a highly kinetic skull and tusk-like teeth. My rule of thumb is that every quote or attribution, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Article uses two different styles of refs - not allowed at FAC. I think most editors prefer the inline linked number, but the (Author, date) is fine too, just can't use both. And don't link the years.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. Book refs need publisher, location, ISBN if the book has one. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Images have some odd source and license issues. Grove Karl Gilbert died in 1918, so the license on Image:Plate of the Lower Jaw of Onychodus sigmoides Newberry.png (100 years after death of author) is wrong - it is PD old (pre 1923 publication in the US). Image:Sigmoid Tooth of Onychodus.png gives no source - one is needed at FAC. Image:Onychodus Skull Diagram.jpg says "own work, edited from another skull diagram of Onychodus" which makes it a derivative work, not own work, but the source is not identified.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Odwalla[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because one of the primary contributors has asked me to help bring the article to GA status. While I believe that I can help him, I think additional eyes would be better.

Thanks, Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Howdy. I'm the annoying primary contributer ;). Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the article from the perspective of GA assessment. The following points may need to be addressed:

  • Lead: "negative growth" - this sounds a bit management speak-ish. Do we mean "decline"?
Changed to decline
  • First paragraph of Origin: more explicit citations might be asked for. The cite at the end of the paragraph seems to cover much of the content, but it could be read as only applying to the closing sentence.
Working on it
Done. Is what I did satisfactory? Ref #2 pretty much covers the entire first paragraph, but I added a few other numbers in.
  • Incorporation–1996: what does "side business" mean?
Changed to "small business"
  • "By the time Odwalla went IPO..." Try to avoid industry jargon and unexplained abbreviations.
I changed it to "went public". I hope that's an accurate synonym; I learned the word from reading Dilbert comics. LOL
  • Why did the company relocate so often in the mid 1990s?
They moved their factory to meet production demands, added a bit about that. I'm not sure why they moved their HQ, perhaps to be close to San Francisco. I'll look up on that.
  • "Odwalla Inc. gained a growing fan base..." Can this be expressed more formally? More importantly though, I don't see this supported by the source given, which is mostly about the perils of getting 'sloppy' re the e. coli outbreak.
Dang it. It says "devoted fans" ... I'll see if I can come up with something.
I removed this.
  • 1996 E. coli outbreak: this section comes across as a little disorganised. The opening sentence assumes the reader already knows about the outbreak and recall, although this isn't covered in the article until the following section. The assertion "Widely-publicized" needs backing up with citations, as does the sentence "...the company spent several million dollars to upgrade the plant's safety features."
Removed "widely-publicized," my proof was that there were a lot of article written about it but I don't think that counts. ;) Added ref # for the improvements sentence.
  • Try to avoid using "For example" (which appears elsewhere in the article too).
Working on it
Removed a couple of For examples, will continue to be on the lookout.
  • "Experts have praised Odwalla's new system as being 'the most comprehensive quality control and safety system in the fresh juice industry'." The source says 'some' experts - we have to be careful not to over-egg the pudding ;)
Added "some"; thanks for spotting that.
  • 1997–Current: "Unfortunately, the company had to drop the plans because they were unable to allocate enough money for the project." It may be unfortunate, but we can't say this - it's editor commentary. Perhaps replace with 'However' if a transitional word is needed?
Changed to however
  • "Odwalla's growth continued to have good growth in 2007" Prose tweak needed ;)
haha. removed " 's growth "
  • It's not necessary to list every product the company makes or has made. We wouldn't normally do this; some articles would be huge if we did ;) A short section on the major products and product lines is probably sufficient; the lists should go. We also have to be careful of inadvertent advertising, which is how this could come across. Similarly, the article possibly over-uses non-free images of the company's products. One or two is probably enough.
Removed two non-vital images. I'll try to summarize the product lines like in Maraba Coffee. Thanks
  • Sources: I sampled these pretty much at random; most look pretty good, but Amazon is not regarded as a reliable source (and exists to sell the products so falls foul of WP:LINKSTOAVOID). I was unsure about others - for example, what makes www.fool.com a reliable source?
I've been beating my brains out trying to find a source that lists the prices of all the products! The price varies throughout the year, and each product is priced differently, and prices change year to year! I'll see what I can do. As for fool.com, that's The Motley Fool, a big business analyst finance website thingy (I have very sophisticated language; can you tell?). It's very similar to Yahoo Finance.

Hope this helps! Looking at the history, this article was once virtually an advertising puff-piece for the company, so you've done a great job to bring it so far. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 09:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of EyeSerene's comments. Very briefly, here are some more suggestions for improvement. If you want yet more comments, please ask here.

  • E. coli is usually italicized. Since the strain is known and wikilinked in the body of the article, I think it should also be linked in the lead (i.e. don't just link bacteria in the lead). Also does this article really need two images of E. coli?
Done italicizing, added wikilink, removed 1 picture
  • The article has six fair use images (logo, four bottles, and products). This seems a bit excessive - please read WP:NFCC What do the four separate images of bottles contribute to our understanding of the company?
Removed two bottle pics, left two (one is the Future shake, a discontinued product and important to the company history, the other a current bottle, to show packaging of current products.)
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "vertical" can be used to make the image narrower.
Done
  • The products section is very list-y.
Will work on summarizing lists
Removed lists :)
  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow - Maraba Coffee is a FA and may be a possible model.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Super. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both so much. I'll see if I can address all of your concerns ASAP. Just a couple of questions:

  • On Maraba Coffee, the first image shows the packaging of one of their products, and it's a free image. If I take the picture of one of Odwalla's products, is it a free image also? I was told (I think) on WP:Help (the media/copyright page) that Odwalla product pics should be Fair use. I'm assuming because it's an American product and the packaging shows the logo, but I'd sure love to have some free images on the page.
  • Should I create a List of Current Odwalla Products or something and link the Products section to it? I'm not sure if it'd pass the notablility test for some editors.
  • Would a picture of their HQ that I took be free or fair use?

Once again, thanks a lot. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm considering removing info about the price of the juice, because I can't find any reliable resources and Maraba coffee doesn't do that... so yeah. :)

Also, if you have the time, I'd love it if you could assess this on a FA level, instead of just GA. I want to make it as good as possible. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The Maraba coffee image was taken in Rwanda, so copyright law there may be quite different. Look at the fair use rationale on Image:CokeII.jpg. One of the questions is would the Odwalla bottles be copyrighted or just trademarked? I would ask at the talk page for WP:Image or WP:Fair use. The HQ would be a free image. You can always leave things like the price in and try and get more PR comments and see what others think. I will try to take a second look at the article, but it may take a few days. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Image copyrights are a bit of a minefield! Regarding the prices, I'm not convinced they need to be there (I meant to bring that up in my earlier comments, but forgot). The problems are those you've already noted - they become out-of-date very quickly, and sourcing them without running into WP:RS problems can be tricky. I think it would be sufficient to mention where Odwalla's products fit into the market and how they compare with competing products (are they priced as a luxury brand or a mass-market one etc)... assuming, of course, that it can be sourced ;)
I hope you don't mind that I've copyedited the E. coli section a little, mainly trying to reduce redundancies in the prose. More copyediting will be needed at some point, especially if you're thinking of going for FA, but you're doing a fantastic job on the article - it's surprisingly difficult to write about a company in a way that's both neutral and objective, so great work! EyeSerenetalk 09:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought (referring to the logo copyrights). I'll see if I can get to Half Moon Bay to take a picture of the HQ since it'll be free. I'll also see what I can do about general information about prices. Thank you a lot for the copyedit. I've asked for a couple of other copyedits from different editors, so hopefully that'll help. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Jeremy ( Blah blah...) -

Good job in improving the article. Here are some issues that I have:

  • Use of "By date" and "In date" - In the history section you start a good number of sentences with those two phrases, could you reword them a little so that the date is better incorporated into said passages.
  •  Done. If you see any more, just tell me and I'll move 'em around.
  • Images - I have been told that images should not be placed on the left side when under a heading, please move them to the right side of the page.
  •  Done
  • Wikilinks - You appear to be over linking some obvious terms, just do a quick review and judge for yourself.
  •  Done unless you see any more that need to be removed, then just tell me.
  • Whitespace - Some images are generating large swaths of white space, please move them so that the article flows better.
  • QUESTION: Is there any image in particular? It could just be the default size you set in "My preferences".
  • Image:Odwalla Food Bars.JPG in the last section, at 1280x1024 there is a large white space. You can fix this by relocating the image to the top of the section.
  • Red liks - One or two remaining
  • COMMENT: I was told (scolded more like) by a couple of admins for removing red links at WP:GAN, so I'm just going to leave them in for now.
  • Citations, dates - Sorry, but this one is a bitch: you did not use the |date= field in many of the citations from sources with defined dates. On those sources with the full with (dd, mm, and yyyy) use the ISO format and please link them (2008-08-24); do not link those that only have a mm/yyyy format, use the the standard mm yy format (August 2008).
  •  Done I hope
  • Citations, authors - Another biggie: you did not use the |author=, |coauthors= or |others= in many of the citations from sources with credited authors. On those articles that have an author, please add them. Use these three fields:
    • Use the |author= field for a single contributor.
    • Add the |coauthors= field for articles with two contributors, this must be used with the preceding field.
    • Add the |others= field for articles with three or more authors, this must be used with the preceding two fields.
  •  Done
  • Citations, publisher - Many of the Beverage Age sources are reprints, please list the original source by putting Beverage Age reprinted from (source) in the |publisher= field. It would be even better if you can find the source from the original publisher.
  •  DoneQUESTION: None of them are from Beverage Age... do you mean BNET? I'll work on that ASAP.
  • They are:
    • BNet
    • AllBusiness
    • Beverage World
  • Also, PRNewswire articles are press releases as are a couple of BNet links.
  • Reference #49 is malformed and displaying the link data instead of actually linking to the source

I know these things are arduous, but take your time and do it right.

Some suggestions -

Here are some suggestions that are not required for your GA nomination.

  • Formatting - If you wish, ask Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to copy edit for Wiki-formatting After you have completed the things I have listed. He is good and will find things you, others and I have missed.

Call me when you are done,

Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Doing...

I replied to your questions, and check all of the links with the FA article tools (these are not required for GA, but will help for FA). everything else looks good. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GA[edit]

Okay. I think I've taken care of everything needed for GA.

  • The food bar pic has been moved; I think the big white space results because the image is at the end of the article and because of individual image size preferences.
  • I think I got all the stuff needed for the refs. Two of the Beverage World articles didn't seem to be from somewhere else, but they were ads, so I changed the refs to press releases.
  • I know #49 (now #48) is malformed; I can't seem to get it right. I think it's because it's a PDF and the URL is weird. So yeah.

Replies:

  • Just in case, I moved it up a little more. I have no custom views setup on WP, everything is stock
  • Good
  • you were missing the http:// on both

looks good.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


In-N-Out Burger menu items[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have just completed a major rewrite to clean it up. I need someone else to take a look at it and point out what I have missed. Also, I wish for a reviewer to take a look at the classification and see if it qualifies as a B-class article.

Thanks, Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)
  • My main comment is that I don't think it was necessary to split this out from the main In-N-Out Burger article, which at 23k is far from huge. I think this could be merged back into the Menu section. However I will continue to review the content that is here.
  • In the first sentence, "only provided" should be "provided only".
  • If this is to remain as a separate article, the lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD. Although the article is relatively short, I don't think two sentences is enough. Try to add at least a couple more sentences, maybe summarizing the types of food served.
  • "which similar to Thousand Island dressing" should be "which is similar to Thousand Island dressing"
  • "The company' customization" should be "The company's customization"
  • Generally, I think you need to add more in-line citations. The "Beverages" section for example does not have any specific references.

This was just a quick read through, but I hope some of this was useful. --Jameboy (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC

Thank you for pointing those out, I will fix them ASAP. The article size was significantly largere before a recent copy edit that removed tons of redundant data and cruft. I use the term cruft very sporadically at best and when I do it is only because there is no better term. The article was a mess before. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Wronkiew (talk · contribs)
  • The menu, as interesting as it is, probably doesn't need its own article.
  • The section "Menu items" starts off with an explanation of why In-N-Out is a regional chain, which is jarring. It should start with an introduction to the menu. Even better, since the entire article is about the menu, eliminate the section and move it to the intro.
  • The transition from the subsection "The Secret Menu" to the section "Burgers" is also jarring. On first reading, I interpreted the "Burgers" section as "Secret burgers". To improve this, either eliminate the "Menu items" section, or reorganize "Burgers", "French fries", and "Beverages" into "Regular menu items" and "Secret menu items".
  • The " - " generally stands in for the em dash, which you can enter by typing "&mdash;".
  • Variable substitution as in "m x c" is probably too complicated a concept for an article about burger products. Maybe just say that the patty goes first and the cheese goes second.
  • The least understandable sentence in the article is "In-N-Out uses the Kennebec strain of potato for its fries and prepares them in store as opposed to purchasing them pre-made from companies such as McCain Foods, one of the primary manufacturer of french fries for the fast food industry". Break the ideas up into at least two sentences.

James W. Faulkner[edit]

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

I am somewhat stumped on where to go with it. Faulkner was considered an important political writer for his time. News at the beginning of the 20th century was more state or local and not national. In some ways the respect for him as a writer, and his fair treatment to politicians from both parties, made him ahead of his time. One could say that Tim Russert was much like him, and the response to Faulkner's death was much like the response to Russert's death.

I would like to get the article up a couple notches on the quality scale and I need ideas on what to improve.

Thanks, Mfields1 (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs):

  • The Journalism Career section reads like proseline; expand the one sentence paragraphs or combine them with other paragraphs.
  • References outside punctuation, please.
  • If possible, use the {{cite news}} template for the references.
  • The article needs a general expansion; are there books or other sources with information on him?

List of Drexel University alumni[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm interested in taking this to WP:FL and would like some feedback. Some questions I have about the list; is the intro ok in length? Should redlinked alumni be included? Should they be unlinked? (I've seen FL's with both) Is information about the Drexel 100 presented in a way that's understandable? Any feedback would be great, thanks! --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Bencherlite (talk · contribs)
  • The current feeling at WP:FL is that lists should not begin with "This is a list of...". Is there a more interesting way you can start?
  • Also, you can now just write the introductory few sentences without feeling you need any words in bold: see this (a recent rewording: see here under "Lead section")
  • A few sentences about some of the people in the list in the introduction wouldn't hurt
  • Personally, I'd prefer photos alongside the appropriate section, rather than all at the start - it's easier to find the details of the person that way.
  • "Reference" could be cut to "Ref" in each table
  • The redlinks are a problem: if they're "notable" enough to be mentioned here, they really ought to have at least a stub about them.
  • One likely question at WP:FL will be what steps you've taken to make the list "comprehensive" in terms of finding names to add - your answer?

Moons of Jupiter[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because (1) I am not sure weather I should aim for FAC or FLC; (2) what do I need to fix before submitting it to either one of those.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


Old Trafford[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is now very close to reaching Featured Article status and I'd just like some last pointers before taking it to WP:FLC. All of the points from the previous PR and GA Review that I felt needed addressing have been taken into account, so there shouldn't be much that needs commenting on, but any help you guys can give would be awesome.

Thanks. – PeeJay 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Lead
  • Football isn't wikilinked anywhere. I would actually suggest saying in the first line "is an all-seater football stadium in the Trafford borough of Greater Manchester, England." and wikilink football there. I realise football isn't the stadium's only use, but is certainly its vast majority use.
    •  Done
History
  • "Therefore, following the club's rescue from near-bankruptcy and renaming, the new chairman decided" Do you know the chairman's name?
    •  Done
  • "However, further investment to the tune of about £30,000 would have been required," I'm not sure "to the tune of" is quite formal. I may be wrong though.
    • YesY Changed to "further investment of approximately £30,000..."
  • "The first of these was the 1911 FA Cup Final Replay" replay doesn't need to be capped.
    •  Done
  • "as 70,504 spectators watched the Red Devils lose 3–1 Aston Villa." Should that be "lose 3–1 to Aston Villa"?
    •  Done
  • Wasn't there a period of time during the redevelopments that there was no space for visiting supporters? Is it worth adding in?
    • I can't remember such a period. Do you have a ref?
      • Unfortunately not. I'm working a little off memory. I seem to remember a game against Liverpool, maybe even when Cantona made his return (?) which was either the final game before away supporters returned or the first game they did. Peanut4 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "However, from 2003 to 2007, when Wembley Stadium was completed and England began to play their home games there again, Old Trafford hosted 12 of England's 23 home matches, more than any other stadium." I think this looks ambiguous about the re-opening of Wembley.
    • YesY I've removed the bit that says "when Wembley Stadium was completed and England began to play their home games there again".
  • "The facility will next host the preliminary matches of the 2012 Summer Olympics." Do you have a ref?
    • YesY Removed.
Structure
  • "The Museum was opened" museum doesn't need to be capped since this isn't the full name.
    •  Done
  • "Members of the media are seated in the middle of the Upper South Stand to give them the best view of the match." Do you have a ref, or is it covered by ref 9 at the end of the next sentence?
    • No, I actually don't have a ref for that statement. I can provide a ref that says that clubs have to provide members of the media with seats with a good view of the match, but, despite it being true, I've not been able to find anything about the media being located in the Upper South Stand.
      • The bit that needs referencing really is "best view of the match" more than anything else. Peanut4 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Traditionally, the stand is where the hard-core United fans are located, and also the ones who make the most noise." Needs a ref.
    • I've added a ref that I think is appropriate.
  • "The shop then gradually moved along the length of the South Stand," I suggest changing gradually moved as literally it implies the shop moved very slowly of its own accord. Or maybe I'm being very picky.
    • YesY Changed to "The shop was then moved..." to imply it moving passively rather than actively of its own accord.
  • "Alex Ferguson often requests that the pitch be relaid,[29][30] most notably half way through the 1998–99 season," Why most notably in 98-99? And do you have a reference? I'd also suggest wikilinking and maybe describing Alex Ferguson for those somehow getting this far and not knowing who he is.
    •  Done
Future
  • "Ideally, the expansion would include bringing the South Stand up to at least two tiers and filling in the South-West and South-East quadrants to restore the "bowl" effect of the stadium." Ideally seems POV.
    •  Done
Other uses
  • "Old Trafford has been used for various purposes other than football since its construction. Before the construction of the Old Trafford football stadium," construction x2.
    • YesY Changed the first "construction" to "since it was first built".
  • "During the First World War, the stadium was used by American soldiers for games of baseball and, in 1981, matches of cricket's Lambert & Butler Cup were held there." Wikilink baseball and cricket.
    •  Done
Transport
  • Anything about buses or park & ride schemes?
    • YesY Added info about bus service from Manchester Piccadilly and reffed, but I couldn't find anything about Park & Ride schemes.
General
  • The first three football club names, Manchester United F.C., Newton Heath F.C. and Liverpool F.C. all use F.C. None of the rest do. Any reason?
    • No reason, I just thought it read better to have the F.C. in there. I've piped the links now.
  • Per new policy, I don't think all dates need to be wikilinked.
    • Would it be a bad thing if I said it's just too much work for me to do now?
      • I suspect it may be brought up at FAC. I suppose it doesn't need doing until you take it there though. Peanut4 (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ensure all numerals and their respective unit are broken by a non-breaking space per WP:MOSNUM.
    • YesY I've done all of the ones that need doing, I think, and they're all done with the {{convert}} template, so the non-breaking space is automatically in there.

Hope this helps. Peanut4 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Helped a lot, cheers mate. – PeeJay 06:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • 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.
    • Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.
      • I don't understand what you are referring to here. Can you provide some examples so that I know what I'm looking to correct?
        • The one I was referring to is current ref 25 where "ALFRED MCALPINE..." (the link to the website source) is in all capitals. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Fixed. – PeeJay 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.
      • Again, I don't know which particular examples you are referring to here, so I don't know what I should be changing.
        • Current ref 2 (Stadia list) has UEFA listed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Aha, I see. I've fixed that one now. – PeeJay 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • What makes the following sources reliable?
      • http://www.stadiumguide.com/index.htm
        • I have removed the references to this site and replaced it with a published book citation and a seemingly more reliable site about skyscrapers.
      • http://pictures.footymad.net/upload/247/284217-1.pdf
        • This is a mirror for an official UEFA document that is no longer hosted at UEFA's website.
      • http://www.manutdzone.com/index.html
        • This site was used as a reference for the recently-published "The Official Manchester United Almanac" by John White (ISBN 978-0-7528-9192-7), and I'm sure it has been used for other published works too.
      • http://www.englandfootballonline.com/index.html
        • This is one of the most trusted sites on the internet for statistics regarding the England national football team.
          • WHY is it trusted though? To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Here is a link to the site's list of sources, which, as you can see, is quite extensive: Click herePeeJay 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • http://www.munich58.co.uk/memorials/plaque/index.asp
        • This is one of the more trivial citations in the article, as the statement it references is not particularly contentious. The reliability of this particular source is not particularly important, IMO.
      • http://www.red11.org/index.html
        • Despite not having been updated in a while, the majority of the statistics on this site can be cross-referenced to other sources. The convenience is that this site collates the info in one easy-to-reference location.
      • http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/index1.htm
        • Info contained on this site can easily be confirmed by other sources, but the fact that it's all in one place makes it easier to reference this site.
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.) 22:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Replied above. – PeeJay 00:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Barbiturate[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article was the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month for July. I'd like to see what still needs to be done to get it up to FA status. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a few comments

  • The lead section is too short and repetitive. In the same paragraph you mention the word barbiturate at least 3 times.
  • In the history section you also start every paragraph with "barbituric...". I know that the article is about barbiturate, but that is poor writing.
  • The same goes for the Therepeutic uses section.
  • Legal status section needs refs and also should be expanded.
  • You should also check the refs #12 and #14 (Retrieved: 6-2-2008.. should be 06-02-2008)
  • Search for someone to help you to copy-edit.

Comments

  • The lead sentence doesn't define barbiturates. It needs the "derivatives of barbituric acid" bit.
  • I agree the lead is too short. It also uses jargon: "central nervous system depressant", "anxiolytics" and "hypnotic".
  • Much of the History section should go into a Classification section as it discusses the differences between short-, medium- and long-acting barbiturates. There's no history beyond 1912, which surely isn't comprehensive. A short discussion of historic and current usage is needed.
  • "Phenobarbital is used as an anticonvulsant for people suffering from seizure disorders such as febrile seizures, tonic-clonic seizures, status epilepticus, and eclampsia." is flawed. Please don't use the horrible euphemism "seizure disorders". Plus, most of those listed things aren't "disorders", they are clinical events that may well be isolated. Have a look at the Phenobarbital article. The book citation isn't complete as it needs a date. A book published in 1984 is really not an acceptable source for current drug usage.
  • The "Recreational misuse and abuse" contains much that belongs elsewhere. The opening paragraph discusses intoxication (overdose, really). The middle paragraph has a sentence on the same issue. It also notes the (presumably legitimate) use of barbiturates to counter the effects of illicit drug withdrawal. Veterinary use doesn't belong in this section.
  • You're going to have problems keeping the slang section well sourced. I've already removed an IP addition. I seriously doubt the accuracy of that list as 'ludes is slang for Quaaludes (Methaqualone), which aren't barbiturates. I recommend you drop it.

Colin°Talk 08:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 13:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hekla[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi guys, I'd like to request a peer review of Hekla. I've already run the script and fixed many of the issues (apart from prose quality). I assume I won't be able to get it to FA without more sources as some of the sections can't really claim to be comprehensive yet, so maybe a review before going for GA might be appropriate. Issues I'd particularly like some advice on (although anything is welcome):

  • What to do with the many small paragraphs on particular eruptions etc - is there a logical way to divide them up?
  • The article is quite long and so could be split up, the obvious candidates would be the longer eruption sections. Is this necessary?
  • The article is quite dense with numbers in parts. This is partly because I've tried to summarise but could affect readability. Any thoughts?
  • A general read through for clarity.

Thanks a lot, and feel free to request a peer review from me in exchange. JMiall 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • What if there was a List of Hekla eruptions then summary style could be used (1980s), especially for the minor eruptions?
So would you suggest essentially copying the entire eruptions section to the new main List of Hekla eruptions article, refering to it with a {{main}} template and having say one paragraph per major eruption or group of minor eruptions in this article?
Well, the list could be sortable and have columns for start and end date, volume produced, comments, etc. Just an idea, then use WP:Summary style in this article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I also would think about combining some of the short paragraphs (one or two sentences) and sections, or perhaps expanding them. For example, could Name be added to Reputation?
I've done some of this but will wait now if much of this is going to end up in a list article
  • Units need to be consistently in both metric and English units for all measurements / numbers given. {{convert}} may be useful here
This is going to take some work! I'm tempted to claim the 1st exception in MOS:CONVERSIONS as this is a scientific article to some extent and I would have thought that converting the 1st instance of each unit should be sufficient. I'll think about this and probably ask on the talk page.
  • 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
Well spotted.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "vertical" can be used to make the image narrower.
Done
  • Per WP:HEAD don't use & in a header
Done
  • Pop culture is a bullet list, should be converted to text
Done
  • Mount Pinatubo is a srtatovolcano FA and may be a useful model for ideas and examples, there are probably other models.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thankyou. I will do. JMiall 16:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts coded[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article was created shortly after the announcement of the game in September 2007. The game is still unreleased, and it is updated as new information is released. Because of a change in Featured topic criteria, this game and the other unreleased games need to go through peer review for the Kingdom Hearts topic to stay featured. The other two games have already been reviewed here and here.

Any comments you may have to improve the article are welcome and I'll try to address them as best I can. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

I guess this is just to fulfill FTC requirements now, but I'll take a look anyway:

  • A strange one, but what is the confirmation that "coded" should be in lower case; are you going from the logo alone?
  • Would it be possible to replace "takes place" with "is set"? I just feel that it's technically ambiguous as to having an in-universe meaning or not.
  • Need an idea of gameplay and plot in the lead to differentiate it from previous installments.
  • "Coded will be a puzzle game with action elements mixed into the gameplay" Seems to contradict lead and infobox info. If you feel that it is still predominantly RPG, then tone it down to "will feature puzzle elements" or something similar.
  • "The action gameplay is believed to be similar to the action-RPG style of the previous games in the series and features a similar basic interface" Repetition: "similar" ...."similar".
  • minigame is not hyphenated in the WP article name so probably shouldn't be here for consistency's sake.
  • "The game will feature 3D graphics, with backgrounds in 3D and characters in 2D" Given the proceeding clause, the first becomes somewhat redundant and illogical. If this breaks flow/is too short, consider merging into another sentence.
  • "The initial trailer showcased Sora in dungeons with floating red and black blocks." I don't see why gameplay features have to be attributed to trailers as this is only a representation of what is in the game. Actually, thinking about it, what is the use/meaning of this sentence?
  • I know this hasn't been released yet, but there's a very vague sense of what happens in gameplay and how the puzzle system actually works.
  • Need to wikilink or explain who Sora is. Same for other unexplained terms.
  • I'm wondering why there is three consecutive short sentences at the start of this section.
  • "screen shots" It's one word
  • "Early screen shots showed the game in a wide screen format; based on the idea that more future models will feature a swivel screen". I'm no expert in grammar and punc but I'm not seeing why this semi-colon isn't a comma. Maybe I'm wrong.
  • The refs don't consistently follow a *surname**forename* format.
  • Any chance of finding the full name of Enrico S?
  • Are there better sources for those attributed to Kingdom Hearts Ultimania? What is the status of this site? Same for QJ.net.

Okay, I hope this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, they were very helpful. Here's the progress on them.
  • The image was used as well as an article from GameSpot [1].
  • "Takes place" is now "is set". A very good point on out-of-universe perspective.
  • With the minimal amount of gameplay and story info, I'm not entirely sure what to add. I added one extra sentence about the story.
  • The lead and infobox now say "Puzzle game", however, this may change as more info is released.
  • Repetition toned down.
  • "Mini-game" is now "minigame"
  • Sentence about 3D graphics tweaked
  • I'm not sure what to do about the sentence for now because such little info is know. I'm certain that sentence will be gone, or at least moved to "Development", by the time the game is released.
  • Once again about the gameplay, what's in the article is about all that is known. More should be released down the road.
  • Sora is wikilinked, nothing else stood out to me as needing a link. Are there any others you spotted?
  • Two of the short sentence have been combined.
  • "Screen shot" is now "screenshot"
  • I've switched to a comma, I believe you're right about it.
  • Author names in refs are now consistent.
  • Enrico S. was the only name given in the article.
  • The KHU links are pages with translated interviews from magazines. I expanded one of the KHU refs by citing the magazine article it originated from and linked it as a translation. I'll try to do the same with the other ones, but I'll have to track down the source info first.
    The QJ.net site is owned by a corporation, but I now realize that it is a blog posting that got its info from a forum posting. I've removed the ref and the content associated with it.
I hope that addresses your concerns. Thanks for the comments. If there's anything else please let me know. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC))
I'm thinking of the "Heartless" and "Destiny Islands", but that's about it. I can see how there can be difficulties related to unreleased games when it comes to information, but I'm sure things such as the lead and gameplay will fall into shape once it's released. If you ever want me to give it a lookover before or after release, then just ask. Cheers, Guy. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikilinks added. Much appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Would love to have some feedback on this since wanted to nominate it for FA once done. This would also help to improve Hindu-German Conspiracy to FA standards, so all help will be appreciated. Particularly looking for help with prose, grammar, suggestions at condensing, etc. [[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Hemlock Martinis comments
  • Vague
  • Thank you for including a "Background" section an a "Influence" section (although the latter might be better renamed to "Aftermath" or "Impact").
  • There are a few instances where some of the sentences are excessively complex. Example: "The Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition, sometimes referred to as The German mission to Kabul was a diplomatic mission sent by the Central Powers to Afghanistan in 1915-1916 that sought to encourage Afghanistan to declare independence from Britain, draw her into World War I on the side of the Central Powers, and attack British India." A possible fix: "The Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition, sometimes referred to as The German mission to Kabul, was a diplomatic mission sent by the Central Powers to Afghanistan in 1915 and 1916. The expedition's primary goal was to encourage Emir Habibullah to declare independence from the British Empire and bring Afghanistan into World War I on the side of the Central Powers by attacking British India."
  • In the above example, you originally referred to Afghanistan as a "her". I would prefer to refrain from addressing countries with personal pronouns that ascribe a gender. While I don't know if such a thing is written down anywhere as policy, either for or against, I certainly don't like it.
  • Make sure you standardize the name you ascribe to the United Kingdom. In this case you've used "Britain" (which is fine) although 1) make sure you address it as either "the United Kingdom" or "the British Empire" in the first instance in which it appears and 2) make sure you use only "Britain" thereafter, not England (as you have in a few instances).
  • When discussing Turkey before 1922, refer to it as the Ottoman Empire unless specifically addressing the Turkish part of the empire.
  • Specific
  • "It may have further influenced policies of the nascent Bolshevik Russia to propagate socialist revolution to Asia and the western colonial empire." Do you mean "western" as in the direction or as in the Western civilization sense?
  • "Mehmed V, the Sultan of Turkey, was then regarded as the Caliph by a substantial part of the Islamic world." Do you have a citation for this? Also, see the Turkey-Ottoman Empire thing above.
  • "The Kaiser himself toured Constantinople, Damascus and Jerusalem in 1898 to portray solidarity with Mussalmans, who at the time were predominantly subjects of the British Empire." Kaiser who? Please specify. And although I personally disagree with Wikipedia's choice to refer to Kaiser Wilhelm II as German Emperor William II, I would be lax in my review if I didn't suggest that you change all instances to the latter.
  • "In this situation, Britain perceived Afghanistan as the only entity capable of directly destabilising India." Do you mean the British people or the British government?
  • "As the war started, advice from the foreign office, the military, and from Moltke considered using the pan-Islamic movement to destabilise the British Empire and begin a revolution in India as early as the first week of August 1914." Specify which foreign office and military.
  • "With the onset of the war, revolutionary unrest itself increased in India, and a number of Hindu and Muslim leaders left clandestinely to seek help of the Central power for an Indian revolution." No need for "itself" and specify where they left to go. "the Central power" should also be changed to "Germany" for clarity.
  • "The pan-Islamic movement in India (particularly the Darul Uloom Deoband) also made plans for an insurrection in the tribal belt of North-west India with support from the Afghan Amir, the Ottoman Empire and Imperial Germany." A few things here. Should "north-west" be hypenated? Please standardize Emir/Amir, the aforementioned Ottoman Empire/Turkey and Imperial Germany/Germany.
  • "Aware of the sensitivities of the Persian tribes, it was suggested that the Germans wear Turkish army uniforms but this idea was rejected by the Germans." Suggested by whom?
  • "Moreover, the aims of the expedition were far from clear, and this was expected to be confirmed only after it reached Constantinople." This should be clarified.
  • "Werner Otto von Hentig was a Prussian military officer who before the war had served as the military attaché to Beijing and Constantinople in 1910 and 1912 respectively." Is Prussian the correct term here or German? Also, you might want to check if Beijing was Peking at this time.

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.
    • Per the MOS, quotations shouldn't be inclosed with the graphical curly quotes. {{blockquote}} works fine.
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.) 14:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul McDermott (comedian)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work in expanding it recently and I'd really like to get some other opinions on what needs work and how I can improve it further.

Thanks! -Shoemoney2night (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs):

  • This is a very good article. You may want to submit it to Good Article Nominations in the near future.
  • Make sure that every paragragh has at least one inline citation. Reviewers are getting strict about that.
  • Check the dash use.
  • In a random reference link check, ref 30 was discovered as a deadlink.
  • Busking should be wikilinked
  • Explain that ABC is short for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in the word's first appearance.
  • If there is any other verifiable content that can be included—awards, more elaboration on beliefs/views, etc.—put it in.

All in all, good job with the article. Good luck!

Fixed! Thanks so much for the review, it's really appreciated! -Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Say Anything (band)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish for it to become a GA.

Thanks, --pbroks13talk? 23:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • 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
  • 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
  • Other unreleased tracks - what makes this notable? It needs a ref or two at the least. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Article could use a copyedit - ask for help at WP:PRV. As one example see After recording In Defense of the Genre, Say Anything band members Max Bemis and Coby Linder worked with Saves the Day's Chris Conley and David Soloway on a side project reportedly named Two Tongues originally set for release sometime in summer 2008.
  • A model article is often helpful for ideas and examples to follow - Radiohead is a FA and may be a useful model

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


The Daily Show[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm really interested in bringing it up to FA-quality. I received some fantastic feedback in the article's last peer review which was invaluable in seeing it promoted to Good Article status, so I'd be delighted if anybody was able to offer any suggestions on how to improve it further.

Thanks, Shoemoney2night (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Looks pretty good, so these will be nipicky. Some segments recur periodically, such as "Back in Black" with Lewis Black, "This Week in God", "Trendspotting" with Demetri Martin, "Are You Prepared?!?", "Wilmore-Oliver Investigates", and "You Don't Know Dick" ... two things here - all of these are linked to the same article List of The Daily Show recurring segments which would probably be seen as overlinking at FAC. Also I would try to provide more context - identify correspondents who now do the segment).
  • While it generally reads well, try to avoid passive voice where possible, such as In the show's third act, an interview is conducted by the host with a celebrity guest. could be In the show's third act, the host conducts an interview with a celebrity guest. which is active and more concise
  • Problem sentence: A book titled The Daily Show: Five Questions (ISBN 0-8362-5325-6) was released by Comedy Central in 1998 and highlighted many of the best interview moments from Craig Kilborn's stint as host. needs a ref, I owuld put the ISBN into a footnote / ref, and as a one sentence paragraph I think it breaks the flow of the article and should be combined with another paragraph or expanded, if possible
  • Technically I think Steve Carell should be linked at the first mention of his name, not in the staff section (second mention).
  • Per WP:MOS, block quotes need to be about four lines long - "The show you are about to watch is a news parody. Its stories are not fact checked. Its reporters are not journalists. And its opinions are not fully thought through." is only one line on my screen and should be in the text.

I was hoping someone else would comment so you'd get more / a different perspective since the last PR. 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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All fixed! Thanks so much for the review, your comments have been really helpful to me in improving the article. It's much appreciated! -Shoemoney2night (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2008 (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.) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
All fixed by Shoemoney2night - except campusprogress link which appears to be reliable. Tom (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Batman (1989 film)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see other editors feedback to get this article to FA status. I've worked hard on this article (obviously) and have brought it up to GA status. I've used up all links I could find (books, magazine articles, websites, etc.) to get great info for Batman. I have very few things to look at (such as DVD special features). Anyway I need your opinion. Should I add any "Themes" or pictures or what?

Thanks, Wildroot (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments-Good article (obviously). Here's how you can make it an FA (very brief and shallow runthrough):

  • Expand the stubby, one-sentence paragraphs or combine them with others (I'm talking about the legacy section).
  • Is there any reason that the ISBN of Batman: Strange Application is included in the body of the text?
  • "In the late 1970s, Batman's popularity was waning." I don't like to be the verification police for every single statement, but according to whom or what statistic was Batman's popularity waning?

I'll have more comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I tend to include the ISBN of a book/novel/comic book if it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article. I don't really know why I do that. Producer Michael Uslan made that comment of Batman's popularity waning in the late 1970s. I will get to work on the Legacy section. —Wildroot (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Could you provide a source in the article thay verifies that Michael Ulsan says that quote?
  • "The film would eventually gross $251.2 million in North America and $160,160,000 in foreign countries, coming at a total of $411.35 million." Make all numbers written in the same format. Also, "coming at a total of" can be shortened to "totaling".
  • "To compose the film score Burton opted to hire Danny Elfman, his collaborator on Pee-wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice." A simpler sentence would be:"Burton hired Danny Elfman, his collaborator on Pee-wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice, to compose the film score." In general, the text needs a thorough copyedit before FAC. To me, the most pressing problems are awkward sentence structures and redundant wording.
  • Ideas for images include: props, behind-the-scenes pictures, film posters, and pictures of cast members.
  • Fix overlinking (mostly words and phrases linked multiple times). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)
  • I just wanted to leave a comment here that if you're interested I have a People Weekly from July 3 1989 with a review of the movie and an article about the Hollywood Premiere. Leave me a note on my talk page and I will either email you the stories or paste lines into the article's talk page.

Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 19:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bzuk Comments Overall, the article reads well, and my comments are to address mainly minor points:

  1. Referencing: The use of APA (American Psychological Association) style is used but with some inaccurate notations. Author is written as last name, first name with second and following authors/editors appearing as first name, last name. ISBN is a book identification code for booksellers and is not used normally in a citation. Citations should include Author, date and page number in sequence, followed by a full stop.
  2. Minor spelling, grammar: The phrase, "over the tone and direction the film was going in" could be written as "over the tone and direction in which the film was going." The phrase, "but Englehart had mixed emotions with his work" could be "but Englehart had mixed emotions in regards to (in respect to, over) his work." The phrase, "The car was built upon a Chevrolet Impala" could be "The car was built on a Chevrolet Impala chassis." The one use of foot is most often written as "a 38-ft (12 m) model." Note there is a mix of two different quotation styles.

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2008 (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.) 19:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Space Invaders[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is one of the Video games Project's top priority articles, and seeing as this year is the game's 30th anniversary, I'd like to go for FA. Any and all comments would be appreciated.

For those willing to go a bit deeper, I've had a little trouble with the "Re-releases and sequels" section. I know I'm missing some info from about the early 90s till mid-2000. However, I've also considered simply summarizing things a bit more to try to work around this. The section is already rather long anyway. Any thoughts, sources, comments, etc. in this area would be greatly appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • This really looks good, except for the incomplete banner, I would say this looks fairly ready for FAC. Would it make any sense to divide the Re-releases and sequels section into arcade versions and personal system versions? That would make each subsection shorter and I was frankly a bit uncertain at times if an arcade version (drop a quarter) or a system version was being discussed.
  • Make sure the references all meet WP:RS - I am not a video game person, but some of the internet sources are ones I have not heard of.
  • I would be clearer in the lead - it caused a shortage of yen coins (100), not all yen. How many levels of aliens were there (or was it infinite)?
  • Any reason why the Futurama epsidoe is spelled out in more detail than DangerMouse and the others?

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments.
  • I am still researching the various re-releases and sequels. Right now it's in chronological order, but I do think a different format would clarify things some. I'm currently working on a draft of a stand-alone list in my sandbox to better organize the info.
  • I've tried to stay away from questionable internet sources and use links only from the major gaming networks.
  • I've tweaked the info about the yen in the lead.
  • I do not know how many levels are included in the game. I initially considered it a trivial detail. But if it is indefinite, I agree that should be mentioned. I'll look into it.
  • The other TV episodes only contain a short 15–60 second reference to the game, while the Futurama episode includes a 5–6 minute segment which constantly references the game. I figured it would be best to organize it the way it is to avoid giving undue weight.
Thank you for the help. I'll continue to look into the re-release and sequel info, and the number of levels. Any other comments would be greatly appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC))
Regarding levels, it depends which version of the game. If you're talking about the original arcade version(s) (Space Invaders and Space Invaders deluxe), like all wave based games (if not all games) at the time, there is no "ending". Levels are infinite (although the score is often not). Games with an actual limit to levels by providing an ending came later. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Thank you. (Guyinblack25 talk 12:46, 15 August 2008 (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.
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.) 22:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. The Killer List of Videogames has been covered by various entities.
I hope that is satisfactory. Thanks again. (Guyinblack25 talk 07:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

Britney Spears[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…its Britney Spears. The ungodly obsessive-compulsive media scrutiny this woman has suffered as one of the worlds most tragic cultural icons warrants wikipedias finest work and requires a strict adherence to equal weight of criticism and praise as well as basic human dignity. Before anyone begins to review this article, let me make it explicitly clear I am not a fan of Spears- do not accuse me of adding fancruft to the article as I have not made any significant contributions to it other than minor copy-editing. Likewise, I do not buy into the "spear Britney" hate campaign against her. I was not responsible for nominating it for GA and my sole interest in preparing it for FAC is my universal interest in protecting basic human dignity of living people.

Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Upon reading through the article, my major criticism is that it fails to see the forest for the trees. The bio is extremely detailed, yet it gives the reader a poor idea of who she is as a cultural figure and as a musician. The notion of Britney Spears as this tragic teen idol turned sex bomb turned cautionary tale is what makes her interesting, but the details bog down the story. The Atlantic piece on her paparazzi followers is interesting and relevant, and I'll see if I can track down more essay-like pieces on Britney as a whole. Obviously it's somewhat soon to get perspective on her life and career. I would recommend reviewing the Michael Jackson article and adding sections such as legacy/cultural image, musical/vocal style, critical assessment, etc as appropriate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've introduced some of the info from the rolling stone article. I feel bad for Britney. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment There's a huge paragraph about critical reception to Baby One More Time better reserved for the album page. That whole section is disproportionally large compared to the other article sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The products and endorsements section should be integrated, it certainly shouldn't come after the legacy section. — Realist2 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Note that given the sheer size of the references list, I don't claim to have caught every small MOS error. I mainly reviewed for source reliability. 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.) 20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Low-carbohydrate diet[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through some significant rewrites and has not had a formal review in some time (although some editors have offered miscellaneous input; much thanks).

Specific issues I'd like reviewed:

  • General article quality.
  • Physiological descriptions: No medical/nutritional experts have reviewed this in some time. I would request, though, that any feedback or changes please distinguish between widely held opinions in the medical community and proven facts. As an example some experts argue that ketosis and ketoacidosis differ only in degree whereas others argue that they are related but different processes (or rather one involves the other but involves other factors as well). Treating one position or the other as established fact, even if the majority agrees with it, would be misleading.
  • Bias check: The topic is severely controversial. I have tried to balance making clear the stance of the proponents of the concept while making clear the stance of the majority of the medical/nutritional community. The most difficult aspect has been trying to objectively portray the research and the science because there is currently a great lack of consensus on these topics in the medical community.
  • Organization of the research information: In an effort to check bias the section on research links to a separate article which presents a cross-section of the research. Although that is a little unusual it seems the best approach since there is such extreme controversy in even interpreting the results of the studies.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks, Mcorazao (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

New York in the American Civil War[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if it can be upgraded to A status, and to add any input from reviewers in terms of overall improvements.

Thanks, 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Per WP:LEAD the bolded words in the lead should not be linked. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but Memorialization does not seem to be there.
  • Please see WP:HEAD - headers should not repeat the title of the article, so "New York early in the war" needs to be changed. Since this section talks about the end of the war in 1865, calling this section "early in the war" seems a bit odd too.
  • Organization of the article is also somewhat non-chronological. The election of 1860 (before the war) is desribed after the military history, the politics section also describes the NYC draft riots briefly before the section on them. I looked at the Civil War in Ohio article and it seems better organized.
  • 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
  • Galleries are discouraged if you want to go to 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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Shimabara Rebellion[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its earlier messy state was controversial (to the point of making the news and causing an academic incident), and after having extensively reworked and expanded it, I would like feedback on its current state and how it may be yet improved.

Thanks, Tadakuni (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be two or three paragraphs. 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
  • The article needs more references and needs to attribute some its statements better. For example, As such, the image of a fully "peasant" uprising is also not entirely accurate. reads like original research without a cite, or Even the Dutch, who had a trading post nearby and were anti-Catholic, were startled at the excessive degree of repression. These policies were continued by Shigemasa's heir, Katsuie. is not referenced. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Several places need to provide more context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, explaining who Jizō is in the caption Statues of Jizō beheaded by rebelling Christians. or if a map that shows where all this occurred is available, that would be good.
  • The list of forces fighting - could this be made into prose / text?
  • Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source (even the Japanese version)

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Discography of Final Fantasy VII[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've gotten this article (and all of the Discographies of FF 1-12) up to GA status, and I'm looking to start pushing them to FA. As such, I'm starting with Discography of Final Fantasy VII. Any help would be appreciated. --PresN (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I would suggest breaking up the concept and creation paragraph into two-three paragraphs for better readability. The Prince (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Split up into 2. --PresN (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's speak honestly - This is a type of article that I do not believe has been seen at FAC recently, if ever. You have four issues to deal with to get to FA: You will have people say it should be a featured list, so be prepared mentally to fend that off. Also, make sure it is copyedited by you, so there are no obvious mistakes, make sure you are secure in your images, so they are minimal and well sourced and rationaled, and most important, check out your references, as I remember you mentioning that some of the music article sources are not considered reliable, which will obviously not fly at FA. Do that, and I think you won't have any problem. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I know. Before the peer review, I went looking for FAs that were discographies- there were none. My argument for that is that any FL that is a "discography" article is nothing but tables. I don't have a one in this article. I have one image and one sound clip (I got bitten about that before), which I think I can justify, and will do so in the nomination to head off problems. My biggest problem is references. I've dropped ffmusic.info, which was a straight up fansite, if a great source of information. I've left RPGFan - on the VG source list; soundtrack central- user submitted, but edited by the site before publication (only used once, I'll drop if it need be) and Square Enix Music Online- same idea, but they also have staff reviews, which I'm going to try and move to exclusively, if possible. My plus side- this is music, not games. There's not much to verify- as long as the site has some sort of editorial policy, it's just someone's opinion, nothing that can be challenged. I hope. --PresN (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2008 (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.) 22:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Giggy[edit]

  • The first para of the lead is rather repetitive, with both things being released in 1997 and 2004, etc.
  • "The original music received very positive reviews, with reviewers finding many of the tunes to be very memorable." - I doubt the second "very" is needed.
  • Is this incorrect?

Yeah, the prose generally isn't bad. Would have a chance at FAC, I think. —Giggy 08:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Fauna of Scotland[edit]

  • This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because this GA is a potential FA candidate which has been copy-edited recently. Any and all comments are welcome.

Thanks, Ben MacDui 19:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks quite nice overall and seems close to being ready for FAC. Here are my nit-picky suggestions:

  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "vertical" "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. I think a set width on the lead image is OK.
    •  Done
  • Left justified images directly under headers are also a no-no.
    •  Done (I think - looks a bit weird to me.)
      • This is one of those MOS things that I do not understand myself. I had an FAC where it slipped through with left justified images under a header, but there seems to be more image checking at FAC lately. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unclear sentence Under the auspices of the European Union's Habitats Directive, as at 31 March 2003 a total of 230 sites in Scotland covering 8,748.08 square kilometres (3,377.65 sq mi) had been submitted by the UK government to the European Commission as candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSAC).[15] This might be AE (vs BE) but I think "as of 31 March 2003" is meant. Also, is there any more recent information (this is over 5 years ago) - are these now just SACs? Have more cSACs been submitted?
    •  Done good catch.
  • Also not sure what they refers to in In total they extend to an area of around 350 square kilometres (140 sq mi). Is it the nine coastal sites? Or the 24 marine sites and the nine coastal sites?
    •  Done
  • Provide context to the reader WP:PCR - perhaps mention in The UK government is considering designating an area known as the Darwin Mounds, covering about 100 square kilometres (39 sq mi) [of the ocean floor?], as the first offshore cSAC.[15] Wouldn't an island be an offshore cSAC too?
    •  Done by adding a brief footnote for citizens of land-locked states. GB is an island, so this just means not including any land. "Working offshore" means on an oil rig, as opposed to on Barra.
  • References generally go at the end of a sentence or phrase, so perhaps change Scotland was entirely[17] covered in ice during the Pleistocene glaciations.
    •  Done
  • A few places might be seen as jargon - the article nicely explains member of the biological order artiodactyla or "even-toed ungulates" but does not explain lagomorphs and I must confess that I was a bit fuzzy on what an endemic species was.
    •  Done - piped link for "unique" although I am note sure this is easy to fix without defining "endemic" within the article. Attempted a lagomorph fix. Unfortunately in this instance "lagomorph" is the common name for 'lagomorpha'.
  • There are a few places where population percentages have a year given in the text, in most though this information is presumably found only in the reference. I am not sure if there should be consistency on this or not, but wanted to note it.
    • I have an ongoing concern that the article resembles a list in prose form. It would be possible to attempt to make this consistent, but I think it would just clutter up the text with additional numbers I don't think are necessary in such a broad overview. Hopefully FA reviewers will agree!
      • Understood - do let me know when this is at FAC, once the refs are fixed I think it will be ready. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Will do. Ben MacDui 18:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There are also a few places where the absence of a species is noted without further explanation, for example A small colony of the introduced Golden Pheasant exists, but Lady Amherst's Pheasant is absent.[92] I suppose the wild Dodo and Ostrich are also absent from Scotland, but am not sure why the absence of Lady Amherst's Pheasant is significant - presumably it is found elsewhere in the UK? I like how this is written Smooth Snakes, found elsewhere in the UK are absent, and Grass Snakes are rarely reported.[133] as it makes clear why the absent species is mentioned.
    •  Done - at least I have fixed a couple. In one or two cases the species that are absent are very common elsewhere in the UK, which is why its mentioned. I'll have another look at this. Actually you are (nearly) wrong - there is an ostrich farm near Inverness - the burgers are surprisingly succulent.
      • There are Llama and alpaca farms in parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Would it make sense to have a blanket statement early in the article that species mentioned as absent are typically found elsewhere in the UK? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • It's an idea although of course we might then wade into the lamentable territory of UK/GB/British Isles from which few return with their sanity intact. I'll see what can be done. I think in every instance there is also a reference to some other part of the B. Isles now, hopefully suggesting the reason why this is mentioned.
  • I was curious as to why so many NNRs lost their status - would it make sense to add a sentence explaining this to Until 2004 there were 73, but a review carried out in that year resulted in a significant number of sites losing their NNR status, and as of 2006 there are 55.[158]?
    •  Done as a footnote.

That's it from me - generally looks quite good, nicely written, great images, well referenced. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. I've been away visiting cousin Arthur but I'll get to this over the weekend. Ben MacDui 09:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I've had a look at them all now - many thanks once again. Ben MacDui 15:28, 23 August 2008 (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 sources reliable?
      • http://www.britishwildlifecentre.co.uk/index.htm
        • Hmm, much less reliable than the name suggests. A duplicate that added nothing and I've removed it.
      • http://www.supernaturale.com/
        • Replaced.
      • http://www.south-coast-central.co.uk/index.html
        • Duplicate and now moved to External links
      • http://www.north-berwick.co.uk/bassRock.asp
        • Information now missing and replaced with BTO
      • http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/index.html
        •  Done Remote places sometimes lack mainstream coverage and this source is used a fair amount in articles about Scottish islands. I'd describe them as "very reliable" in that context, although clearly they are not an organisation with a professional background in natural history. It's replaceable if need be.
      • http://thomsonecology.com/index.html
        •  Done Not an academic source but a well-respected professional consultancy. The information is not controversial and easily corroborated if need be.
      • http://www.wildlifeextra.com/index.html
        •  Done A strong focus on wildlife matters, albeit with a journalistic focus rather than an academic one. As the subject in this case is a piece of local PR that was published for a national audience I think its acceptable in this case.
      • http://www.pawsonline.info/kellas_cat.htm (also lacking publisher info)
        •  Done Publisher fixed. The source is hardly the most reputable, but this is cryptozoology after all. It refers to academic work undertaken by the Royal Scottish Museum but sadly this project does not seem to lie within reach of Google. All the other hits appear to be of a similar nature. I could replace it with one where the publisher sounds more plausible, but I fear that would be window dressing only. There are references in local newspapers but they say little in addition and arguably are no more reliable.
      • http://www.theangloscot.co.uk/
        •  Done I'd like to think that Dr. Yvonne A. Simpson's report for the Orkney Natural History Association is acceptable. I fear I may regret the whole cryptozoology section, although it seems supine to ignore it.
    • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. (Examples... RSPB, SAC, JNCC, etc.)
      •  Done "RSPB" is probably better known than the full name and is used by the organisation itself- see for example their Home page where the full name is tucked away in the small print.
      • "SAC" only appears once in the Notes and is simply a reflection of the title of the page JNCC produced.
      • "JNCC" Fixed.
    • The following pages deadlinked:
    • Current ref 37 (http://www.thehedgehog.co.uk/campaign.htm) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
      • The publisher was mixed up with the page title. Fixed. Its a primary source that indicates the depth of the controversy in some circles. This may be ultra vires?
    • Current ref 36, shouldn't the publisher be Uist Wader Project?
      • The publisher was mixed up with the page title again. ( I don't like these templates - a kind and helpful user added them all shortly after the article made GA and I didn't have the heart to revert them all.)
    • http://www.highnorth.no/library/myths/ad-a-na.htm (current ref 52) originally appeared in a print magazine, it looks like. Should be formatted as such.
      • Fixed
    • Current ref 140 is lacking a last access date.
      • Template Cite news was hiding it. Fixed.
    • Current ref 149 is lacking a publisher. It also deadlinks.
      • Replaced
    • Current ref 160 is lacking a publisher
      • Fixed
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.) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this input. Accepting that you are not watching I have/will reply above for future reference. Ben MacDui 14:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


4chan[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi. I've worked on this one for a few months, and it recently passed a GA nomination. I'd like feedback especially on the content (does it need to cover anything else? is there too much weight given to anything?) and the prose, obviously, with the aim of going to FAC at some point in the not too distant future. Many thanks in advance. —Giggy 04:45, 22 August 2008 (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.) 13:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs):

Lead

  • "Launched on October 1, 2003 by "moot" ("Christopher Poole"), its boards are based primarily around the posting of pictures and discussion of Japanese comics and television shows." around-->on, and primarily should go before based.
    • Done. —Giggy 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I reworded the sentence a little bit further—diff—is that fine? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Yep, thanks! —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "4chan's '/b/' board, dedicated to random postings, is the most active and is notorious on the Internet; Gawker.com claimed in jest that 'reading /b/ will melt your brain'." "dedicated to random postings"—what does this mean?
    • Reworded a bit. Essentially, no very few rules on posting, and no set themes. —Giggy 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I did some further copyediting, and found one more instance of clarification needed: "4chan's "/b/" board is both active and notorious." What does active mean, and what is 4chan notorious for? Addressing these nitpicks now will save time at FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Reworded. —Giggy 08:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Layout

  • "However, the pornographic content hosted on 4chan makes it difficult to advertise, with few businesses wanting to be associated with the site's content." A bit awkward, try: "However, the pornographic content hosted on 4chan has detered businesses—who do not want to be associated with the site's content—from advertising." I'm sure there's a better way to rephrase the sentence than my suggestion, though.
    • I like that suggestion. I removed the dashes and used it. —Giggy 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I think that the dashes may have to be included to reduce vagueness. However, it's your call. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "4chan has been labeled as the starting point of the Anonymous meme by The Baltimore City Paper,[17] due to the norm of posts being made with the "Anonymous" moniker." "being" is unnecessary; "made" should probably be changed to "signed".
    • Done. —Giggy 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "The 'random' board, /b/, follows in the design of Futaba Channel's Nijiura board."
    • Done. —Giggy 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Certain post numbers, such as 12345678, 22222222 and every millionth post, are sought after with a large amount of posting taking place to 'GET' them." Besides being grammatically awkward, how important is this information to the article?
    • Moderately important. I think it was missing the key bit of info (moot's opinion on scaling) which I've now added, and fixed the grammar (hopefully). —Giggy 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      • The sentence could probably be improved a little more but I can't think of a better solution right now. The more pressing problem is one of clarification: What is a "GET"? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Hopefully clarified. —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:ENGVAR inconsistencies: summarised(British English), but humor (American English). Please check for instances throughout the article and change them to one format.
    • Fixed those (now American), will check for others. —Giggy 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "and is frequently characterized by intricate inside jokes and black comedy." frequently could be deleted here.
    • Done. —Giggy 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "/b/ users are referred to by outsiders as trolls, whose intention is to accumulate 'lulz'. Whose intention, the trolls or the /b/ users?
    • Trolls = /b/ users. Clarified. —Giggy 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Memes

  • "The lolcat meme later spread to other animals, resulting in the O RLY? owl." This sentence is confusing—it says that the meme spread to other animals, but then branches off into an example.
    • Yeah, the O RLY owl is an example of a related animal meme. Tried to make it clearer. —Giggy 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll finish the comments tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking a look! :-) —Giggy 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "2005 saw the introduction of the 'duckroll'." Rewrite needed: "In 2005 the 'duckroll' was introduced."
    • Done. —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Its immense popular caused publisher Rockstar Games' website to crash." popular-->popularity.
    • Eek, I need to type slower. Fixed. —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You might want to add that the whole Grand Theft Auto thing led to the term "rickrolling". It's in the subheader, but we want the article to be as clear as possible.
    • Done. —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "The portion of the song in which Zonday turns away from the microphone, with a caption stating "I move away from the mic to breathe in", became a an oft-repeated meme on 4chan,[30] also inspiring numerous remixes." "also inspiring numerous remixes"-->"and inspired remixes.
    • Done. —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "More new memes would be developed by 4chan, such as 'So I herd u liek mudkipz', a meme involving a phrase based on Pokemon, which resulted in numerous YouTube tribute videos." Use the simple past tense—"would be"-->were.
    • Done. —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Media attention

  • "On January 9, 2006 eBaum's World violated copyright in hosting an image of Lindsay Lohan originally posted on YTMND." Comma after 2006; violated copyright-->violated copyright laws.
    • Done. —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "In December 2006 and January 2007, users of 4chan and other websites 'raided' Hal Turner, taking his site offline through DDoS attacks, and prank calling his phone-in radio show." "taking his site offline through DDoS attacks, and prank calling his phone-in radio show"—the attacks themselves didn't take his site offline, they led to that result. Reword as necessary.
    • Clarified. —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikilink injunction.
    • Done. —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "On February 28, 2008, he plead guilty to the federal charges." plead-->pled
    • Fixed. —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There needs to be information in the body of text that informs the reader that the student who threatened to blow up his high school attended Pflugerville High School in Austin, Texas (or wherever the school is).
    • Done (I hope). —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Jarrad Willis, a 20 year old Melbourne man"—should be "a 20 year old man from Melbourne.
    • Aaah, OK. That was the Australian way of writing it. Fixed. —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help! —Giggy 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

General

  • Captions with complete sentences should have periods, the incomplete sentences should not.
    • Should be fixed. —Giggy 09:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to put a more desciptive title for the two external links?
    • Done, I suppose. —Giggy 09:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Great job! Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


Liberalism[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is at A-class according to the talk page - how can I bring it to featured status? Master&Expert (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The script has several useful items that need to be addressed. I have re-assessed the article, as it is not remotely close to A-class. It is severely lacking in citations, contains weasle words, extreme listiness in See also and Further reading, a rambling TOC, and needs significant WP:MOS cleanup. It will take a lot of work to bring this to WP:GA standard; I suggest using the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to locate other editors interested in collaborating in this content area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A few general remarks:

  • I'm not sure how appropriate the Roman parts of the history section are. Without any academic references to back these statements up, I'm tempted to say that they don't make much sense. Aristotle has his own limited contribution to Liberalism, for example - one sentence in Livy or Marcus Aurelius doesn't say much. In short, get a reference to back this up.
  • Cite the Oxford English Dictionary in a footnote in the paragraph about it.
  • As it is currently written, the last section belongs in the "Development of thought" section, where most of the material here is repeated, in fact. Write a few very factual sentences on etymology and usage of the word and leave the historical notes for the development section.
  • Please delete the whole trends section (well, move it to a sandbox or so). It is utterly confusing for the article structure, and parts of it are blatantly false or at least controversial enough to not merit inclusion without sources. The section equates political liberalism with individualism (no, it's not), and equates economic liberalism with classical liberalism, which is only makes some kind of sense from a modern American perspective. Moreover, most of it is redundant with the Development of thought section.
  • The development of thought section is ok, but suffers from an utter lack of sources. There's some questionable statements in there which just need sourcing. Also, I think the current section could use a bit of structure.
  • Subsequent sections are questionable.

... that's where I stopped reviewing and decided that I could better go and edit the article. I've got the sources in my bookcase here. :) User:Krator (t c) 09:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Los Angeles Lakers[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to GA status. It needs alot of work for it to be a FA. I tried to add as much information as i can. It needs better grammar. If you guys will improve the grammar, that will be thankful. If you could help please see this. Thanks, BlueRed 07:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • PR is not typically a place where copyedits happen - you can ask for a copyedit from one of the volunteers at WP:PRV. I owuld also look carefully at all the points raised in the GA review - many of them are still applicable in the current version of the article (relative size of the history subsections, for example)
  • 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 (Land of 10,000 Lakes is only in the lead). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article has many one or two sentence paragraphs that break up the flow - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Per WP:Summary Style, there should be a brief summary of the main article referred to, but there are no such summaries for Franchise and NBA records or the Logo and uniforms or Head coaches sections
  • Season-by-season records has zero refs, 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

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I was requested to comment on this article in its pursuit of GA status:

  • I think that when you refer to players colleges you should pipe the link to the basketball program if it exists and if it does not create a redirect where it should be so that you are linked to an article when it is created. E.g. "The Lakers selected 6'9" Earvin Johnson from Michigan State" s/b "The Lakers selected 6'9" Earvin Johnson from Michigan State" and "The team selected Jerry West from West Virginia University" s/b "The team selected Jerry West from West Virginia University".
  • In their Last year in Minneapolis s/b followed by a comma.
  • Prose is sloppy:
    • E.g., "During the offseason Milkan [sp?] announced his retirement, ending his ten year basketball career." The way the sentence reads his retirement ended his career, which is of course technically correct. What you mean is something like 'Mikan's announcement of his retirement during the offseason ended his ten-year basketball career.'
    • "With Mikan leading the way, their first years as the Lakers, easily won their division by 13 games with a 43–17 record." has no real subject for the noun won. s/b 'With Mikan leading the way during their first year, the Lakers easily won their division by 13 games with a 43–17 record.'
    • Following should not be capitalized.
  • You link finals MVP, I think you should also link the first occurrence of reg season MVP.
  • That is all for now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Halo 3: Recon[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is an unreleased, recently announced game that is going to be part of a big Halo series featured topic. There is limited content, so please review what's here and give us some improvements to make what is here really good :) Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments by Sillyfolkboy
    • Not much to comment on really, all information seems good and present. Do not expand more on rumours/speculation about the development as information tends to be completely useless/irrelevant a few months later. As more info is announced (official no rumour) add that to the article. The development should be the start of its own section when the article is complete in a year's time or so.
    • To be honest I'm not really sure what more you wanted a peer review to say. Bring it back after the games' release and we'll see what happens.

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Randomran: There isn't much to comment on, but what you have is good so far. I might encourage you to break some of the run-on sentences down into multiple shorter sentences... or just shorten them altogether. Otherwise, the article needs to be more comprehensive, but I understand you're doing the best you can with the research you can find. Randomran (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Stevenson High School (Lincolnshire, Illinois)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd really like to improve this article, yet I do not know how. It seems a decent size, and his home to a filled-out infobox, yet it is still rated as a Start-class article. I could also use what is decided here for future reference when creating other articles on schools and school districts (hopefully). I apologize if this is an inappropriate usage of peer review or is simply a difficult peer review session, as this is my first jab at it.

Thanks, Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 06:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • 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
  • Article needs more references, for example the History and Activities sections have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Fix the citation needed tags.
  • 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
  • Activities seems pretty crufty - needs cited to reliable sources. Also Adlai Stevenson was not a Minuteman (Revolutionary War soldier) yet it says Many other aspects of the school, such as its nickname (Patriots), the school magazine (Minuteman), and Newspaper(Statesmen) were also named after characteristics of Adlai E. Stevenson.
  • What make the red link alumni and no link teachers notable? See WP:NN - my rule of them is to write an article on them first, then add them to the list.
  • Needs a copyedit
  • Any chance for more photos?

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


The Five Heartbeats[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the quality of this article has recently significantly improved and the article was previously assessed as stub class. The article appears to meet the criteria for a B article, however I would appreciate a second opinion.

Thanks, UniversalBread (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Done

Done

Done

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 0Nl, use 0 Nl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 0&nbsp;Nl.[?]

Done

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]

Done

Done

  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, wasn't, Haven't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

Done

  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]

Done

UniversalBread (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Werner Heisenberg[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think is really complete, it contains an amount of information reallt difficult to find in the web and in general, so I want to candidate it as a Featured Article.

Thanks, José Miotto (talk)

  • Comments by Sillyfolkboy:
    • Just a note - The lead seems very sparsely wikilinked - Max Born, Pascual Jordan, Nobel Prize in Physics, Adolf Hitler , SS and Uranium Club should all be linked for example. On the opposite end of the scale, some parts of the body are heavily linked - such as the Uranium Club section. I think this is a necessary evil however given the number of physicists, scientific terms and german words linked. Don't link Werner Heisenberg in the text as this causes unnecessary bolding. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should not be more than four paragraphs long. 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
  • The article has a lot of very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which break up the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded. See WP:Proseline too
  • 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
  • Why the lists of Internal Reports? Especially when the titles are generally untranslated - this is the English Wikipedia. Perhaps these could be slit off as a list - see the FL List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein for a model.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


2007–08 Boston Celtics season[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am not sure whether it has all needed requirements for featured article status, and I don't want to directly nominate it without getting second opinions first. It has tons of information, but I feel the "Summary" section needs to be expanded, and if this is not possible, it should be renamed to "Off-season". What else needs to be changed?

Thank you in advance. ● 8~Hype @ 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Preliminary comments (Chensiyuan)

  • Cons
    • Why bother linking the dates under "Key dates"? For that matter, why link any standalone month/day dates?
    • Check for proper dashes.
    • I don't consider it necessary to wikilink more than once within the same section. Overlinking is most obvious in the "Records" section.
    • "Curiously, Jones was involved in a trade back in the 2003 NBA Draft, in which the Celtics drafted him with the 20th overall selection, but immediately traded him with the 16th pick, Troy Bell, to the Memphis Grizzlies in exchange for the 13th pick, Marcus Banks, and the 27th pick, Kendrick Perkins." Curiously?
    • The overwhelming majority of the article pertains to statistics, results and lists. Where is the prose? It just stopped after the pre-season transactions. You can't just condense the regular season and playoffs into a list.
    • Notice that every table looks so different from each other?
    • Headings should not be wikilinked.
  • Pros
    • References properly cited.
    • Adequate references provided.
    • Images.
  • Conclusion
    • Would definitely fail GA. Chensiyuan (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to WP:GA and I would like to nominate it for WP:FA at a future date. Advice and feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks, Classicfilms (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2008 (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.) 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much! This is a very helpful "to-do" list. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Break[edit]

I have fixed the URLs above and have generally cleaned up the article according to some of the suggestions above. However, at the moment I now need to take a long wikibreak. Thanks to those who have helped and I hope that other editors will continue to improve the article. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Legal disputes over Harry Potter[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it could be pushed to FA level.

Thanks, Serendipodous 17:07, 17 August 2008 (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.) 22:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • While it is clear that the "Allegations of copyright and trademark infringement" section is chronological, I was less sure of the overall idea behind the organization of the article.
  • The eBay section is very short - could it be combined with another section or perhaps expanded? There are also several very short paragraphs (one or two sentences) which should also be combined or expanded. The RDR section is especially in need of attention for this.
  • RDR also ends oddly - the judge has not yet ruled, but the refs are from April - it is nearly September, surely there has been some progress?
  • Also ref 77 is broken
  • Legal injunctions - first paragraph needs a ref, provide context for the reader (which book was there an injunction for in 2003? - see WP:PCR
  • There is a lot of detail here - for FAC I would be concerned because there does not seem to be much flow between sections (again organization). I would also try to get a similar level of detail in each section (eBay vs RDR - two extremes).

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


List of UEFA Super Cup winners[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because me and Rambo's Revenge have been working hard on this list and feel it is close to Featured list standard, so we hope this peer review can address any issues and problems we may have missed. NapHit (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

The scope of the topic UEFA Super Cup is not as big as (say) UEFA Champions League, so while I really like the work you have done here, I don't think we need a separate list and I think you should merge this back into the main UEFA Super Cup article and go for WP:GA instead. --Jameboy (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree - if there can be a list of managers who won the competition, then surely there can be a list of teams? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
But if you expanded the lead of this list to include the trophy changes, it would mirror the UEFA Super Cup article almost exactly. If a list is an important part of an article and can be managed within that article, why create a separate list for the sake of it? Surely we should consider an article/list not just on its own merits but also how it fits into Wikipedia and links to other articles. --Jameboy (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
But there is huge scope for improvement on the UEFA Super Cup article, it is very poor in my opinion and a lot more could be mentioned especially the history and the recent trophy change which is mentioned minimally. Personally I think the table should be removed from the main article and a link placed to direct it to this list. NapHit (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Quick comment from rst20xx (talk · contribs)

Just a quick comment from me: You seem to have coloured the winning competitions in the tables, but not the losers. And therefore, the logic goes, the competition that the loser won to get there can be inferred. While the lead states which two competitions competed for the cup each year, I still think it would be clearer to colour the loser, as well. See for example here - rst20xx (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree the only prooblem I have is with the two-legged finals, should I colour both legs or just one of the legs? NapHit (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, I would think that both would be clearer - rst20xx (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
That looks good, thanks. Though I might change one of the green and blue as they're quite similar and some people may have trouble telling them apart. Unless there's some particular reason those colours are particularly appropriate. Obviously this change can be made quite easily using a replace all - rst20xx (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Newton's theorem of revolving orbits[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'd appreciate a peer review of this article before suggesting it as a Good Article (GA) nominee or Featured Article (FA) candidate. Is it understandable? Are the Figures enlightening? Does anything need a reference? Am I understanding everything correctly? Have I overlooked something?

Honestly, I'm not sure whether GA or FA would be appropriate; that might be another helpful question to address in the peer review? The present article is significantly shorter than a typical Featured Article, but very few people have ever discussed this topic; its entire scholarly literature seems to consist of a few papers/books. There's even a 1995 quote from expert physicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar that the theorem is discussed in only one major book, that of E. T. Whittaker. I haven't mentioned that in the article, but I could.

I thought about adding a "History" section, but it'd be very short, e.g., "Newton discovered it in 1687 and applied it to lunar motion. Largely ignored for four centuries, with the exception of the 1937 dynamics book by Whittaker. First generalized in 2000 by Mahomed and Vawda."

Thanks muchly for your help! :) Willow (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


Ozob's review

You always write such beautiful articles, Willow. And this one has beautiful animations, too. Here are my comments:

blush Thank you, Ozob; I'll try to live up to your beautiful words. :) The article will be much better for all your insights! Willow (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think it should be excluded from GA or FA on the basis of its length. Some topics need long articles and others need short ones. This needs a short one.
That's reassuring, but perhaps it's better to take it to GA first? I've never actually succeeded in getting a Good Article, so it might be nice for that reason as well. Willow (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In the "Overview" section, you comment that when we exclude time, we obtain the path of the particle (a minor comment: "particle" becomes "planet"). Then you juxtapose this with the statement, "If the path of the first particle is described in the form r = g1)" (emphasis added). That's a big if, and unfortunately it's easy to misread as, "When we forget about time, the path of the first particle..." (That's how I read it the first time.) And of course that's not true, because then the orbit couldn't precess. (The same thing happens in the "Generalizations" section.) So while the article is literally correct, I think there must be a better wording for that sentence.
I tried to explain the unusual definition of θ being used, and in particular that θ need not be bounded between -180° and 180°. Is it better now? Willow (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In the "Qualitative behavior and orbital precession" section, I am not so sure that the article is correct, and I have attempted to fix it. What got me thinking was that the statement "its orbit would resemble the first particle's orbit" is a little vague. How precisely does it resemble the first particle's orbit? When I tried to figure it out my conclusion was that the article was getting tangled up in different reference frames; while the statement and the algebra were correct, I don't think the text reflected the physics. But please read my change carefully, because you're an expert in this and I'm not.
I'm no expert, unfortunately! :P I did try to go through it, though, and make sure that everything read well. Willow (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In the "Limit of nearly circular orbits" section, you mention that Valluri, Wilson and Harper explain why Newton felt justified in applying his method to large eccentricities. Could you include a one-sentence summary of their explanation? (Do you have access to the article? I could probably do this if you don't.) Or is the explanation in the following paragraphs?
I tried to sketch their argument in a sentence or two. The basic idea is that the precession rate shouldn't be identically zero for arbitrary forces and arbitrary orbital eccentricities ε. For a given force, it might well be zero for particular values of ε, but a randomly chosen ε (such as those of the planetary orbits of the solar system) is unlikely to yield a zero precession rate. Willow (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Also in that section, the meaning of the displayed equation with dC/dr seems rather opaque to me. How does it cause the long axis "to rotate as Newton's theorem of revolving orbits"? What does that last sentence mean? Is this what is being explained in the following paragraphs?
The idea is that you can derive an effective k for an arbitrary central force, as long as you consider only orbits that are very close to being circular. The mean precession rate Ω of the orbit equals (k-1) ω, where ω is the mean angular speed of the particle revolving about the central point. Willow (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • By 2 4/243, I presume you mean the fraction 2 + 4/243; I think it doesn't show up well on the screen when the 4/243 is written horizontally, but I don't know how you could format it better without going into TeX: . And while that's clear it doesn't look very good.
Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to convey. I took both of your suggestions, writing it in a TeX formula initially and as 2 + 4/243 later in the text. Willow (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In the "Cotes' spirals" section, the diagram does not agree with the text: The diagram uses θ for the position of the particle while the text uses θ1. (The caption agrees with the diagram.)
Yes, I'd wanted to use θ instead of θ1 so that other people could re-use the image? But that seems unlikely, so I changed it to θ1. Willow (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to have pictures of at least one form of Cotes' spirals.
I managed to persuade Gnuplot to make the spirals in SVG. Thank you, KSmrq! :) Willow (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe there's a way to make the presentation of the different types of Cotes' spirals more uniform? If there's one particular kind that's especially important, then that should be first, of course, but otherwise the presentation suggests that the second form (which, oddly, is not named even though the other two are) is some sort of monstrous aberration of the first.
I've since learned that the cosh form is a type of Poinsot's spiral. :) The only difference between the cos and cosh spirals is the relative strength μ of the inverse-cube central force; if μ is less than a certain positive threshold, the cos spiral holds, whereas the cosh spiral holds if μ is greater than the threshold. Willow (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Closed orbits and inverse-cube central forces" section has some very special formatting. Is this necessary? If the two images were on opposite sides, then the text would flow better on my screen; right now, their vertically adjacency makes them taller than the section's text.
I tried that, too, but that squeezed the text, making it far taller than the images. A good way of formatting this section isn't obvious to me, unfortunately. :( Willow (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Newton's derivation", the notation is inconsistent: Sometimes it's r(t), other times it's r1(t) (later you comment on this, but it's not clear at the start); and sometimes it's theta(t) and other times θ1(t).
Thank you for catching all that! I think I've fixed the inconsistencies. Willow (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Also in "Newton's derivation", what is the derivation intended to show? The article says it's his Proposition 43, but doesn't state Proposition 43.
I added more to the Newton section. That makes a lot of sense, since his Principia is the only book that discusses his theorem in any length! :) Willow (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it would be nice to include the Chandrasekhar quote on how little work has been done here.
Yes, I put a blurb into the lead, although I didn't include it in the article, since there wasn't much more to say? Willow (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I liked reading the article. It makes me want to go flying in a spaceship. :-) Ozob (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Zoom, zoom — you rock. :) Willow (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


Meldshal42's review

Comments from Meldshal42 (talk · contribs) This is my initial review. Article flows well, but FA is still pretty far. I would recommend that you nominate it at GAN following this peer review. Now for the real comments...

  • There may be too much compliance with the animations/diagrams in this article. A little bit of it is alright, but a large amount of this article depends on the images.
I think the images are needed for the readers who don't want to grind through the math. Perhaps they're eye-candy, but they're instructive eye-candy, no? ;) Willow (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The Closed orbits and inverse-cube central forces and generelization sections are a mess.
I tried to fix those sections up; are they any better now? Willow (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

i couldn't find any prose issues because honestly I don't know how a FA level theory article would go, but this article is very well done. Very interesting, it really sucked me in. Well done, WillowW. --Meldshal42? 11:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. all finished. --LordSunday 20:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Meldshal! :) I took your advice about GAN prematurely; I waited a few days, and I honestly didn't expect anyone else to review such a far-flung topic, when there are so many others more deserving. But thank you all for coming, and I'll try to incorporate your advice! :) Willow (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Mike Peel's review

Sweet effect!

  • Perhaps a definition of "radial motion" would be useful, e.g. "the distance from the central object as a function of time". My brain also got confused about "angular motion"; it read it as "angular momentum". I shouldn't try to proof-read things over breakfast...
I always need to wait until I've had my coffee, too; there's no telling what I might say, otherwise! ;)
Your idea of defining the radial motion is excellent and I'll do that right away. Thanks! :) Willow (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you need an animation right at the top, showing what happens in the case of a circular orbit, rather than jumping straight to movies of elliptical orbits. That way you can show just the speed increase before the particles start behaving oddly in radius. Another possibility would be to do a diagram in 1D (or an inset into the current diagrams in 1D), that is, just showing the radial position of the particles over time to reinforce that they are the same. Also, a trace of the path that the green planet takes might be useful (unless that would complicate the diagrams too much...)
We think alike! :) The path of the green planet in Figures 2 and 3 is shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. The red planet was meant to show the radial motion without the angular motion, although it does that pretty indirectly, I concede. :P Your idea of a purely circular orbit is excellent, but given the previous review, I'm concerned about adding too many similar animations.
  • Could the movies be saved as animated GIFs, rather than Ogg movies? They would then be viewable by more people (Ogg isn't too well supported yet), and would also start playing automatically and loop.
Alas, you weren't around when I had this discussion with some mathematicians. The Figures were all originally looping, animated GIFs, but I changed them. The OGG videos are definitely of worse quality, but they don't incur the same memory penalty when loading the article. Perhaps I should include a link to the GIFs? That would keep the download memory load small, but offer a way to see the better images. Willow (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the above comments a few days ago, meaning to continue, but I haven't had the time yet. More comments will be coming when I get the time to give the article my full attention. Mike Peel (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Next review!

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.
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.) 13:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Lakers seasons[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get this list into a featured list and want replies to improve the article.

Thanks, -- K. Annoyomous24 08:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)—Unfortunately, I'm not much of an expert on tables and the like. However, I love basketball, and I'm still capable of reviewing prose, sourcing, etc.

  • "The Western Division was renamed to Western Conference and was split into the Midwest and Pacific divisions." An inline cite for this note perhaps?
  • The caption of the Staples Center picture needs a period (it's a complete sentence); on the other hand, the Magic Johnson statue picture caption is a fragment, no period.
  • On the article's talk page, you say that you based the article off the structure of the New York Yankees seasons article. The lead sentence of that article explicitly says that the Yankees are a pro baseball team. I suggest that this article follow that convention.
  • "With the help of Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, and Hall of Fame coach Phil Jackson, the Lakers went to five of the nine NBA Finals in the 21st century, winning three of them consecutively from 2000 to 2002, and losing the last two in 2004 and, most recently in the 2008 NBA Finals without O'Neal." Issues:
    • "went to five of the nine NBA Finals", I don't like the use of went here, how about "played in five of the nine NBA Finals"
    • "and losing the last two in 2004 and, most recently in the 2008 NBA Finals without O'Neal." Add a comma after most recently and lose "in".
  • "The Lakers are notable for having (at the end of the 2007–08 season) the most wins (2,905), the highest winning percentage (61.5%), the most finals appearances (29) of any NBA franchise, and the second most championships with 14, behind the Boston Celtics' 17." No, the Lakers are notable because they are a professional basketball team from Los Angeles and before that, Minneapolis. How about: ""The Lakers hold records for having (at the end of the 2007–08 season) the most wins (2,905), the highest winning percentage (61.5%), the most finals appearances (29) of any NBA franchise, and have the second most championships with 14, behind the Boston Celtics' 17."
  • "The Lakers also hold the record for the longest consecutive win streak (33) in U.S. professional team sports (also an NBA record) beginning on November 5, 1971 and ending on January 7, 1972." If it's a record in U.S. pro team sports, then of course it's a record in the NBA, the NBA is a professional team sport league.
  • "The franchise has only missed the NBA playoffs five times." Only is a bit POV.
  • Sources look good.

I hope these comments helped. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Hillsgrove Covered Bridge[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've asked for a peer review because I believe this article on a covered bridge that is on the National Register of Historic Places is nearly ready for FAC. It is based on the models of Cogan House Covered Bridge and Forksville Covered Bridge, which are both FAs. The article includes every bit of information I can find on the bridge itself, and any comments from fresh sets of eyes would be useful and appreciated. I plan to write an article for the one red link. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments I made a minor change fix an add to added. Why do bridges have windows? I am assuming that there is some sort of engineering reason for this, but maybe it's just for looks. Other than that question being unanswered, this article looks good and is ready for FAC. I haven't looked at any MOS issues and wouldn't know where to look if I did. Dincher (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much - yours are the fastest comments I have had at PR ever! I have never seen a reason for windows in the bridges - of the seven in the three county NRHP listing only two have more than one window and they are the longest two. This bridge is 186 feet long and without windows would be fairly dark, so my guess is it is a lighting issue. I also think Lewis added the windows in 1968, but have no sources on that. As it is the windows are staggered so there are five places of illumination. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I had thought that maybe the windows were there to allow wind to pass through insted of under or over and knocking the bridge down. I guess that was too much thinking. I didn't see the obvious lighting issue. Oh, the pics are quite nice. I really like sign about animals and fire, very funny. Dincher (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
In the Federal Covered Bridge guide (Extrernal link) they describe bridges failing from uneven snow loads on the roof, so strong wind could probably do it too. Ice jams and floods seem worst - the Forksville and Sonestown bridges both had major damage from ice jams, Buttonwood was swept off its foundations by a flood, and a stone bridge in Plunketts Creek Twp (over Plunketts Creek) on the NRHP was destroyed by ice and flood in 1996. I still have to add these details to most of those articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Brian Boulton comments: A couple of general points, before my list of specifics. First, is this kind of bridge construction unique to the United States, and if so, is there any reason known for this? Second – and this is a puzzle to me – the article talks of this structure as a transition between stone and metal bridges. In the UK, wooden bridges were replaced with stone structures, not the other way round. It seems very odd to me that stone bridges were demolished to be replaced by wooden ones – is that in fact what happened?

  • There are a few wooden covered bridges in Europe (see Kapellbrücke in Luzerne, Switzerland) and Asia (see this one in China). I believe most wooden covered bridges in the US did not replace stone bridges, but were new constructions. There is no mention of any predecessor bridge here, and in 1850 the county was new and just growing so it make sense that this was a new bridge. The wooden bridges were cheaper than stone and could span longer reaches than most stone bridges. Steel bridges were more durable and stronger than wooden ones. I will go back to the sources and see if I can justify a clearer explanation of all this from the sources cited. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, as to detail:-

  • Lead
    • I’d give the year it was built before details of its length, as that seems more logical
    • The "unincorporated" link is to the disambiguation page, and should be to one of the four options shown there
      • Both of these are now fixed, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Something strange about the sentence: "Pennsylvania had the first covered bridge in the United States, and the most such bridges in both the 19th and 21st centuries". I can understand the first part, but am puzzled by the second, and perhaps some rewording could indicate what happened in the 20th century?
      • It is an attempt to summarize two sentences in the article. The Zacher source for the 19th century also gives a late 20th century datum that Pennsylvania had the most covered bridges in the US, so I will try to tweak this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Changed to Pennsylvania had the first covered bridge in the United States, and the most such bridges from the 19th century to the present day. I will also see if the text in the article needs tweaked. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Repetition: is it necessary, in para 3, to state again that it is a "Burr arch truss" type, when these words have been used in the first line of the article to define the bridge?
      • Changed to The Hillsgrove bridge has a load-bearing Burr arch sandwiching multiple vertical king posts, for strength and rigidity. to avoid repetition. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • "It was restored in 1963, 1968 and 2001". The first two dates are very close, so I suspect that the 1963 restoration must have been partial. Would it be better to say "Restoration work was carried out in 1963, 1968 and 2001, and the bridge is still in use..."?
      • Changed to your version, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Does "Functionally Obsolete" require caps?
      • It is a direct quotation - the caps are in the original, so I am hesitant to change them. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Some problem with grammar/punctuation in last sentence of lead. Too long/complex? Perhaps it should be split to read:"...unstable foundations and unacceptable railings. It also deemed its..."etc
      • Changed this to your version, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Location map: this could easily confuse those with little knowledge of Pennsylvanian geography, i.e. about 99.9% of the non-American world, and an unknown but hopefully smaller percentage of the American world (including maybe some who live in Pennsylvania). It needs to be clear that the whole light-shaded area is the state of Pennsylvania (a prod from school history tells me that "Commonwealth" is the proper term), and that the area in which the location spot appears is Sullivan County.
    • Added a locator map of Pennsylvania within the United States. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Overview
    • Second para is written as though the reader should know who Daniel Ogden and John Hill were. Could they be briefly introduced?
      • Reworded to emphasize they are first settler in the township and founder and namesake of village and later township of Hillsgrove (and thus the bridge) thanks - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I had to read this several times before I realised that Hillsgrove Township and the village of Hillsgrove are different places. Can this be clarified? Something like: "The division of Lycoming County ran through Plunketts Creek Township, so there were initially townships of this name in each of the adjoining counties. To avoid confusion..."
      • CHanged to your wording and tried to make the village vs. twonship issue clearer - thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The name "may also refer..." Does this mean "may possibly refer but we’re not sure", or "used to refer"?
      • Changed to "can also refer..." prefer used to meaning, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • History – Background
    • Who is/was Zacher?
      • Changed to According to Susan M. Zacher, author of The Covered Bridges of Pennsylvania: A Guide, ... thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Construction and description
    • Does the first sentence really belong in this section? I’d have thought belonged to the previous one.
    • Some unnecessary repetition of "covered bridge". I’d have thought you could say "All three were of Burr arch construction..." and begin the next sentence simply: "The Hillsgrove bridge..." The same tendency to give the full format "Hillsgrove Covered Bridge" at each mention occurs later down the section.
      • I am reducing these - I like to have the full name in each section but agree this is a bit excessive, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • "18 years old" might be better than saying just "18"
      • CHanged, thanks 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The hand-carved model story relates to a different bridge, so need it be mentioned here?
      • Story is out (although it is in the Forksville Covered Bridge article). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Possible simplification: "...with the latter about 5 miles (8 km) further downstream" (What about the single-digit numerics?)
      • Thanks, this is much clearer and I fixed the convert template to so it is single digit for km. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • There seems to be some confusion about the road width. Is it 12 feet 2 inches, or 18 feet?
      • Two reliable sources, two widths. I did not know what else to do so I put them both in. It may be they are using different definitions - 18 feet maqy be wall to wall, while 12 feet plus may be the width of the drivable road surface. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It would be interesting to have a date for the notice relating to horses, mules, etc
      • The sign itself has no date and appears to be a more recent copy, the newspaper article only says "19th-century" so I added that. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • What are these wheelguards that "separate the roadway from the pedestrian walkways" and also "protect the sides"? Nothing in evidence from the image.
      • They are just the wooden beams bolted to the floor to keep cars from driving too close to the sides, caption now reads Bridge interior view showing Burr arches and King posts, the wooden beams bolted to the floor on each side are the wheelguards. thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • "shake shingles"? A new one for me, I’m afraid
      • Hand made wooden shingles split from logs - it now reads "over the original wooden shake shingles." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Use and restoration
    • Perhaps too much information in 1st para about the lumber trade, not directly related to the bridge. The para could end after "...Uncle Ben’s Landing for lumber rafts."
      • I trimmed it a little, but want to keep most of it - I think most people do not realize how large these rafts were, and how busy the creek beneath the bridge was then. An acre of forest today would only produce about 5000 board feet (one of the smaller rafts). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, is it necessary to detail the Forksville bridge repairs?
      • Since details on the Hillsgrove restoration are mostly lacking, and the same person restored both Forksville and Hillsgrove, I included some details. I cut out the steel beams, but left in the windows as they are odd and only these two bridges have them locally. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I’m afraid I got lost in the third paragraph, especially the last sentence, which appears to be talking about the replacement of a "modern bridge". Clarify this refers to replacement of the Elm Creek bridge?
      • I rewrote it, trying for shorter sentences and more clarity, hopefully it is better. Thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Last para information more or less repeats what’s in the lead, which suggests that the lead info. could be more briefly summarised.
      • Agreed, will pare down the lead, perhaps add a mention of the 19th century sign there Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Table: I may be missing something, but the table refers to the "Cogan House Covered Bridge" without explanation of this name. As to the table itself, I don’t really know what its function is, and without more explanatory text it's a bit confusing.
    • "Cogan House" was a copy and paste error - sorry. The table is just an attempt to show that several reliable sources do not come close to agreeing on simple data (length, width, etc.) for the bridge. I will ponder what to add to clarify this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
      • It would help, I think, if the section heading was changed from the rather vague "Literature comparisons" to something directly functional, e.g. "Bridge dimensions", and the preamble to the table extended to read something like; "Wide variations in the dimensions of the Hillsgrove Covered Bridge have been published, particularly as regards to width, indicating that several bases of measurement have been used. The following table is a comparison of published measurements of length, width and load recorded in different sources. The article uses primarily the NBI and NRHP data, as they are national programs". I'd also make the "Source" column the first (l/hand) column in the table, and call it "Source and year". Just suggestions, but perhaps they would clarify. A reference to this table earlier in the text, where you first mention the width disparity, might also be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I like this idea and have gotten thecovered bridges books out of the library again to find what the basis of the different measurements are. The Evans measured the length and width themselves in 2001. Zacher (who both wrote a book and is listed as the NRHP form author) seems to have relied on two state-wide commonwealth-wide surveys ofcovered bridges (one for the book, perhaps one for the NRHP). Need to read up on the NBI. Will update this too, thanks for a good idea. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I have attemted to do this, thanks again Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is always interesting to read about something completely outside one's own experiences, and I am glad to have has the opportunity to have reviewed this article. I hope that my comments are useful. Brianboulton (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for a very careful reading and detailed review. I will address your points soon, but wanted to say thanks now, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I have now addressed all the points raised in both reviewers' comments - thanks very much! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think all concerns have been met, and I see no reason why this shouldn't join the Forksville and Cogan House articles in the Hall of Fame. I note there are 221 covered bridges in Pennsylvania, so only 218 to go for the Featured Topic! Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again - there are seven bridges in three counties which were submitted together to the NRHP as "Covered Bridges of Bradford, Sullivan and Lycoming Counties". I have enough data to get at least five of those articles to FA and the other two to at least GA, so the thought of a FT of those seven had crossed my mind. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Utah State Route 68[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for any potential feedback before listing this article on WP:FAC.

Thanks, Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 14:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from closed ACR) -

  • More comments - Alright, don't shoot me for these -
    • No refs in the lead.
    • That said, some of the stuff in there should be moved to their respective sections (the AADT and traffic stuff, and the construction info. Those should be moved to the RD and history, respectively)
      • True, can you think of anything to add to the lead then, it does need a 2nd paragraph if you want to move that stuff --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 04:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see how the I-215 image pertains to this article; sure, it's the Redwood Road exit, but that's about it. We don't see any part of that road; all we get is a sign with the SR-68 shield.
    • Refs are always, always past the punctuation mark. I'll fix this last one. CL — 04:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • One more thing; do we need the sub-headers in the RD? Two of them only have one paragraph in them. I find em unnecessary, but that's just me - CL — 04:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
      • This was suggested in IRC when the ACR was still active --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 04:26, 28 August 2008 (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.
    • Current ref 6 is lacking a last access date.
    • Current ref 10 http://www.benchmark.com/ takes me not to a map...
      • It takes you to the store for the map, the map is not available online --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarracenia[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is listed as A-class under Wikiproject Carnivorous plants and I would like input as to how we can prepare it for featured article candidacy.

Thanks, SunDragon34 (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2008 (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.) 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Would it make sense in the lead to also give the common names of the closely related genera? Perhaps something like ... closely allied genera Darlingtonia (Cobra Lily) and Heliamphora (Marsh Pitcher Plants). Not everyone knows the scientific names
  • Could the figure show all five zones?
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should 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. Also do not sanwich text between two images, and avoid left justified images right under headers.
  • References need to be cleaned up a little, ISBN is repeated twice in ref 11, or Accessed online: 4 December 2007. vs. retrieved 17 May 2006 at 15:53. Using {{cite web}} or other cite templates might help.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Satake clan[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to hear how it can be improved and what parts of it need work.

Thanks, Tadakuni (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • This seems to be well done, but needs more material to provide context for the reader not familiar with Japanese history. Even though some terms are linked, adding more years would help (not everyone knows when the Muromachi period was. I also think that some brief background on this era of Japanese history and its wars would help.
  • A map of Japan showing the places prominently mentioned in the article would also help.
  • There are several very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should generally be combined or perhaps expanded.
  • There are some places where it seems as if the description is of an individual, but the wording seems to be of the whole clan. For example, In the Muromachi period, the Satake served as provincial deputy (shugo) of Hitachi Province ... I think of a deputy as an individual, not a whole clan.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a final review of the prose to ensure it is up to featured article standard before I list it on FAC. Instructions on how to improve the prose are welcome.

Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Giggy[edit]

  • There have been FAC issues raised about the infobox image in these articles, right? I forget what they were... just make sure you meet whatever criteria it is you need to meet.
  • I think The Doctor should be wlinked in the lead if Astrid Perth is.
    • And then delink Perth and Kylie next paragraph.
  • "when the TARDIS collided with the Titanic" - Titanic collided with the TARDIS, didn't it? I don't think the TARDIS moves.
  • "He decides to stow away," --> "The Doctor decides..." (And after doing this, check the prose in the next few sentences for variety of The Doctor/he)
  • "Minogue during the Showgirl tour, which included Cyberman-inspired animatronics" - what's that got to do with this article?
  • Music tours shouldn't have their names in italics.

That's from the first half. I'll try and get to the second at some point. —Giggy 08:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Type Ib and Ic supernovae[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was thinking of making this at least a GA. The problem is that I don't know what is there missing from this article. At this point I do not care about c/e issues or MOS, I just want to know what is not already in the article but should be in it.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • In addition to more on the WR-SN connection, I'd like to see information on other mechanisms to produce the precursor. For example, atmospheric stripping through mass transfer in close binary systems (perhaps as a result of binary system evolution). Another example is WD-WD mergers, which may cause type Ib/Ic and type II SN. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Toronto Raptors head coaches[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need to see what others think of it.

Thanks, -- K. Annoyomous24 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If the list develops into a more larger list and the history of the team grows, sure but currently, no. -- K. Annoyomous24 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by User:Yohhans - NB: these are all suggestions. Take them with a grain of salt.

  • The second and third sentence flow better if you merge them: The Toronto Raptors are a professional basketball team based in Toronto, Ontario. They and are the only National Basketball Association (NBA) team to be based in Canada.
  • The franchise's was first coached by Brendan Malone who coached only for a year. - reads better to me as, "The team's first coach was Brendan Malone who coached for one year."
  • Sam Mitchell is the franchise's all-time leader in both regular season coached and wins. --> Sam Mitchell is the franchise's all-time leader in the number of games coached, and the number of wins accumulated.
  • Is there a reason you list Sam Mitchell right after Brendan Malone? Would it not make more sense to list the coaches chronologically? That is, move the Sam Mitchell sentence so that it is after the one talking about Brendan Malone and Kevin O'Neill.
  • Lenny Wilkens is the only person to coach the Raptors and be inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach. --> Lenny Wilkens is the only Raptors coach to have been inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach.
  • Also, another comment on the Hall of Fame sentence: at the end it says, "as a coach". Does this mean some of the other coaches have been inducted as players? If not, I would suggest dropping the "as a coach" and adding this sentence, "It is worthy to note that Wilkens was inducted both as a player, and as a coach."
  • Brendan Malone and Kevin O'Neill are the only coaches who coached the Raptors that has never played for the NBA. --> Of the coaches, Brendan Malone and Kevin O'Neill are the only ones to have never played in the NBA.
  • The current coach Sam Mitchell has been coaching the Raptors since 2004. - commas after "coach" and "Mitchell"
  • Spent entire coaching career with the Raptors while in the NBA --> Spent entire NBA coaching career with the Raptors
  • I suggest removing the superscripts * and †. Rather, just highlight the entire row (makes it a little cleaner without all of those superscripts running around). Then the key would look like the following:

  Elected into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach
  Spent entire NBA coaching career with the Raptors

# Number of coaches
GC Games Coached
W Wins
L Loses
T Ties
W – L % Win – Loss percentage
Returning from previous year(s) of coaching
  • You should include full titles in your references. So "The Offical Site of Canada's Team" becomes "Raptors.com - The Official Site of Canada's Team" and "Who are we?" becomes "Who are we? - The Air Canada Centre", etc.
  • Move Toronto Raptors Coach Register to an External Links section and get rid of the General and Specific subheadings. Place External Links after the References section.
  • Is there any way we could get an image of one of the coaches (preferably free)?
  • That's all I have. Hope this helps!

Matt Sydal[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done extensive work on it. I wish to get some opinions on if it has GA potential at this point. I have been unable to find much information on his personal life, but his career his referenced throughly using the most reliable source I can find for each subject. It is still a work in progress. A few of the sources can't really be proven reliable, but my view was "better than nothing at all."

Thanks, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrestlinglover's Comments
    • Lead
  • You need to add somemore to the lead, like "He is currently signed to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) wrestling on its ECW brand, under the ring name Evan Bourne. Throughout his carrier, he has worked in many Independent promotions, such as Ring of Honor (ROH), Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA), and many National Wrestling Alliance (NWA) territories. During his venture in the independent circuit he captured the ROH World Tag Team Championship with his tag team partner at the time, Christopher Daniels (Daniel Covell)."
    • Getting started
  • wikilink martial arts and gymnastics, I don't believe they are common therms.
  • Place (GCW) next to "the St. Louis, Missouri-based Gateway Championship Wrestling promotion."
  • Do you know anymore of the members in his stable? If you do place them besides the name in brackets.
    • Independent circuit
  • You should explain what a mixed tag team match is, but I'm not even sure how to explain it. Try you best.
  • Place the real names of each wrestler besides their ring name. i.e. A.J. Styles (Allen Jones)
  • change- "He beat El Generico, Tyler Black, and Sabin before eliminating Kevin Steen and Arik Cannon in the finals." to "During the tournament, he defeated El Generico, Tyler Black, and Sabin to secure himself a place in the finals. There he met Kevin Steen and Arik Cannon, in which he came out victorious."
    • Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (2004-2005)
  • Change- "Sydal was featured on the first TNA pay-per-view Victory Road as part of the 20 man X Division Gauntlet." to "Sydal was featured on TNA's first ever 3-hour [[pay-per-view]] [[List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling events|event]] [[Victory Road (2004)|Victory Road]] in November of 2004 as a participant of the 20 man [[X Division]] [[Gauntlet for the Gold|Gauntlet match]].
  • wikilink X Division Championship to TNA X Division Championship.
    • Ring of Honor
  • Place the members of the "The Embassy" besides their name.
  • Change- "Generation Next fought The Embassy in numerous multi-man tag matches, culminating in a Steel Cage Warfare match on December 3 at Steel Cage Warfare that was won by Generation Next" to "Generation Next fought The Embassy in numerous multi-man tag matches, culminating in a Steel Cage Warfare match on December 3 at Steel Cage Warfare, in which was won by Generation Next."
  • change - "After coming up unsuccessful in attempts to win the title back along with Claudio Castagnoli, Sydal joined Larry Sweeney and his stable that also includes Chris Hero, Sara Del Ray and Tank Toland." to After coming up unsuccessful in attempts to win the title back along with Claudio Castagnoli, Sydal joined Larry Sweeney and his stable that also included Chris Hero, Sara Del Ray and Tank Toland." past tenths.
  • Change - "Sydal ended his Ring of Honor run on September 15, 2007 at Man Up in Chicago Ridge, IL in a match against Delirious, the same man he made his ROH debut against." to "Sydal ended his ROH run on September 15, 2007 at, ROH's third and most successful pay-per-view, Man Up in Chicago Ridge, IL in a match against Delirious, the same man he made his ROH debut against."
  • Change - "Sydal came up short to his masked opponent, but he got a warm farewell from the midwest crowd." to "Sydal came up short, however, after the match he was greeted with a warm farewell from the midwest crowd." or something like that. I don't get to watch ROH much. Though Man Up was their best ppv is what I hear.
    • Dragon Gate (2006, 2007)
  • What link are you looking for in CIMA?
    • World Wrestling Entertainment (2006-present)
      • Developmental territories
  • Write out WWE i.e. World Wrestling Entertainment.
      • ECW
  • change - "On the June 3, 2008 episode of ECW, Sydal made his WWE Television debut as a jobber where he lost in a match to Shelton Benjamin." to "On the June 3, 2008 edition of ECW, Sydal made his WWE Television debut, in a losing effort against Shelton Benjamin." He wasn't really a jobber in the match, he looked like Wang Yang does every little bit.
  • change - "The following weeks, he defeated Matt Striker[27], Nunzio[28] and former ECW Champion Chavo Guerrero[29] using a shooting star press as his finisher." to "The following weeks, he defeated Matt Striker[27], Nunzio[28] and former ECW Champion Chavo Guerrero[29] using a shooting star press as his finisher, a move that had been previously banned by the WWE for many years.
    • Notes
  • Why does it say notes instead of references? I prefer references but I don't work on single articles. Well not until I get a few ppvs to GA and BFG IV to FA, then I'll work on A.J. Styles article, working towards an FA.

Well I hope these helped you out a little bit, I've never done a peer review. I might be right and I might be wrong.--WillC 22:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to transferring it to be more out of universe as of yet, but it my pass GA without it anyway. I believe the standard format is "Notes" and not "References." the latter is used for book sources. Notes is for web sources. Also, was there actually any source that the SSP was banned in the first place? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No, but the SSP hasn't been seen since WrestleMania 2003 when Lesnar fucked it up. You've only seen it from time to time with low class wrestlers. Like London or Kendrick. Even when they did it they got punished. It is really common knowledge that WWE doesn't want their guys to use high fly moves like the 450 or the SSP.--WillC 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm aware of all that, but it's all WP:OR. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
SRX's Comments
  • Getting Started
    • In the late 1990s Korklan honed his collection of skills (martial arts, gymnastics, athletics) and combined them to his newest interest, professional wrestling. Along with a motley crew of neighborhood friends, Korklan constructed a professional quality wrestling ring. As Lance Sydal, he won fans over with his high-flying, fast-paced matches. - 1)No source 2)"combined them to his newest interest" sounds like POV.
    • Korklan was on his high school's wrestling team. While he was a senior in high school, Sydal began training with the St. Louis, Missouri-based Gateway Championship Wrestling (GCW) promotion. After three months of training, Korklan began wrestling for GCW on October 20, 2000. - Consistency is needed, are you going to use his real last name or his stage last name? Also no source for this.
    • I recommend renaming this section to Early career as this is the standard section naming for wrestling bio's.
  • Independent Circuit
    • He debuted in IWA Mid South in November of 2003. He won his first title, the IWA Mid-South Light Heavyweight Championship, on January 17, 2004, in Highland, Indiana, defeating J.C. Bailey. - Who did he debut against? or how did he debut?
    • Sydal lost the title to his recurring nemesis, Delirious, on June 26, 2004 in Oolitic, Indiana. - how is he the recurring nemesis? No earlier explanation is given about their rivalry.
    • He won the title back when he teamed up with Daizee Haze in a mixed tag team match (a tag team match in which a male wrestler and a female wrestler team up against other team, with all wrestlers competing against the opponent of the like gender on the opposite team) against Delirious and MsChif. Haze pinned MsChif to win Delirious's title for Sydal - instead of using the jargon term of "mixed tag team match" just say "intergender tag team match" - that is standard english and comprehensible. It should be elaborate earlier that MsChif can gain the win in order for Sydal to win the title.
    • Since then, he has only appeared in IWA on a select few occasions. - it sounds like he still goes there, does he?
  • Closing comments
    • There is a lot of jargon here and I do not want to get through the rest of the article until the article is out of universe.
    • Yes, OOU is needed for GA now, it is a standard that GA Reviewers are looking for.
    • If you need help with OOU, you can request me to copyedit the article on my talk page.

Best, --SRX 00:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Appreciate the comments. I'll be working on the article tomorrow. Thanks. I'll drop you a line when it's OOU, so you can continue the review. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Nikki's comments

First of all, I haven't looked at the other people's comments, so mine may or may not overlap. Here we go:

  • Lead - I think it should be ~2 paragraphs and should better summarize the article.
  • His personal life is rather short, so anything else that can be added would be great. Does he have siblings? Where did he grow up? Is he married, or does he have children? Stuff like that.
  • The Dragon Gate and WSX sections are rather short. How do you feel about combining them? This article is relatively short, but has a ton of headers. I'd also eliminate the subheacers under WWE, for now anyway.

That's it for now. Nikki311 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all the personal life info I was able to dig up. He hasn't had interviews with Wojick, SLAM or anything like that, so it's rather limited. I could add that he's not married and has no childre, but I'm not sure if that's necessary are not. And yeah, I could combine them, since he was in DG, left for WSX then went back to DG. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Expanded and fixed what I could. I can't do anymore right now, have to get ready for work. Thanks for the review. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
If that's all you can find, then that's all you can find. Maybe if he stays with WWE for awhile, he might do an interview for one of those websites. Or...maybe he'll put up his bio on his official website. Nikki311 23:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
ThinkBlue's comments
  • In the lead, a period is needed after Sydal.
  • In the early career, add his dob, makes it more "interesting".
  • In the Dragon Gate and Wrestling Society X (2006–2007) section, a period is needed for this sentence ---> "Sydal left Dragon Gate and signed with the new Wrestling Society X promotion. He was featured on their first televised edition on MTV, losing to Jack Evans (Jack Miller)[17] He was accompanied to the ring by his valet and on-screen girlfriend Lizzy Valentine (Elizabeth Miklosi)".
  • Same section, "In the spring of 2007", a comma is needed after 2007.
  • In the World Wrestling Entertainment (2007–present) section, this sentence ---> "It was announced on February 7, 2008 that the WWE had ceased affiliation with OVW", sounds a bit off, I think "the" should be removed.
  • In the wrestling section, references need to come after the parentheses.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, except for adding his date of birth to early career, it seems redundant as it was listed above in the lead a few sentences before. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive advice on how to further improve it before nominating it for FA. Criticism and comments would be most appreciated.

Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 05:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC).

Try adding info from the special features of the 2-disc special edition. If you have it. If not maybe I might help. I worked a little bit on that article around early-December (added some of those internet links alongside User:Alientraveller and User:Erik. You could get their opinion as well. —Wildroot (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't own anything of the special edition, so I can't be of assistance with that, but maybe you could add information if you have it. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC).

Not to mention the plot section could be trimmed down a lot. There's also Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (ISBN 1845767047) that includes some in-depth making of the movie. More info might there. Could list that in a "Further Reading" section.—Wildroot (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as for the plot section, there's not much we could do about that; I already trimmed it down a bit (and so did EyeSerene), but although it exceeds the 900 word rule it seems to be allowable by WP:FilmPlot because the plot is somewhat more complex than others. However, if you can find a way to trim it down (we can't) without omitting major points in the sypnosis, please do!
As for the ISBN source, I'll try and incorporate that when I get the time. Thanks for the assistance. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 18:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I brought the plot section to six paragraphs. Not really finished yet. Didn't take too long. I'm somewhat busy trying to get Tim Burton's Batman to FA status. Two Burton films to FA status in the same month. That would be amazing.—Wildroot (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I brought the plot down to four paragraphs, but you guys might one to check because I might have made an itty bitty mistake. —Wildroot (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks to clarify some of the plot points. Thanks for your help ;) EyeSerenetalk 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems pretty good to me. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Watch overlinking - for example Mrs. Lovett is linked twice in just the lead.
  • In the cast section about Depp's character, there is a direct quotation without a ref (and a citation needed tag). I did not see any other missing refs, but my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The first two paragraphs of the Release section are both quite short - any reason they could not be combined?
  • Since there is so much discussion of Depp and Bonham-Carter's singing, would it help to include a brief sound clip, perhaps of a duet by them?
  • Watch odd language - tonsorial adornment??

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch. I've addressed a couple of the above points. However, with the various plot section revisions, we seem to have lost some information. Someone who knows the plot needs to take a look at the beggar woman's role; we can't just have her corpse appearing from nowhere in the final paragraph ;) EyeSerenetalk 08:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Bzuk comments Since I have had the article on my watchlist for awhile, I have noted a lot of improvements. Some minor points to consider:

  1. Date format: December 21 2007 is written either December 21, 2007 or 21 December 2007. Note the use of commas. There are also at least two different date formats in use. For consistency, a single format is preferred.
  2. Wikilinking: Note that actors do not need to be constantly wikilinked, e.g. Johnny Depp (among others) is wikilinked four times in succession, where the first or possibly second mention is all that is needed.
  3. Citations: All publishers, whether book, new media or journal should be identified in italics, all title of works in quotation marks. Even though titles and pssages are often copied "as is", the use of all caps is deprecated.
  4. Common words: The use of wikilinking should only apply to what the reader would not normally understand or need to know in order to understand context, see "grooming", "propose" and "waltz" among others.
  5. Section formatting: The cast section could also have been written in a different way as cast-character precis. Where there is a large amount of information regarding a particular cast member that could be established as a secondary passage/paragraph at the conclusion of the cast section. The last templates should be reversed with the navigation templates to Tim Burton and Stephen Sondheim musicals appearing last.

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (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.) 19:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much Bzuk and Ealdgyth. I'll get to work on these issues over the next few days. EyeSerenetalk 08:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Noah Family[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently rewritten the entire article to a point where I believe it follows the MoS. I believe I also need someone's second opinion. However, I still don't know if the tone is appropriate. Other things I would like to know:

  • Is the lead sufficient?
  • Is there any needless detail or is anything too general?
  • Are they any terms exclusive to the series that are not fully explained?
  • Are the paragraphs and sentences structured properly?
  • Any statement that can be challenged?
  • Does any statement go against NPOV?
  • Is the basic grammar okay?
  • Is it easily accessible?

Thanks, Itzjustdrama (drama?) 06:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I agree with the cleanup tags - this needs to be rewritten from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U Everything in here appears to be gleaned from reading the series - there is nothing in terms of critical reception (what have critics written about these characters) or even comments from the creator(s) of the series about them.
  • Almost all of the references are from the work of fiction itself - what makes this Family notable? WHere are the independent third-party sources wrting about this topic? See WP:NN
  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow - Jabba the Hutt and Palpatine are FAs on fictional characters
  • No images - hopw about a fair use image or perhaps a free one of the author / illustrator could be found?
  • Article needs more references, for example many paragraphs are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


List of people with hepatitis C[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it has come a long way since it was an AfD, and because I believe that the topic is important enough to warrant an eventual FA-list status. Its quality is also on par with other FLs, but I'd like it to go through a peer review before nominating it. Finally, although its length is no where near other similar lists (i.e., List of poliomyelitis survivors and List of HIV-positive people), but I believe that's due to the strong bias against hepatitis C, which can be improved with this kind of list. Mostly, I'd like some copyediting assistance, as well as suggestions to improve it further.

Thanks, Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • "This is a list of notable people who are on public record as currently or formerly having having the infectious disease hepatitis C." no need to repeat the title of the list in the first sentence so remove it
I respectfully disagree. The two FLs listed above, which I've used as models, repeat the title of this list in their leads, as do most other lists I've seen.
  • "Hepatitis C is caused by the Hepatitis C virus (HCV), which affects the liver and is transmitted by blood-to-blood contact." this needs referencing
Done.
  • "Hepatitis C infects an estimated 170 million people worldwide and is the leading cause of liver transplant in the United States." definitely needs a reference
Done.
  • "As a result, celebrities diagnosed with the disease have decided to go public in order to raise awareness about hepatitis C and to encourage more people to get tested for the disease." again needs a reference
Done.
  • you could make the table sortable, certainly the first two columns and leave the last one unsortable, Use class=wikitable sortable to make the table sortable, the sortname template for the names, and the class="unsortable" to make the last column unsortable.
I think I did this right, although I don't see that it makes any difference. Please check it, since coding is not my strong point in WP editing.
  • "Child actor who played "Whitey" on Leave it to Beaver. He contracted hepatitis C from intravenous drug use. [4]" space between ref and full stop needs to be removed
Got it.
  • Full stops are not needed in the image captions.
Done.
  • add format=PDF to ref no.1
  • I would split the references into two columns, use

to do this

Now that I'm editing from Mozilla, I can see the difference. Explorer doesn't show columns, dontcha know.

Hope this helps, good luck NapHit (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It definitely helps, thanks. Picky comments, which could be a good sign. ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've sorted out the sorting and removed born from those people who had it, as this hinders sorting NapHit (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much! It looks really cool. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

30 Rock[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has recently completed a GAN and i'm leaning towards trying to get this article to FAC at some point. Could reviewers please comment on the article as if this were an FAC?

Thanks, [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 00:20, 20 August 2008 (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.
    • Per the MOS, the curly quotes shouldn't be used. This will get dinged at FAC.
    • Current ref 3 (Belek, Cassie) is lacking a publisher
    • Per the MOS, all capitals shouldn't be used in link titles.
    • Current ref 48 (30 ROck TV SHow Series...) has all the bibliographical information run into the title of the link. Should separate it out.
    • Current ref 52 (Goodman, Lee-Anne) is lacking a publisher.
    • Current ref 73 (Robert Able) is lacking a publisher. Also, last name should be first to match the rest of your citations.
    • Current ref 74 (Stanley, Alessandra) is lacking a publisher
    • Current ref 77 (Morrow, Terry) is lacking a publisher
    • Current ref 110 (Pick of the Day) has two p. abbreviations in the footnote.
    • What makes the following sources reliable?
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is much improved from the last time I reviewed it, it still needs some work before FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Article needs a general copyedit to polish the prose - professional level writing is a FAC criterion and this is not there yet. Ask at WP:PRV for copyedit help or try reading it aloud slowly. A few example problem sentences Tracy has [had] encountered some marital problems with his wife Angie Jordan (Sherri Shepherd) and they become separated, but later reunite. or The cast of the series is an ensemble cast,[1] which means that each character is seen with roughly the same amount of importance in each episode. (plus last part of the sentence needs a ref - is this accurate, Fey, Bladwin and Morgan seem to get much more time than the other characters?
  • Some quotes are modified in ways that seem unneeded, for example the [he] here is really unneeded: ... Kevin Reilly felt that "Fey was using the news setting as a fig leaf for her own experience and [he] encouraged her to write what she knew."[20] or why not recast The song had its lyrics altered to accommodate the character Kenneth being "misinformed about the time [of the 11:45 train]."[37] as something like The song had its lyrics altered to accommodate the character Kenneth being "misinformed about the time" of the 11:45 train.[37] or "Despite her success with "Mean Girls," [Tina] Fey mostly hits too-familiar notes in the pilot. there is only one Fey, is [Tina] really needed?
  • In the lead, ratings for season one are mentioned, but not season two. Did it do better or worse or about the same?
  • Some statements may need refs at FAC, for example This aspect of the series was abandoned prior to its debut or The episodes of the second season can also be streamed for free on Hulu.com, with brief commercials at the normal interruption points. or Numerous supporting characters have been given recurring appearances in the series. They include Maulik Pancholy as Jack's loyal assistant Jonathan. Grizz Chapman and Kevin Brown make appearances as members of Tracy's entourage Grizz and Dot Com, respectively. John Lutz makes appearances as the food loving TGS writer J.D Lutz. (paragraph without refs)
  • Lots of fair use images - does they all meet WP:NFCC? This will be checked at FAC.
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, the {{cquote}} should not be used here, use {{blockquote}} instead (if it is 4 lines or longer)
  • Agree with the ref questions above.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Battle of Marston Moor[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article as it passed GA in the last few months and I would like to see it up for A class reivew when it is ready (and, hopefully, FAC) in the near future. Qjuad (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2008 (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.) 13:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, generally well-written, and seems comprehensive, stable, and well-documented. I think your chances of working this up to FA are good, but I see some things that need fixing. Here are my suggestions:

  • The article in the main reads well, but I'd still ask a copyeditor to go through the whole article looking for the last of the low-level, nit-picky things like comma splices or extra commas and their evil twins, the missing commas. An example of an unneeded comma occurs in "Prince Rupert had been decisively beaten for the first time in the war, and lost his reputation for invincibility." Paradoxically, I might suggest fixing this by adding another comma, thus: "Prince Rupert, decisively beaten for the first time in the war, lost his reputation for invincibility." An example of a missing comma occurs in "From there he proceeded via Clitheroe and crossed the Pennines to Skipton where..." I'd recommend a comma between "Skipton" and "where". I see a few other kinds of low-level things; for example, "enfilade" could use a wikilink.
  • Pairs consisting of digits modifying nouns should be cemented together with no-break codes to prevent splitting on line-wrap. See WP:NBSP. An example would be "raising his force to 2,000 horse" in the "Relief moves" subsection.
  • I'm sorry to have to mention a problem with a map, because maps are a lot of work, and this one is lovely. The base map for Image:Marston-moor-campaign.jpg is licensed as "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported". Alas, I think the "noncommercial" (NC) part of the license puts it out-of-bounds for Wikipedia. The license for the modified version used in the article is cc-by-sa-2.5, but I don't think that is valid because the NC in the original can't be ignored. See WP:IUP for an explanation of "free" vs. non-free images. Also, please ask another editor or editors familiar with licensing issues before you act on my warning. I know less about licensing than I'd like to, and it's possible that I'm not assessing the situation correctly. If my assessment is correct, I'd recommend explaining the situation to the copyright holder and asking him/her to consider re-licensing without the NC module.
  • I'd double-check the licensing on the other images as well because at least some of the image summary and source data is insufficient for fact-checkers at FAC or elsewhere to verify the validity of the copyright tag. For example, the Commons description for Image:Alexleslie.jpg lists Robi01 as the uploader, but Robi01 doesn't have a user page. A web link is given as the source of the image, but the link goes to the image alone rather than to a page with any other information. How can anyone verify that this face is that of Alexander Leslie? Who painted this portrait? When? Where?
  • A couple of the books in the Bibliography section are missing their ISBNs.
  • I'd suggest moving the orphan sentence, "Rupert personally commanded a reserve of 600 cavalry, including his elite Lifeguard of Horse" into the paragraph above it.
  • In the "Events" section, "James Lumsden managed to reform part of the allied centre" probably should be "re-form" to avoid confusion.
  • I'd suggest moving the Cromwell image to the left so that he looks into the page instead of out.
  • The ampersand in constructions like "Newman & Roberts" should be changed to "and". The ampersand is generally reserved for official company names like "Procter & Gamble".
  • WP:MOSNUM has changed since this article passed GA. It now says, "Dates are not linked unless there is a particular reason to do so." They still need to be internally consistent in the main text and in the citations. I don't see a particular reason for linked dates in this article, but it's your call. Only one in the notes, citation 42, is linked and would need to be fixed by hand. A script exists to remove the date links from the main text. I could run it for you if you let me know, or you can acquire and run it yourself. You can find a full explanation of the script here.

If you find these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps one from the backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Kiki's Delivery Service[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it should become a good article again and I would like to know what else needs to be done to achieve that goal.

Thanks, CyberGhostface (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job! This is a good film and deserves a nice looking article like this! Some quick suggestions.

In the plot section maybe it's not best to say "obviously inspired" even if it is, because that's kind of a odd way to put it. It sounds too unfactual. If you want to include it, perhaps it's best to state that strongly resembles it.

In the infobox, the flags should be gone as WP:FilmRelease suggests against it. I'll change them myself!

Try to put ciations that come around commas after the comma to increase readability.

The award section in release is a bit list-y. Perhaps it could be in a chart or expanded? These awards don't suggest what year they were given out or what's the notability of them.

The musical and differences form the book section need citations but are also pretty well integrated otherwise.

Good job overall! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


List of Memphis Grizzlies head coaches[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see what other Wikipedians think about it.

Thanks, -- K. Annoyomous24 22:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If the list develops more head coaches, sure but currently, The list and history is too small. -- K. Annoyomous24 22:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a problem. The applicable FL criterion (3) states:
Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries.
The defined scope is the list of Memphis coaches (which is complete), and any appropriate details (history, interesting facts) have been included. Of course, if you can find any more information about the coaches, that would be great. I don't see why this cannot be submitted to WP:FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If you click here, you'll see that Gonzo fan2007 states that the article's nomination was a "pre-mature FLC". You should talk to Gonzo fan2007 about that. -- K. Annoyomous24 22:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I've left a note on Gonzo fan's talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you do submit this to FLC, you must close the Peer Review. I was planning to add some comments in the next day at most, possibly sooner (this is second in line). Ask if you need help archiving this PR. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, I do not want to submit this for FL nomination because I currently think this list does not have FLC criteria. -- K. Annoyomous24

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • An image of one of the coaches in the lead is needed
  • "but moved to Memphis, Tennessee since 2001." change since to in
  • I think postseason should have a space between post and season or a dash
  • The basketball-reference.com should be changed to Basketball reference

Looks good well done NapHit (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Oldham Athletic A.F.C. seasons[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've recently expanded the article which I created and was hoping to get some feedback before attempting to get it featured. Thanks. :) Latics (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • Most of the statements in the "History" section could do with being referenced, even if it's just a case of repeating the ref from the first line.
  • Any chance that data about the top goalscorers for each season could be listed?
  • If you can find the data, you should probably include Oldham's performance in the 1945-46 FA Cup.
  • In the row for the 2005-06 season, "Cup" should be capitalised in "Lancashire Senior Cup".

That's all from me for now. Hope that helps. – PeeJay 20:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • You shouldn't repeat the name of the list in the lead, look at Sunderland A.F.C. seasons to see how to word the lead better.
  • "by finishing as runners-up" change to "after finishing as runners-up"
  • "In the same season, the club earned their first trophy by winning the Lancashire Senior Cup." change to "The club won their trophy during this season, winning the Lancashire Senior Cup".
  • "It wouldn't be until the 1952–53 season" use would not instead of wouldn't contractions should be avoided
  • "By the late 1950s, the club was in the Football League Fourth Division and twice had to apply for re-election into the Football League." needs a reference
  • "runners-up in the Anglo-Scottish Cup as they fell to Burnley 4–1 on aggregate." fell is a bit POV I would change it to lost and perhaps wikilink aggregate?
  • "in 1989–90 season," add the before 1989-90
  • "1990 Football League Cup Final." needs wikilinking
  • "in 1992–93, were founding members of the FA Premier League." should include "the club" after the comma and before were
  • "gradually fell back into the First Division"not sure what this means exactly I think you should re word it
  • Do you have information for the top scorers and average attendance for each season as this should be included.

Good luck with the list NapHit (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and PeeJay for the feedback. I really can't find the top scorers, I've been looking for them for a while now and I can only find stats going back to around 1997–98. I guess eventually I'll get around to doing it by going game-by-game. But again, thanks again for the comments. Latics (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
IMO, top scorers back to 1997-98 is better than nothing, but you're probably quite right by leaving them out as an FLC reviewer might look upon it as the list being incomplete. All I can suggest is that you invest in some statistical books about the club. – PeeJay 08:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)[edit]

The impression given by the list is that the club has only participated in the Lancs Senior Cup three times in its history, this surely isn't correct. Added to the fact that I would imagine the team that won it in 05/06 was most likely the club's reserves rather than first team, I'd be inclined to omit this competition altogether. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an annual competition as far as I know. I know that Manchester United and Liverpool use their reserves for the competition, but I'm not certain on any other teams. I'll look around for recent results and yeah, I'll probably end up removing it altogether. Latics (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Piedmont College[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have spent a good amount of time working on the Piedmont College and History of Piedmont College and I would like to know what I could do to make it a better article. Thanks, RandorXeus (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • A model article is always helpful and there are several college and university FAs to use for ideas and examples to follow - see for example Ohio Wesleyan University
  • 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 When the college was first founded, it was established as the J.S. Green Collegiate Institute named after a local banker. In 1899, the name was shortened to the J.S. Green College. By 1902, the college was formally renamed Piedmont College.[8] is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so change Piedmont is accredited by the following boards: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS)[13]; National League of Nursing ...
  • Article needs more references, for example the sections on the Schools of Arts and Sciences, Business, and Nursing have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Also try for more third-party independent sources beyond the college and its publications.
  • 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
  • Per WP:Summary style there should be a brief summary of the history article here, not just one sentence.
  • Use blockquote not cquote for the MIssion Statement (per WP:MOSQUOTE)
  • Was The Mountain Lantern the first magazine or yearbook? It is not clear from reading the article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Second look by Ruhrfisch Here are a few more things I noticed on a second look (as requested):

  • Spell our percent (not %)
  • I would also spell out "student to faculty" (not "student/faculty")
  • I would organize the article differently - History first, then describe the college as it is today
  • Some of the sections are very sparse for their relative importance in the college - there is more on the newspaper than the School of Business, for example
  • Captions that are full sentences need to end with a period.
  • What is the rationale for including alumni? What is the order of their listing (not alphabetical or chronological)? Try to be consistent on the info given for each

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Unforgiven (2005)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know what needs to be done, so the article can become an FA.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:36, 20 August 2008 (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.) 22:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Lead
    • You may want to explain why Cena got himself disqualified, though that may not be apprprioate for the lead, not positive.
      • Wait, what's written, in the lead, is not appropriate?
        • No, what's there is fine. I was unsure if my suggestion was appropriate for the lead.
  • Background
    • The real reason for Jericho being fired should be noted. I think the "lock" in "Master lock" should be capitalized. Why is Masters's name for the move here but there's no "which he calls the Angle slam" after "lifting Cena on his shoulders and spinning 90° to slam him down to the mat." It should be consistent throughout the article and it is not here and at several other places, which I won't mention below to avoid redundancy.
    • Explain why Hardy and Edge are feuding. It was a real life issue transformed into a storyline, so I think that should be mentioned. Change "He was unable to stop Snitsky, as he hit Hardy with the ring bell." to "He was unable to stop Snistky, and as a result, Snitsky succeeded in hitting Hardy with the bell." I think it flows better, but that's subjective.
  • Preliminary matches
    • An explanation for figure four leglock is needed. The "R" in "Roundhouse" should be lower case.< Headbutt is a common term, not just a wrestling one. I don't think the explantion is actually needed here.
  • Main event matches
    • Superkick is not a common term. It warrants an explanation. Non-wrestling fans may have no idea what it is and even new wrestling fan could think it's a missile dropkick per what the term Super is usually used to describe in wrestling.
    • Why did Cena get himself disqualified. Was it a heel turn? Was he a tweener? Did he kayfabe feel he couldn't beat Angle?
      • Well, he was on the ground, after an ankle lock hold by Angle, which led to Cena grabbing the title and hitting Angle in the process and the referee seeing this and calling for the bell.
        • Then you may want to add "because he was about to lose" or something to that affect.
          • I'll come up with something.
    • Aftermath and Results:
  • Looks good.
Done and thanks for the comments. But, left some of my own.
Sure.
  • Wrestlinglover's comments
      • Lead
    • I don't think it needs to be known how Cena got himself DQ'ed in the lead. To me it would just be better to say "in which WWE Champion John Cena lost to Kurt Angle after he intentionally disqualified himself" The event section should cover how he got DQ'ed.
    • "One of the primary preliminary matches was another standard match, in which Shawn Michaels defeated Chris Masters. The other primary match was a steel cage match, where the ring is enclosed by a steel cage. Matt Hardy defeated Edge." Maybe you can tell that there is two instead of saying "The Other". It makes it sound awkward in my opinion. Like say there was two matches on the undercard, one was an encounter between Shawn Michaels and Chris Masters, in which Michaels was victorious. The other primary match was a steel cage match, where the ring is enclosed by a steel cage. Matt Hardy defeated Edge.
      • Background
    • Since performances and other stuff are already linked in the lead, I wouldn't link Cena's name and anything else that appears in the background that is linked in the lead section in the background. The links are just too close together to be linked again.
      • Well, if you see SummerSlam '03, "Kurt Angle" and "Brock Lesnar" are linked in both the lead and the background.
    • There should be a space between Angelslam, Angle Slam.
    • "The two then brawled, thus turning Michaels as a hero," I don't really like that statement, maybe you can change it to "The two then brawled, thus turning Michaels into an on-screen hero,".
      • Event
    • "Flair took the advantage and applied the figure four leglock on Carlito, thus making him submit, and Flair the new Intercontinental Champion" The Flair becoming IC champ should be on another line since it doesn't work with the sentence. "Flair took the advantage and applied the figure four leglock on Carlito, thus making him submit. Which resulted in Flair becoming the new Intercontinental Champion." At least in my mind it is better.
    • Leg drop was already linked in the background, so it doesn't need to be linked agin. You have it linked in the Edge/Hardy match, which in my opinion was a very good match.
    • I'm not sure what your trying to say in this sentence "Michaels fought back, as he performed a drove his cocked elbow onto Masters' chest.", but I guess it is a driving elbow drop from the top rope like he does all the time. It needs to be fixed so it doesn't sound weird anymore, not sure what to change it too, it is late here and I'm tired so I'm coming up blank.
    • "Cena rolled out of the move, grabbed the Championship belt," Why is Championship capitalized?
      • Aftermath
    • Is Cade and Murdoch losing the belts important? It is one sentence and doesn't seem really notable since there was no reason to why they lost the belts.
      • Well, they won the titles at Unforgiven and lost them at the next PPV, not No Mercy, but Taboo Tuesday.
      • Closing statements
    • Okay, it reads very well. I believe it has a chance at FA. Though to me I've never really read an article that I've said was an FA. Not SummerSlam 03 or December to Dismember seem like an FAs to me. Even Guitar Hero (video game) does not seem like an FA to me. I must be hard ti please, but I feel this has a chance. So it will probably pass.--WillC 04:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Premiere (The O.C.)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm listing this article because I am interested in getting it to FA (possibly through GA first). I was just looking for some pointers and a bit of advice as this is my first FA attempt with an article.

Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • 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 ... financial penalties imposed for filming outside the "30-mile zone".[5] seems to only be in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Provide context to the reader - the same ... financial penalties imposed for filming outside the "30-mile zone".[5] is unexplained in the Filming section or elsewhere in the article that I could see. See WP:PCR
  • The plot section seems to be overly detailed - a commercial break is not really part of the plot, couldn't is just be "Later..."? Also make sure the plot is described from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U.
  • Article could use a copyedit "it's" is used where "its" (possessive) is meant, there are other spots that need polish.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Make sure all of the sources meet WP:RS - what makes seeingstars.com a RS? Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

On hold - Thanks for your comments. I will get round to addressing them when I return from a wikibreak. Thanks once again, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)

Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 20:02, 18 August 2008 (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.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rampton Secure Hospital[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because in places it is written as something appraching a personal account without author attribution or sources listed.

Thanks, Drudge dread (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: The article, with three minor exceptions, completely lacks sourcing, and its information is therefore not verifiable. It violates one of Wikipedia's three core principles. Please see WP:V. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Stonewall riots[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I rewrote it last week, expanding it considerably with full citations. I would like to take it to GA and FA. I'd like to get the opinions of a range of people, including non-gay and non-American. I welcome your scrutiny. Moni3 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket#2008080810018509. I usually wait for the admin to add the OTRS ticket. Because I don't know how to. Just got email confirmation a couple hours ago. --Moni3 (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, cool. Nice find, in that case. I've tried a slight levels adjustment and cropped out the white border. Please ping me when the OTRS notice goes up and I'll upload this as an alternate version for your consideration. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 19:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Willow comments

So, so satisfying. :) Let me think about some suggestions; I'm sure that the following list will grow, gradually. Willow (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the article should provide more background on the history leading up to Stonewall, both in the second paragraph of the lead and in the first section of the Background. A key addition to the lead is to describe not only the legal, but also the repressive medical establishment of the time, e.g., the DSM classification of homosexuality and gender dysphorias, and their medical implications. For illustration, you might consider the case of Alan Turing, whose cryptography work helped save the war but who was driven to suicide at age 41 after being chemically castrated. He was British, but I think the analogy holds. Oh, as an aside, you should be more specific about the castration legal penalty in note 1.
  • I think it's excellent to begin your historical introduction just after World War II. Some episodes you might want to mention for more color and vividness: LGBT soldiers' service in WWII, Johnnie Phelps and General Eisenhower in 1946, President Eisenhower's executive order 10450 banning "sexual perverts" from federal employment in 1953; cracks in the wall beginning in the late 50's and early 60's such as this writer and this forerunner, etc. It might be nice to review the prevailing conceptions of LGBT people of that era: security risk because easily blackmailed, emotionally unstable, etc.; maybe a mention of a popular movie or two showing LGBT characters committing suicide, e.g., Ingmar Bergman's Thirst if I remember rightly? Do we have reliable data on the rate of attacks on LGBT people by police and by other people in that era?
YAY! Ok. Points well-taken. I was concerned that both the lead-in and aftermath/legacy sections were too extensive, taking away from the riots themselves, but I'll be more than happy to expand some of this.
Let me ask: Dank55 has been, of course, a wonderful and very helpful copy editor. His suggestion is to remove the section in the Legacy about the APA declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder, mainly because much of the word by Evelyn Hooker was done before Stonewall. I think it should stay in, perhaps expanded a bit to include Hooker's contributions. Thoughts? (This is taking place on the article talk page, btw.) --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks kindly. And btw, I'm happy with the additional material in the APA section. I was mainly concerned with the impression that Stonewall in particular and activism in general were mainly responsible for changes at the APA. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit Wonderful article! It does an excellent job of contextualizing the riots.

  • How much searching for images have you done? The images seem a bit thin right now. It would be especially nice to have a good lead image. This site has an excellent collection of images, but I haven't started looking into their copyright status.
  • they have become the seminal event marking the gay rights movement in the United States and around the world - marking the beginning of the gay rights movement?
  • The last years of the 1960s were very socially contentious, as many social movements were active, including the African American Civil Rights Movement, the Counterculture of the 1960s, and the antiwar demonstrations. - awkward syntax
  • The raid was a normal occurrence for gay bars in the 1960s, but police quickly lost control of the situation - seems slightly awkward - perhaps reintroducing the specific raid would help?
  • attracting a crowd that was incited to riot - Eh?
  • They soon spread across the U.S. and to different countries - Is the "they" the newspapers?
  • Combined with the national emphasis on anti-Communism, conditions were created that allowed Senator Joseph McCarthy to conduct hearings to search for Communists in the U.S. government, the U.S. Army, and other government funded agencies and institutions that led to a national paranoia. - awkward syntax and wordy - "conditions were created..."
  • hey outlawed the wearing of opposite gender clothes, and universities expelled instructors suspected of being sex offenders - Doesn't "sex offender" mean something different than "homosexual"?
  • Most were forced to live a double life, keeping their private lives secret from their professional ones. - private vs. public is the usual split
  • In response to this trend, an organization for homosexuals was created named the Mattachine Society, in Los Angeles in 1951. - Why the passive voice?
  • One of their first challenges to government repression came in 1953. - referent for "their" is unclear
  • The Mattachine Society published a magazine called ONE, Inc., that the Postal Service refused to mail on the grounds that the topic concerned homosexuals in heterosexual marriages and that the magazine was obscene, although the magazine was mailed out in plain brown wrappers. - wordy
  • Homophile organizations—as gay groups were called—grew in number and spread to the east coast. - Should East Coast be capitalized?
  • The third paragraph of "Homophile activism" isn't focused - the sentences jump from topic and topic.
  • The enclave of what a newspaper story referred to as "short haired women and long haired men" developed a distinct subculture of establishments and events through the next two decades - A bit vague - what kind of subculture?
  • The advent of Prohibition only promoted gay establishments as drinking alcohol was pushed underground with other immoral behavior. - This sentence suggets homosexuality is immoral - it should suggest that it was thought immoral in the 1920s by a majority of American society.
  • A cohort of poets, to be named the Beat poets, had a particular affinity for writing about anarchy, drugs, and hedonistic pleasures. - wordy
  • visitors would have to be known by the doorman, or look gay - Are we going to describe what "looking gay" means?
  • Because the police were intending to transport the alcohol present at the bar, of which 28 cases of beer and 19 bottles of hard liquor were seized, patrol wagons were required to take the liquor back to the precinct as evidence. - awkward
  • The patrol wagons did not arrive with the appearance of the police, so patrons were required to wait in line for about 15 minutes. - wordy
  • Those who were not intended to be arrested were released from the front door - awkward
  • The sudden opportunity following the Stonewall riots to organize and concentrate on gay rights forced many groups to work together who had very little in common other than their same-sex attraction. - sounds a little odd
  • This was illustrated during the 1973 Stonewall rally when, moments after Barbara Gittings was exuberant in praising the diversity of the crowd, radical feminist activist Jean O'Leary protested what she perceived as the mocking of women by transvestites and drag queens in attendance. - What is a radical feminist exactly? I think we have to be very careful in using that phrase.
  • During a speech O'Leary was giving claiming that drag queens made fun of women for entertainment value and profit - a tad awkward
  • In 1977 there was a Lesbian Pride Rally as an alternative to being forced to share gay men's issues of "the violent, self-destructive world of the gay bars", according to Adrienne Rich. - awkard syntax
  • The article focuses on the resulting movements in the US - did Stonewall affect gay/lesbian movements in other countries to any significant degree?
  • Is it worth mentioning the Stonewall monument in Christopher Park?

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

On images - There seem to be 2 images taken during the riots. One taken the first night by UPI (is on the cover of David Carter's Stonewall) and another taken by Fred McDarrah the night of the 29th. I've requested to use the McDarrah image from the company that currently owns the copyright, and I've left a message on Elcobbola's talk page to assist me with advice on how to use either of the images. Craig Rodwell took some images according to my sources, but I can't find any. He has images at the New York Public Library digital collections, but none of the riots. Kay Lahusen has images of Gay Liberation Day of 1970, and I'm already using 2 of hers from NYPL in Barbara Gittings' article. I can ask to see if they would give me permission to use another. I just loaded an image of Lahusen marching in the Annual Reminder, perhaps in 1969. It's in her article, so I may use that one. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Copy edits: I think I've addressed most of your concerns here. On "looking gay"...this is probably one of those instances that I should quote from an author directly if I can find an explanation of what looking gay is.
The only other issue I had was the sentence about Jean O'Leary's speech. I added a comma, not sure what else to change. Surely the answer can't be that simple, but I don't know what else to do to that sentence.
Thanks for the copy edit and the advice, Awadewit. Hope you enjoyed the article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments Just a few from me, I agree this is well done and fascinating. Kudos on yet another job very well done.

  • The image with the caption Christopher Park, where many of the demonstrators met after the first night of rioting, to talk about what had happened says on its page that it is actually of Sheridan Square. If this is really Christopher Park, the Commons page description should be changed.
    • I read the description of Christopher Park linked on the Commons image page - the four white figures are clearly visible, would it make sense to mention the Gay Liberation Monument? The new lead image is great. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I am straight and had heard the Judy Garland story in association with the causes of the riot - I think perhaps there should be at least a sentence debunking this in the article itself, not just the note (which is fine, but I suspect many do not read notes). The note could then follow the new sentence.
  • That said, I read the notes and this in note 1 is awkward In 1961 the penalty for sodomy was between a light fine and life in prison, or castration. perhaps In 1961 the penalty for sodomy could range from a light fine to life in prison, or castration.?

Hope this helps, agree with Awadewit's points, especially think a photo of the riot itself could easily be justified by Fair Use. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:25, 20 August 2008 (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.) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian presidential election, 2007[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my plan is to get it to FA some day. After I've addressed most of the issues raised at an unsuccessful GA nomination, I think the article is much better now. I would like some hints what else can be improved. Regarding many redlinks in the article, it is my opinion that those topics are of proper importance for Wikipedia and that the articles will be created sooner or later. Thanks, Tone 02:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Scolaire (talk · contribs)[edit]

The article is well-written, readable and interesting. I have a few comments regarding grammar, clarity etc. that I'd like to address. Regarding grammar:

  • "Other candidates opposed because of the lack of reliable records ...": suggest "Other candidates opposed the change" or "Other candidates were opposed to the change". Also, candidates other than whom?
  • "Opposition particularly reacted to the change since the voters from abroad seem to favorize right parties so they could change the result in favour of Peterle in case of close election result": "The opposition", "Opposition parties" or "Opposition candidates". "To favor", not "favorize". "Parties of the right" or "right-wing parties", not "right parties". "If the result was close", not "in case of close election result".
  • "Liberal Democracy of Slovenia that supported Gaspari in the first round announced it would support Türk in the second.": "Liberal Democracy of Slovenia, which supported Gaspari...", if not "Liberal Democracy of Slovenia, which supported Gaspari...", or "The Liberal Democracy party".
  • "Exit poll results published at the closing of the vote predicted a victory of 69% for Türk": "A victory for Türk, with 69% of the vote", or "a victory of 69% to 31% for Türk".
  • "The opposition parties declared talk of resignation just weeks before Slovenia took over European Union presidency presidency as irresponsible and unwise..." Not strictly speaking bad grammar, but "said that talk of...was irresponsible and unwise" reads a lot better.

Regarding clarity:

  • "For the first year, the President, who at the time was battling cancer, mostly stayed out of public sight. On reappearing he had changed his lifestyle; he became a vegan, moved out of the capital into the countryside and withdrew from party politics completely." Fascinating! But he didn't withdraw from politics altogether. What did he do? How did he come to clash with the government? Did the electorate know he had cancer when they voted him in? How did he retain his popularity?
  • "Topics discussed at televised debates included the rules governing the voting of non-resident nationals. These were changed by the National Electoral Commission during the campaign which sent voting materials to all non-residents entered in the electoral register and not merely to those who requested them, as had been the previous practice." This was addressed in the GA. Was it the action of the NEC that was discussed in the debates? Which candidate or candidates gained or lost by this debate? Did anything happen as a result of the debate?
  • "A petition alleging government meddling in journalism..." A petition is a request to an authority, not an allegation. So was this a petition to end alleged meddling in journalism? And what does "meddling in journalism" mean, exactly - interference in media coverage of government? Or of current affairs in general? Is it known who wrote the petition? Was there an immediate cause?

References: There is a disappointingly high number of references not in English (presumably in Slovene). I accept that this is better than no inline citations at all, but are some of these stories not available online at Google News, BBC News or CNN?

Redlinks: I would tend to agree with you as far as redlinks near the top of the article are concerned, but you might consider de-linking some of the ones further down, and possibly creating stubs for the ones you leave.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one that is highlighted as not having received feedback, which is how I found this article. Scolaire (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I have implemented some suggestions already, I'd like to discuss some things:

  • this Other candidates opposed must have stayed since there was first a sentence that Peterle supported this but I couldn't find a source for that. Opposition parties then.
  • the story about Drnovšek is long. I somehow feel that discussing all this in details would be out of focus of the article. However, there are two good references from NYT and Times that should answer the questions.
  • I wrote some more on the petition. Is it clearer now? Maybe too deatiled since it was about the government and just brought up during the elections...
  • I think it should be clearer now that indeed the thing that stirred the debate about non-residents was the move by NEC. I am unaware of any sources that would report any of the candidates profiting from this specfic topic and unaware of this new regulation being changed afterwards so it must have stayed like this for future elections as well. The two things that had clear consequences - the Rožman case and the diplomatic stance during the independence war - are explained as such.

Should I fix it further? I'll do my best to find some more English sources though it may be difficult for some topics. --Tone 21:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I do still think that the non-resident issue could be clearer. Perhaps if it said "...included the rules governing the voting of non-resident nationals, which had been changed by the National Electoral Commission during the campaign, with the result that voting materials had been sent to all non-residents entered in the electoral register..." That would give a definite timeline: change of rules → voting materials sent → debate.
  • The rest of that paragraph is now clearer, but there are now two consecutive sentences beginning with "Opposition parties". "They" would be sufficient in the second sentence. I'm also not sure about the word "reacted" there. "Reacted" usually means they did something. Perhaps "In particular, they objected to the change because..."
  • The petition paragraph is much clearer, and not too detailed. Just one small thing: you have introduced an acronym, IPI, which needs to be expanded the first time it's used.
  • On President Drnovšek, it's not so much a question of expanding the paragraph as making better use of the same number of words. To my mind his lifestyle changes - his vegetarianism and moving to the country - are the least relevant details. What's more of interest to this article is that he quit Liberal Democracy of Slovenia, that he embraced a more mystical (to quote the Times headline) kind of politics, trying to solve the problems of the world, and that his new style endeared him to, rather than alienated him from, his people. Another thing I've noticed: this article says he was out of the public eye for one year; the Janez Drnovšek article says three years. I'd like to see those figures reconciled.
Otherwise, I think it's looking good. Scolaire (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Further improvements were made. Indeed, the paragraph about Drnovšek was somehow unclear, I reworded it. --Tone 10:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The article reads very well now. Good luck with your next GA! Scolaire (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

List of The Open Championship champions[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this list to featured list standard, and I'm hoping any faults can be ironed out here. The red links will disappear over time. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, NapHit (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Sillyfolkboy First of all: just to say I'm not fully aware of FL criteria so some of my comments may contradict them — if so please ignore them.

  • Lead
    • I would full stop straight after "established in 1860" instead of comma.
Done
I think it's fine where it is, as long as it is in the first paragraph I think it doesn't matter where it is
    • The second should mention the "played on third friday of July" and the third of the majors each year info.
Not sure what you mean here
It was a rewrite suggestion but it's solved now.
    • Amongst the missed tournament info — what about 1871? Why was it not held then?
Added this
    • There is no citation for this first paragraph. No need to go citation crazy but I'm sure there's a short history article that could verify most if not all this info and you could cite it at the end of the whole paragraph.
Added citation for 1871, common sense should suffice for the world war bit
    • Second paragraph — "The Open champions" is a little ambiguous in light of the fact there's a US Open too. Perhaps say "the reigning champion of the tournament is automatically invited to..."
Changed
    • Rephrase the claret jug info to "The prize of the tournament is the Golf Champion Trophy, commonly known as the claret jug, and the champion personally keeps the trophy until the next competition the following year." Or similar.
Done
    • Say they get to keep the gold medal permanently to contrast between the medal and the jug.
Done
    • Remove the citation next to "allowed to keep" as the source follows on until the end of the paragraph anyway.
Done
    • On a related note: Does the belt information have anything to do with the reason why there was no 1871 tournament?
Yes it does, I might add that in
    • Third paragraph: for the oldest youngest info split the sentence up to read "...in 1867. His son, Tom Morris Jr., became the youngest winner of the championship when he won the 1868 Open Championship aged 17 years and 181 days."
Done
    • The Greg Norman and Tiger Woods info seems slightly contradictory. Does the number of shots over the 72 holes change from year to year? I'm not a golfing expert but it suggests a variation of what par is from time to time. Can these changes be summarised in the lead or will that be excessive information?
There is a note for this; Note A which should suffice
    • I'm unsure if these next two suggestions step outside the articles scope but: The tournament has only been held in Scotland, England and once in Northern Ireland. Some note of this should be made in the lead. Also briefly note that the location changes each year.
I think it is outside the article scope, as it champions, there is a separate list for venues
    • Additionally, saying that the tournament was founded in Scotland is pretty important information and should be in the first paragraph.
Done
  • Table
    • Is both colour highlighting and symbol usage for the playoff/amateur necessary? If this is for ease of accessibility to disabled/colour blind users then keep it.
Yep it's for disabled/blind users
    • I was going to suggest delinking a name/place when it had already been mentioned but for means of presentation I think it probably works better as it is now.
Agree
    • I think a little explanation little "Not held" would be better than simply "None", when the gaps are there. The footnotes explain it well - good work.
None relates to there being no champion, which I think is better than not held
  • Multiple Champions
    • It appears this needs some rearrangement - I guess it's supposed to be listed by who won it first when the positions are tied. Willie Park Senior and John Henry Taylor are out of synch is this is the listing method
Done
  • References
    • Generally these are in really good shape. Sports Illustrated should be italicised though.
Done
    • Not that I know everything about golfing websites but... what makes "Golf Legends" a reliable source? Can the information it supports not be found elsewhere on a more official site?
I'll find a different source
    • Links all check out fine with the link checker tool (Very useful - see here if you want a go yourself) Firewalling from Sports Illustrated is normal just so you know
  • Other
    • I agree that redlinks will be bluelinked within time so it's not a major problem.
    • Images seem fine and chronologically order with succinct captions.
    • This seems to lack information and doesn't look like a usual self-made photo so it raises my suspicions about the intentions of the uploader. May have to be excluded at FLC.
Yep seems that way, I'll find a new one
    • The rest seem fine to me.

Seems in pretty good shape and the prose in the lead should be clearer if you follow my suggestions. Good luck with FLC. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments they are greatly appreciated NapHit (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes look good. Still a few minor problems:

  • You should delink Tom Morris, Jr. in the last paragraph as it appears and is linked in the second paragraph about the belt info anyway.
  • In terms of capitalisation I think it should either be "a gold medal" or "the Gold Medal". Does it have an official name or is it just informally called a gold medal?
  • You're going to hate me for this one but... you've used hyphens not minus signs for under par haven't you? You can find the minus sign in the "insert" section in the drop down under the save page button. Minus is between the "plussy-minussy" sign and the "times" sign. Yes, both hyphen and minus sign do appear exactly the same in edit mode but you can see the difference in the preview (minus is eeeeeever so slightly higher). Again, sorry for pointing out such a minor and tedious problem but that's what FLC is for anyway no?
  • I've added two red links to the article. I am unsure of the sources available on Andrew Kirkaldy (there's a recent racing driver of the same name unfortunately) but some information does seem to be out there. I know Roger Wethered is definitely possible. Do you have access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? Needs a subscription but may be available through a university connection. If not then I'll look to make the article myself from the information there.
  • Finally: I've fixed up a few things in the references you missed.link Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.


Legal disputes over Harry Potter[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've fixed most of the glaring errors noted in its last peer review and was wondering what was left before it could be nominated for FA.

Thanks, Serendipodous 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thje last peer review closed on September 7, 2008. This was opened two days later. The policy is that An article that has had a peer review, or gone through the substantial review process at FAC unsuccessfully, can not be listed on WP:PR until at least two weeks after the archive of its previous review can be removed from Peer Review. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, so I am archiving this. Feel free to open one in two weeks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Czech Republic national football team[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a little bit of work on this article recently, and I would appreciate other peoples views on what would be the ideal material to add to the article :)

Thanks, // Finns 08:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • The lead needs to be alot longer, one sentence is not enough, try to include little bits from all the sections, and summarise the article  Done
  • "while being part of Austria-Hungary," change while to whilst  Done
  • "4-1" scorelines should use en dashes  Done
  • Is there any reason why the Malta match is the only mentioned during the Euro 6 qualifying campaign? Not done
    • Note - this is because this was the Czechs first competitive match - Netherlands are also mentioned // Finns 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "unprecedented success" bit POV I would change that
  • "They did, however easily qualify for Euro 2000, winning all 10 of their group games, conceding just 5 goals. The team failed to produce at the finals though, producing just one win, and crashing out in the group stage." quite a few POV statements like "crashing out" easily qualify" these need to be rectified. Also 5 should be written out, this is a general for numbers that are not double digits or greater
  • The history section in general is poor in my opinion and needs to be greatly expanded I would look at Croatia national football team for ideas on this.
  • There are no references either which should be added for anything that can be contested, i.e. qualifying easily for euro 2000
  • The tournament records section could do with being split into Euro and world cup and needs a few sentences to introduce the relevant tables
  • A statistics section would be helpful, as would a record section
  • Supporters and media section as well would be handy

Overall a lot of improvement is needed to this article good luck NapHit (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want an idea of what I mean look at Croatia national football team for ideas on the structure and sections you should have NapHit (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.

List of micronations[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

This list is close to become a featured list, but there are still a few contributions needed for this page to achieve that status:

  • Expand the lead
  • Simplify all Lonely Planet references
  • Replace hyphes with en-dashes for page ranges
  • Possibly add an image

Thanks, Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
I've added the microstates clarification since I myself confused the terms, and I think others would too. Feel free to rewrite that part, or place it in a different place-just keep it around the introduction.
it is not clear to mea weather these micronations still exist, or they still claim the initial independence.
isn't there a reference proving that these are all the micronations?
the weakest point of the article is the lack of a reference for the definition of a micronation. For the list to become a FL one it definately needs a reference for that.
I would prefer having some kind of estimated sizes for these micronations-either for each of them, or in the introduction
the table definitely needs another column with either the continent where it is placed, coordinates, or the territory of whose country it actually pertains to-latter would be the best. There is a need for some some geographical location of these barely-known entities
check WP:MOS - especially for formatting references.

Nergaal (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They are good suggestions. They are all definitely micronations, we only need references for their existence. As for location, there are possibilities that exist outside land - how about:
  • Land
  • Sea
  • Space
  • Virtual
  • Global

Thanks for your comments. ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to add a column, but thought that the description box had enough detail already....

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to assume that there was no irony in your answer and suggest to add the continent where it is located (or region, or territory whose state it is/was claiming). The point of another column is simply to be able to order the stuff, and to quickly localize the micronation in discussion. Nergaal (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
There was no irony in my comment Nergaal - I wasn't being sarcastic either. I did think that your comments helped, and I think the idea of a location column is great - but it is not that simple. When I previewed the column it seemed to be a direct copy of the description box, and also inconsistent with the other locations (sea, space, virtual etc.). Micronations are not just limited to land (and even then, they are not always limited to one continent or territory). I don't oppose the idea because it is pointless, but I oppose the idea because, with micronations, it is not as simple as just naming a continent as it is with sovereign states. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

German Shepherd Dog[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get the article to Good Article status. Thanks, ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  •  Done Fixed the header picked up by the peer review script.
Comments from Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs · count)

I'm glad that such an important article is being developed! The best dog I ever knew was a German Shepherd. :) The potential for promotion to GA-class is there, but I think that most of the sections suffer from skimpiness. In comparing it to Beagle (FA) and Labrador Retriever (GA), this article seems fairly underdeveloped. Here are some suggestions to plump things up:

  • The entire "History" section needs more; more context, more description, etc. The original idea of the breed dates back to 1891, when the Phylax Society was formed with the intention of standardising German dog breeds. So when did the breed begin? How did it evolve? What were its ancestors? Why did an "original idea of the breed" come about at all? What other German dog breeds were there? How did they evolve? What were they used for? (Note: the lead mentions that the breed was developed to herd sheep, which is great. However, this fact appears nowhere in the body of the article. In order to adhere to WP:LEAD, the lead section must be a summary of the entire article. Only include in the lead what appears in the rest of the article. In short, mention sheep and herding in the "History" section!)
Done but probably needs fixes. I would appreciate feedback about the changes I made to the origins section, is there anything else I should add? Is the information about the other dogs clear enough?
  • Horand von Grafrath is obviously important, but I'm confused about the dog's importance. He was the first, but how was the breed developed before and after him? Was he bred with another, similar dog? How did the breed itself spread and gain popularity after him?
Done explained Horand's role/claim to fame in the origins section.
  • The history section gives no context about the purpose or need for such a breed. What were the dogs used and heralded for?
Done herding sheep and protecting flocks
  • Why is the breed called "German Shepherd"? What is the significance of the original German name, "Schäferhund"? What do these terms mean?
Done expanded the name section to include this and other details about the renaming.
  • The modern German Shepherd is criticised for straying away from von Stephanitz's original ideology for the breed. Which was...?
  • How does the modern breed differ from the original?
  • Intelligence is certainly an important facet of the breed, but like most things, it's not explained fully. How does their intelligence help while being police, guard and/or rescue dogs? What tasks are they able to perform? How are they trained? Some of this is explained in a later section, so I would suggest merging the two and of course expanding.
  • What, no pictures of puppies? :) Development would be another facet to explore, but once the article is expanded there are tons of possibilities with images. A picture of a Shepherd with a police vest on, for example, or even one of a famous Shepherd like Blondi?

I did a quick search for sources and it would seem that there are a few more notable and highly available books that can be tapped for research. A few are already used, which is great, but more will undoubtedly help expand the material. See what Beagle uses as far references go; it has a separate section for book sources that are identified (in short hand) under "Citations". I highly recommend this format. Hopefully these suggestions will help, but if you have any questions let me know. Best of luck! María (habla conmigo) 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, I have expanded the History-origins section and will work down your list further as I get time. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 10:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

KitKat Crescent[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article has already had a peer review and is currently at GA status. I'm hoping to see whether people think WP:FAC would be worth a shot with some work, and what the main problems are. I think the prose and a couple of quite stubbish sections could be the main stumbling blocks and would I would like to see how these can be dealt with appropriately. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk)

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.
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.) 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • "when York was relegated to the Conference National." I think were should be used instead of was
  • "The ground was equipped to be suitable for football, which saw the Main Stand and Popular Stands be erected." a better word than equipped should be used I tink, maybe "renovated", "improved" something along those lines
  • "in September 1989 it was announced that the capacity of the ground has been increased to 14,628." had instead of has, I suspect that was a typo ;)
  • "Despite being shorter than the original floodlights, these are twice as bright and meet the requirements for Division One football." shouldn't this sentence be in past tense seeing as it's in the history section
  • I think the transport and future sections could do with being bigger, but I appreciate that this will be hard as information is probably limited
    • Indeed, I agree, and I'm on the lookout for some extra content to add to these sections. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I've had a go at expanding the "Future" section with content from the main York City article. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
        • And a little extra added to the "Transport" secton. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Overall it looks great NapHit (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Keith D (talk · contribs) - Minor comment would be on the Footnotes to enable a return to where you came from in the text. You can either make the letter the final parameter to the {{Note label}} template or use a ^ as the return character if the superscripted letter does not look right. Keith D (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Lead
  • "KitKat Crescent (formerly Bootham Crescent)" I'd prefer to swap commas for brackets, i.e. "KitKat Crescent, formerly Bootham Crescent," To me, it looks far better, particularly in the lead.
  • "It has been the home of York City since 1932, when the club moved there from Fulfordgate following its purchase from York Cricket Club." It might just be me but it's not totally obvious what "its" refers to, i.e. whether Bootham Crescent or Fulfordgate was bought from York CC.
  • I think the lead could be perhaps be extended by maybe even just a sentence or two.
History
  • "York City F.C.'s original stadium Fulfordgate had been relatively inaccessible, with the tram service only having a single track to the ground, and concern about the poor support there had been raised, and director Mr G.W. Halliday was convinced that the only solution to this was to move to a new ground." It might just be me, but I think this sentence has basically three main clauses in "..., and ..., and ..." I would re-word it to something like "..., resulting in concern ..., and so ..." or maybe split into more than one sentence.
  • "but the they decided to move to a new headquarters at Wigginton Road," I think "the" shouldn't be there.
    •  Done Indeed, that's me not being careful. Removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "which saw the Main Stand and Popular Stands be erected." Not sure you need "be".
  • "During the 1954–55 season, York reached the semi-final of the FA Cup, of which two matches were played at Bootham Crescent.[9] The first round game against Scarborough, which was won 3–2, and the fifth round game against Tottenham Hotspur, which was won 3–1 in front of a crowd of 21,000, were both held at Bootham Crescent." I'd combine these two sentences in order to avoid repeating "were played at Bootham crescent". Possibly "During the 1954–55 season, York reached the semi-final of the FA Cup, of which two matches were played at Bootham Crescent[9]—the first round game against Scarborough, which was won 3–2, and the fifth round game against Tottenham Hotspur, which was won 3–1 in front of a crowd of 21,000."
Facilities
  • "After half of the £1500,00 cost was paid for by the Football Trust," I presume this should be £150,000? I would change it but I didn't want to insert an error.
    •  Done Yes, me again being careless. Corrected. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Future
  • It may well be crystal ball. But what would happen to Bootham Crescent once York City move to the new stadium? (Aside - it'll be a shame to see another old ground close).
    • Well, the whole needing to move to a new ground is because Persimmon want to knock it down and build housing on the site. That will all need adding to the article in the history section, which should be quite simple to do with the new Complete Record book. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Sort of covered this with an expansion to the history section. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Other uses
  • "Schoolboy International" I'd say this should be "schoolboy international".
  • "It held its first Schoolboy International in May 1952, when England, who were captained by Wilf McGuinness, who later became York manager, beat Ireland 5–0 with a crowd of 16,000." Again it might just be me, but I think two "who clauses" in the same sentence is difficult to read.
Transport
  • You've already said you were unsure about the size of this section. Other FAs do have short transport sections, but when I got Valley Parade promoted recently to FA, concern was raised about the size of the transport section until I fleshed it out.
  • With that in mind, what other transport details are available? Buses? Park and ride? Perhaps, even mention something mentioned above about the difficult of transport at Fulfordgate and why Bootham Crescent was deemed better at the time? Is this still the case?
    • Had a little search for details but can't find much. Would walking be relevant to this section do you think? Mattythewhite (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
General
  • Numerals and units need to be broken by non-breaking spaces, e.g. 115 votes, per WP:MOSNUM.
    •  Done Done I think. Am I right with 115 x 74 yards? Mattythewhite (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Dates should be unlinked if you want to go to FAC, per new policy at WP:DATE.
    •  Done Gah, no so dates can now be linked? Removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope this all helps. Any questions or if you want any assistance, just let me know. Peanut4 (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


The Boys from Baghdad High[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've just created this article and I would like to take it all the way to FA status. But let's concentrating on working on GA first :) Any suggestions or comments you have are much appreciated.

Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. One of my concerns, which I should have put above I guess, is whether or not the article needs a cast section and a plot section (though as a non-fiction piece, would it be called plot?) The article assessment from WP:FILM says so, but I'm not too sure. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 07:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • There seems to be too much empahsis in the lead on the producers etc. (the second paragraph) compared to the amount of text in the article itself WP:WEIGHT
  • 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
  • I think the direct quotes from reviews in the lead need to be cited - see WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE
  • I do think a "Summary" section (plot) would be useful. Agree that calling it "Plot" seems odd though.
  • Also think a Cast section would help.
  • There are a few typos I saw - I read for comprehension, not proofreading. Here is a rough sentence When the documentary aired in the UK, overnight viewing figures showed that it was watched by 600,000 viewers, and by 3% of the total television audience.[27] I would say something like ... 600,000 viewers, which was 3 percent ... You can ask for a copyedit at WP:PRV
  • I do not review film GAs, but this seems pretty good for GA to me - well cited, mostly well written.
  • There were a few places that seem to be needlessly repetitious, alhtough they may be for emphasis - the camera may be taken as a sign the owner is a terrorist, for example.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


Maguire v SOCOG 1999[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am doing an assignment for a general studies law course "Cyberspace Law" which asks for a traditional paper based case study turned into an authoritative wikipedia article. Unfortunately, wikipedia only has "good article" or "featured article". Could you peer review "Maguire v SOCOG 1999" by providing me with practical advice that can be easily be implemented so the article could be nominated for either "good article" or "featured article"? thanks

Thanks, Semibrevetrouser48white (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Interesting topic, but needs a large amount of work to conform to the Manual of Style and be good article, let alone featured. Please read carefully WP:WIAGA and then WP:WIAFA.

  • Article has a one sentence lead. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article may need fewer sections / header too. The section titles do not meet the guideline on section headings
  • References need to be formatted better - 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
  • Avoid bullet point lists - convert to prose.
  • There are many one or two sentence paragraphs and sections that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Language needs a copyedit
  • None of the categories are actual categories - these are not helpful as red links
  • Article has (almost) no links to anything else on Wikipedia

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


System Shock 2[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article is getting closer to FA quality, but is not yet there. As such, I request that reviewers read the article and respond with FA quality suggestions and improvements. Thanks, Noj r (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Automated Review[edit]

Review by Masem[edit]

Besides a good copyedit, two things stood out: First, watch your abbreviations, I see "OSA" used without defining it first and a few places where things are abbreviated but never reused (FTL, I believe). Second, I think the gameshot image can use a more descriptive caption; explain that the slotted inventory system is at the top, and other features of the display. But sources look good, images look fine, I think it's ready. --MASEM 02:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree about a copy-edit. I have already gone through the gameplay section and attempted some fixes. Please inform me if they helped. On the issue of the acronyms, we are never explicitly told what OSA or OS means. This has been discussed before, and the best I could do was create a reference for the first instance of each acronym explaining that it is never listed. Would an inline explanation be better? I have also expanded the caption on the picture. I hope it is better. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. -- Noj r (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Review by Mendaliv[edit]

Well, one thing that bugs me is the "Legacy" section.

  • The sentence, "As a result, System Shock 2 is widely regarded as one of the greatest games ever made and has been inducted into several Hall of Fames".
    1. I think "widely regarded" should be more specific; widely regarded by whom?
    2. "one of the greatest games ever made" is substantiated by four refs, three of which are subsequent years of the same IGN top-100 list. It might be best to drop the prior years unless you want to say that it was on the IGN top-100 list for three years.
    3. "Hall of Fames" is a bad plural; "Halls of Fame" is more appropriate.
    4. "several Halls of Fame"; we see two refs substantiating this, one of which is a top-25 list and isn't specifically calling itself a HoF.
  • The sentence, "The title is also widely recognized as one of the most frightening games ever made".
    1. "widely recognized"; same problem as above, by whom? While it's referenced I think it should be attributed in the text.
  • The next paragraph is a perfect example of what I think should be done with the "widely regarded" problems above.
  • The SS3 and BioShock sections ought to be flipped to maintain chronological order in their prose. The BS paragraph begins in 2007 while the SS3 one begins in 2006.

The rest of the article is pretty damn good. The one thing I'd like to see mentioned is the story about Levine forcing in the Psi-monkeys even though it didn't make any sense and wasn't explained except in the basketball easter egg (which might also bear mentioning). I wish I had a reference for the Levine thing. I'll poke around for that. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I expanded the "greatest, frightening" statements to include the names of the publications. I also fixed the references and placed them in the right places. I did not know they were jumbled up, haha. The "hall of fames" grammatical error is completely embarrassing. I didn't even think about it :0 Thanks for reviewing the article. Hope to hear from you at the FA review soon. -- Noj r (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

NBA All-Rookie Team[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how well it is doing and if it is good enough to become a featured list. Chrishomingtang will also help in answering questions.

Thanks, -- K. Annoyomous24 03:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • In an FA the lead summarizes the article and does not need citations, but in an FL the lead often serves as an introduction and so needs cites for anything not in the lists. This needs more cites / refs.
  • "Olajuwon and Knobler. pg. 207" needs more information as a ref
  • I would add an explanation of the introduction of the second team in 88-89. Why was it added?
  • Several places need a copyedit - for example Indicates the player who won the Rookie of the Year award in the same year (since these are both rookie awards, is there any way they could be in different years?) or Voting is conducted by the NBA head coaches; the coaches [who] are not allowed to vote for players on their own team.[1] or The All-Defensive Team is generally composed of two five-man lineups, a first and a second team, comprising a total of 10 roster spots. - I think most readers can add 5 +5 = 10  ;-)
  • I would add a free picture or two - surely some of the players have free imaqes here?
    • There is not enough room for images. -- K. Annoyomous24Need to pee... 00:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it make sense to say how many players have been named to the team as of the most recent season?
What do you mean? -- K. Annoyomous24Need to pee... 00:35, 7 September 2008 (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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Judgment Day (2005)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know what needs to be done, so the article can become an FA.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Background
    • There must be sentence missing. Why was Mysterio disqualified?
    • How did JBL win the FF4?
    • Scott Garland needed parenthesis.
    • Explain what a Handicap match is.
    • Bad guy > villain, sounds more professional.
  • Preliminary matches
    • Last names can be used after the full ring name is mentioned. Having them there again after the first time is unnecessary clutter.
    • Explain Angle slam.

The rest of it looks fine to me.

Done and thank you for the comments. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:39, 25 August 2008 (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.) 16:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Our Neighborhood[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we'd like to receive feedback on how to improve this article. It is short, which is the reason cited for failing its recent Good article nomination. If there are any suggestions on improving the article, then please post them. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Giggy[edit]

  • "all tracks from the band's self-titled debut were released earlier that year." --> "all tracks from the band's self titled debut album released earlier that year" (if you talk about the album release... needs a different reword if you talk about the single releases).
  • "The video was well received by fans and entered number one on the Billboard Top Music Videos chart and remained in the charts for 54 weeks." - cut the "and" overuse. Maybe "where it remained for 54 weeks"?
  • "The video was certified gold on December 21, 1999 and was later certified platinum on February 16, 2000" - trim some redundancies... "and platinum on Feb..."
  • I'd agree with Matisse on the talk page that this probably can't be a GA. There just isn't enough content out there, unfortunately. —Giggy 08:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Your first point doesn't have a verb? The rest are done. Gary King (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Šalata[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on turning it into a Good article. I'd like to know what could and should be done to expand the article and make it look better, nicer and more professional.

Thanks, Admiral Norton (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Yohhans (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC) - Just going through this based on prose and MoS issues. I'll try and determine if content is comprehensive where I can, but chances are I'll just be looking at the writing. :) Keep in mind that these are all suggestions. Take them with a grain of salt. Also, don't be afraid of how long the review is. I'm picky. It's nothing against you, I promise. :)

General comments

  • I would suggest making the History section be the first section, rather than Geography. However, this is just preference.

Lead

  • It houses the ŠRC Šalata (Šalata Sport and Recreation Center) ... --> It houses the Šalata Sport and Recreation Center (ŠRC Šalata) ...
  • Why is the location of "the current center" buried in the link? Why not rewrite it as, "Being close to both the old city cores Gornji Grad and Kaptol and the current center, Donji Grad,...."? Preferably the entire sentence should be rewritten to, "the residents of Šalata are close to almost all major events outside the neighborhoods due to their proximity to both the old city cores of Gornji Grad and Kaptol, and the current center, Donji Grad."
  • Try not to start your sentences with "Being...". It makes the sentence feel weak. How about, "Šalata is praised for great views of the city because of its slightly higher altitude in relation to the rest of the city."
  • Due to all these factors, real estate in Šalata is very expensive and Šalata has become the home to many influential people from the political, musical and sports scene in Croatia.
  • I'm not sure a link to scene (community) is really necessary.

Geography

  • Being located on the slopes of Medvednica Mountain, mostly containing woods inhabited by wildlife and only a half an hour walk from the Ban Jelačić Square, Šalata was quickly urbanized in the early and mid-20th century following a rapid expansion of Zagreb. Long cumbersome sentence. I would suggest axing the first half of the sentence unless the source at the end of the paragraph says that it is because of Šalata's location in the Medvednica Mountains that it was urbanized. If that's not the case, then I'd say just turn the sentence into, "Šalata was quickly urbanized in the early to mid-20th century following a rapid expansion of Zagreb." If that is the case, then I would follow that sentence up with this one, "The urbanization can be explained by its prime location on the slopes of the Medvednica Mountain and its close proximity to the Ban Jelačić Square."
  • Nonetheless, the neighborhood retains a green image, housing the botanical garden "Fran Kušan" in Zagreb, owned by the Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry of the University of Zagreb. - When you say, "green image", does that mean that the city is actually green in color, or that it is trying to be more environmentally friendly? Please rephrase to be less ambiguous. Also, change ... "Fran Kušan" in Zagreb, owned by the Faculty ... to "... Fran Kušan" in Zagreb which is owned by the Faculty ..."
  • 2000 plant species. --> 2,000 plant species
  • Šalata's connection to the rest of Zagreb via mass transit consists of four bus lines: - This reads awkwardly. How about, "Šalata's mass transit consists of four bus lines:"?
  • At that point 106 and 226 continue --> At this point 106 and 226 continue
  • The neighborhood is not connected to the citywide tram system, but its inhabitants have to either descend to Medveščak Road or Vlaška Street, or take the bus to the Kaptol near Ban Jelačić Square to reach the nearest tram lines. --> change "but" to "so". Also, are directions really necessary? Could we not just change this sentence to, "The neighborhood is not connected to the citywide tram system, so residents must take other forms of transportation to get to the tram."?
  • ... luxury apartment buildings three or four stories high, the first in Croatia to feature digital homes. --> "... luxury apartment buildings three to four stories high. They are the first in Croatia to feature digital homes." - Also, can we get a reference on this? Also, also, what exactly is a digital home?
  • a canyon, with their roofs seen from above --> which allows their roofs to be seen from nearby streets - Also, is "canyon" really the right word? Maybe, depression?
    • I really don't know a better word. A depression would fit a lake, but this is more like a pretty steep elongated river valley. Actually, a small stream used to flow down the valley before the Babonićeva Street was enlarged. The stream was mostly used for garbage and as a frog incubator, so I don't think it merits the inclusion, nor that I would be able to find a good source about it. Admiral Norton (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I guess in that case I can't much think of a better word either. It is just that, being an American, when I hear "canyon", my brain tends to flit to the grand variety and so I figured this would be the same with other readers. I was just hoping to avoid confusion and to provide a better depiction of the lay of the land. - Yohhans (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • at the expense of some possessions of the local church. - Does this mean that the local church was destroyed to make room for the apartments? If so, can this be reworded to reflect that?
  • The enlargement was planned for 30 years, but the City was unable to buy the church property until the mid-2000s. - Needs a reference

History

  • Šalata was built in several axes, - took me forever to realize that this was in reference to a coordinate plane rather than the plural of axe. Even then it does not make much sense. I'd say either create a picture to illustrate this and change the sentence to "Šalata was built along several axes: Bijenička Road, Voćarska Road and Grškovićeva Street." or simply drop the sentence.
    • I just have to say, I really like the way you rephrased this sentence. It is much better now! - Yohhans (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The entire first paragraph in the History section is without references. This needs to be fixed.
  • As the city grew, the neighborhood expanded northward, creating an interesting street pattern garbled in the south, but consisting of straight north-south streets and random east-west connectors north of Grškovićeva Street. --> As the city grew, the neighborhood expanded northward. This created garbled street patterns in the south, but led to straight north-south streets and random east-west connectors north of Grškovićeva Street.
  • East of Voćarska and Bijenička Street the neighborhood is located on steep slopes and canyons, generating long, steep north-south streets connected by staircases. -- Does not contribute to this section at all. It should either be moved to "geography" or dropped completely. I suggest the latter. In fact... reading the rest of the paragraph, it seems to me that this entire paragraph should just be dropped. It does not contribute to the history of the neighborhood, or what little history it does provide, is restated in the next paragraph.
  • Šalata used to comprise a village --> Šalata used to be a village
  • Up until 1990 the definition was coded --> Up until 1990 the definition of a neighborhood was coded
  • Šalata is currently undergoing a real estate prices increase, due to the neighborhood being close to most city amenities. --> Real estate prices are currently increasing due to the neighborhood being close to most city amenities.

Education

  • See also: Archdiocesan Classical Gymnasium - This is not needed as it has already been linked in the article.
  • As for tertiary education, Šalata hosts the Ruđer Bošković Institute and Faculties of Science (Departments of Mathematics and Physics), Medicine and Chemistry of the University of Zagreb. - I.... don't even know. Maybe, "As for tertiary education, Šalata hosts the Ruđer Bošković Institute of the University of Zagreb which includes the faculties of science, medicine and chemistry." - I hope that was the correct interpretation of that sentence
  • Move the botanical gardens picture to the Culture section and the Gymnasium to the Education section. Also, the caption for the Gymnasium photo should be "Archdiocesan Classical Gymnasium on Voćarska Road"

Culture

  • First paragraph needs citations, specifically the first and third sentences.
  • near the Medveščak Road intersection - I think this might be too much detail. Probably just me though (only reason I'm saying anything is because the phrase clutters up this sentence).
  • in the far northern part of Bijenička Road. --> on the far northern part of Bijenička Road.
  • in Zmajevac Street --> on Zmajevac Street
    • I always make this error since we have a "in"/"on" distinction for streets and avenues in Croatian, but it's always "on" for roads, ways, boulevards etc. Admiral Norton (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • such as the sculptor Vanja Radauš, who owned an atelier in Zmajevac Street, which has been converted into a art restauration company, or the painter Vasilije Jordan.
  • Šalata is widely known throughout Zagreb for its festivals, including Šalata Open Air Festival, VIP INmusic Festival and others, and the concerts on the ŠRC Šalata football stadium. - Couple things. 1.) Needs a citation. 2.) change "including Šalata Open Air Festival, VIP INmusic Festival and others, and the concerts on the ŠRC Šalata football stadium." to "including the Šalata Open Air Festival, VIP INmusic Festival, concerts at the ŠRC Šalata football stadium, and others."
  • These concerts are oftentimes held by world-famous bands - I don't think the bands themselves host the concerts, so change this to "These concerts often host world-famous bands"
  • The famous Papaya nightclub --> "The Papaya nightclub" - Try to avoid peacock words.
  • Source 15 mentions Hermann Bollé, but it does not say this was his most famous work. Nor does it say it earned him eternal fame. These statements need a citations. Also, try to avoid those peacock terms... I'm not sure anyone can claim eternal fame.
    • Curbed down. "Maginificent" is in the source, though. Admiral Norton (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • On the Mirogojska Road north of Mirogoj, the Krematorij is located. It is a smaller cemetery devoted for cremations. - What does this have to do with culture? Also, it should be, "It is a smaller cemetery devoted to cremations."

Sports

  • Šalata is known for ŠRC Šalata, the Sports and Recreational Center Šalata. ŠRC Šalata was built in the 1930s instead of expanding KBC Šalata. - Until you provide a source for the first sentence, change these two sentences to, "The Sports and Recreational Center Šalata (ŠRC Šalata) was built in the 1930s." (I omitted the KBC Šalata from the sentence as it is never mentioned again in the article.)
  • It hosts large public --> It contains large public
  • and an outdoor soccer stadium converted during the winter to use for ice hockey and ice skating. --> and an outdoor soccer stadium that converts to an ice rink in the winter.
  • The center is very attractive for both amateur and professional tennis players, having nine tennis courts, a normal-sized one and eight small courts --> "The center attracts both amateur and professional tennis players with its one regulation-sized tennis courts and eight smaller courts." -- Also, this needs a citation.
  • , most notable being ice hockey club Medveščak, basketball club KK Medveščak, swimming club PK Medveščak, handball club RK Medveščak, water polo club VK Medveščak and tennis club TK Medveščak. --> The most notable are the ice hockey, basketball, swimming, handball, water polo and tennis clubs.
    NB I've refrained from saying this earlier because I felt it was warranted at the time, but this sentence just seems excessive. You are writing for an English audience. Using so many Croatian terms (or in this case, one term used multiple times) in a row is going to scare away your readers. Also, the the acronyms (at least I assume that's what they are) KK, PK, RK, need to be spelled out or just not used at all.

Famous inhabitants

  • near its center and Grškovićeva Road --> near its center on Grškovićeva Road
  • Change [[Josip Broz|Tito]] to [[Josip Broz Tito]]
  • Andrija Hebrang, an influential Croatian politician, --> need a source for "influential", or drop the word.
  • You might want to rethink the inclusion of some of the "notable" inhabitants. Some that you link to don't even have an article on Wikipedia.
  • Two residential villas on Grškovićeva Street were meant to become the residences of President Stipe Mesić and the Speaker of the Croatian Parliament, but they were abandoned in favor of the old locations. -- This kind of feels like grasping at straws. That is, it seems like it is included for inclusion's sake.

Embassies

  • Due to its reputation, - The great thing about a reputation is that it can be backed up with... you guessed it! Sources! ;) Also, what kind of reputation? I assume you mean a good diplomatic one, but it would be better to say that explicitly.
  • Yugoslavia broke into Serbia and Montenegro - "broke into"? How about "invaded"
    • It should have said "broke up into", but "was divided into" conveys the meaning even better. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • located in the quiet Torbarova Street --> located on Torbarova Street
  • located on the intersection of --> located at the intersection of
  • It is the only embassy in Šalata under constant monitoring by security guards. - Needs citation
    • I live in Šalata, so it's OR. I was careful about writing only referenced things, but obviously not careful enough. {{fact}} for now, I'll delete if I don't find anything. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It is Bulgarian ... --> The Bulgarian ...
    • Embassies are done. I'll also try and find refs for other embassies. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

References

  • [10], [11], [13], [14], [19] - All lack publishers
  • [13] - What makes [mfyi.com] a reliable source?
  • [12], [13], [15] - You do not have to specify when a source is in English as it is assumed
  • [26] - Needs to state that the website is in Croatian
  • [29] - Definitely not in English; needs a last accessed; needs a publisher
    • Oops, I had linked to the Slovenian language version. Fixed now. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • While not required per se, is there any way we could get paper sources to complement the internet sources?
  • Also not required, but is it possible to get more English sources? I realize this will be difficult given the topic, but I just thought I'd ask.
  • Phew! That's the end of it. Hope this all helps. Again, I hope you don't take offense at my suggestions. I'm just looking to help. :)
Thanks, I'll have a look at this tomorrow. Seems like a lot of things to do :-) Admiral Norton (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A few more comments - Yohhans (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC) - The article is looking much better! I think you'll have no problem getting this through GAN when you've finished cleaning up the prose.

  • owned by the Ffaculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry of the University of Zagreb.
  • Since the southeastern part remains unconnected, the City of Zagreb administration has pointed out that Šalata is badly connected to the rest of the city, and plans to add more bus lines.[5] The neighborhood is not connected ... So many "connected"s!
  • four stories high, the first in Croatia --> four stories high, and is the first in Croatia
  • but the Ccity was unable to buy
  • Zmajevac Street orand painter Vasilije Jordan.
  • The Ukrainian embassy is located in

All done. I'm going to a reference hunt now. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


What's It Gonna Be (Beyoncé Knowles song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is too short to go to WP:GAN but I'd still like to receive comments on what could be done to improve the article – mostly prose-related issues. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed a little wording. Not much to improve or work on. Looks good to me.RyanHoliday (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ThinkBlue's comment
  • This sentence ---> ""What's It Gonna Be" was originally released as a promotional recording by Columbia Records and as a physical release with the L'Oréal logo on the cover because of the song's use in Knowles' advertisements for L'Oréal", the statement "physical" release, what exactly does that mean?

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • A release (like Cd singles, vinyls, casettes, ect.) excluding downloadable formats. --Efe (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks, for explaining it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Realist2:

  • Do you have a page number for current ref #1?
  • Could do with a personnel section at the bottom.
    • I will add more gradually as it comes to me. — Realist2 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Beyonce has personnel as her songs are usually using samples and such? Gary King (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Dunno, I've only ever bought the odd single by her. Efe would know, ask him. :-) — Realist2 17:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I checked a few Beyonce song FAs and GAs and none have Personnel. Gary King (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There is, in some B'Day-related articles. I got the CD so I have the source. =) --Efe (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright; please add them if you can, thanks! :) Gary King (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't have a copy of the CD. --Efe (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs):

  • "A 7" promo single containing the song along with instrumental and a cappella versions and the same three different versions of Faith Evans' cover of Donna Summer's 1978 "Heaven Knows" (which was part of the official soundtrack to The Fighting Temptations) was released." Run-on sentence.
  • Any external links (music videos, official lyrics, etc.)?
  • Information about themes, music videos, and music features could be put in, only if there's info.

Not many comments, but then, it's a short article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I did the first point. The rest will be difficult; this article is indeed short and that is because it isn't a popular single so there isn't much information about it. Gary King (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

What is this list missing to become a FL? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • These span over four seasons, while a fifth season is scheduled to air starting in fall 2008. Why not give the actual September date of the first episode of the fifth season in the US?
It is stated later in the introduction. I am not sure it is worth burdening the first paragraph with a date would help. Nergaal (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Awkward sentence - needs to be split into two or cleaned up Created as an adaptation by Greg Daniels of the British series The Office that was originally created by Stephen Merchant and Ricky Gervais, it is a mockumentary that follows the day-to-day lives of the employees of the Scranton, Pennsylvania branch of Dunder Mifflin, a paper supply company.[1]
  • This makes it sound like the seasons were the same number of episodes This was followed by a full-length second season in 2005–2006, and another full-length one, in 2006–2007. but they were not - I would give the numbers of episodes in each season.
  • I think the article would look better if all the tables were the same width.
I am not sure how to do that. Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Identify who Roy Anderson is within the show (warehouse guy) in ... while she struggles with her relationship with Roy Anderson (David Denman).
  • Needs a ref perhaps It featured 23 episodes, including two hour-long editions, and guest directors such as J.J. Abrams (creator of ABC series Alias, Lost, and the movie Cloverfield), Joss Whedon (creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly) and Harold Ramis.
  • In the notes, why not combine the two without symbols, i.e. "Producers' cut versions are not included." and "Episode titles are subject to change."

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I still have those two clarifications to work on, but otherwise should I go ahead and nominate this for FLC? Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank Zappa[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article recently (narrowly, imo) failed a FAC. A few of the late reviers that ultimately contributed to the thumbs down suggested a PR before resubmission. Therefore this listing. Comments and suggestions most welcome. Note that compared to the version that was up for FAC, this version includes a section on Legacy at the end, which was also asked for at the FAC. There is deliberately no independent section on Personal Life, as Frank Zappa's life was his music and career, and because he was not a celebrity-style person with a life in media (like, e.g., Michael Jackson). This argument was accepted at the FAC, and therefore no such section exists.

Thanks for the attention, HJensen, talk 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


Amaranthus brownii[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm getting ready to nominate it as a good article and I would like to know what I've missed or what I can focus on for improvement.

Thanks, Viriditas (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Kingdon's Comments:

  • The article looks good. The one thing I'd expand on a bit is more of a description of the plant: how does it differ from other Amaranthus species? Probably a bit of "like other Amaranths, it blah blah blah" too. Does it reproduce vegetatively or by seed (if known)? If there's anything else such as medicinal uses or ornamental uses or anything, they'd go here too (although I suppose that's unlikely for a plant with such a small range). Kingdon (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD to at least two paragraphs. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • I owuld try to be more specific (use a date) than "more recently" in More recently, the invasive Schistocerca nitens, a nonnative grasshopper, has presented an even larger threat to A. brownii. In five years it will not be as recent.
    • Done, but the prose is too choppy. I will attempt to iron it out in the coming days. Viriditas (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This needs a ref: The plant is sometimes referred to as Brown's Amaranth, Brown's Pigweed, or Browns Amaranth, although it is unclear which, if any, common name is in use. Also the whole Nomenclature section is only two sentences - could it be combined with another section? "Nomenclature and morphology" perhaps?
    • Partly done. USDA and UH botany dept. cited. I've deleted the latter part. I'll see what I can do about expanding or merging the section. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Any chance of adding a map so the location of the island is clearer?

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • In progress... Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added refs for the common names. --MPerel 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Battery (electricity)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have worked on this for a while and am planning to nominate it for GA as soon as I've fixed all the problems. In particular:

  • How does the lead look? How could I improve it?
  • Before, I thought "Classification of batteries" (now called "Types of batteries") was too long, so I moved a lot of the content to List of battery types. How is the current section ("Types of batteries")?
  • How is the organization? Does the article cover all major aspects? Any trivial info that should be removed?

Thanks, King of ♠ 19:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs):

  • Tip on expanding the lead—Make sure there is at least a sentence for each section in the article summarizing the contents and important details in that section.
  • Battery capacity and discharging section: Combine some of the stubby paragraphs.
  • Sentences needing sources (among others):
    • This paragraph:"Secondary batteries must be charged before use; they are usually assembled with active materials in the discharged state. Rechargeable batteries or secondary cells can be recharged by applying electrical current, which reverses the chemical reactions that occur during its use. Devices to supply the appropriate current are called chargers or rechargers."
    • "Because of vibration, shock, heat, cold, and sulfation of their lead plates, few automotive batteries last beyond six years of regular use."
    • "Hole formation in the plates leads to less surface area for the current-producing chemical reactions, resulting in less available current when under load. Leaving a lead-acid battery in a deeply discharged state for any significant length of time allows the lead sulfate to crystallize, making it difficult or impossible to remove during the charging process. This can result in a permanent reduction in the available plate surface, and therefore reduced current output and energy capacity."
    • "The main benefit of the lead-acid battery is its low cost; the main drawbacks are its large size and weight for a given capacity and voltage."
    • "Special "reserve" batteries intended for long storage in emergency equipment or munitions keep the electrolyte of the battery separate from the plates until the battery is activated, allowing the cells to be filled with the electrolyte. Shelf times for such batteries can be years or decades."
    • "When a battery is recharged at an excessive rate, an explosive gas mixture of hydrogen and oxygen may be produced faster than it can escape from within the walls of the battery, leading to pressure build-up and the possibility of the battery case bursting."
  • Get the article copyedited by someone unfamiliar with the text.
  • Format all the references—add publisher, publisher dates, works, etc.
  • Trim the external links and leave only the essential ones. See WP:EL.
  • Information to add: How is a battery made?

Hope these comments help. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


The Other Woman (Lost)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This GA was at FAC recently and suffered from a lack of comments. The nomination was archived with two votes: one neutral who felt that the article could use another copyedit and one oppose who offered to strike his vote if no one supported his view on the image, which no one did. I tried to renominate it, but Sandy pointed to one of the sources, which has been taken to the reliable sources noticeboard; however, I expect it to pass. Basically, I do not want there to be any excuses when I renominate it. Thanks, –thedemonhog talkedits 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I have read the article and the failed FAC. I now see that a full two weeks had not passed between the end of the FAC and the nomination here at PR, but since I have already read the article and have comments I will let it slide. I found the FAC to be much different than the impression the summary above gave - there were many comments from different people, just not much support. I always think an FAC is the most comprehensive peer review an article can get - I agree with several of the points raised there and would ask the FAC reviewers to look at the article again to see if their concerns have been met before nominating this again. That said, here are some suggestions:
  • I have never seen the program or this episode. I found the plot and several of the references to the mythology confusing, which for me is a sign that the article is not yet at a professional level of prose (see WP:WIAFA and/or needs to be written from more of an out of universe perspective (see WP:IN-U). Examples of unclear items for me at least - Juliet's life on the island is depicted in flashbacks. A week after she arrives in mid-September 2001, she begins to receive therapy from Harper Stanhope (Andrea Roth). Now the lead says the plane crashed there in 2004, so I have no idea how Juliet is already on the island in 2001, or who Harper Stanhope is.
  • I also note that the episode takes place on Christmas Eve and Christmas day - does this play a role in the plot in any way? I am also not sure about the title - who exactly is the Other Woman? Or reading the Dharma Initiative article I find this is the first episode in which the Tempest appears - should that be be mentioned here?
  • Awkward phrase ... criticizing the flashbacks as being redundant and the Tempest storyline due to a lack of explanation for the station's original purpose.[46] I had to read it three times before I figured it out
  • The Reception section seemed a bit of a quote farm to me - is there any way the different quotes could be pulled together more? As it is it mostly seems to be "Critic A of Paper X found it _________, while Critic B of paper Y thought the acting was _________, and Critic C of media outlet Z said _________" Could the paragraphs be more thamatically arranged or have brief topic sentences or phrases to help make the point clearer? Try to do the ... that the episode was more heavily focused on Ben, instead of Juliet ... thing for each paragraph.
  • Are there more comments from writers / producers / director that could go into the Production section? I fear I am tired and confused by my lack of knowledge of the show - I hope this is helpful, this feels close to FA, but not quite there.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2002[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive feedback to complete this list in the most accurate way possible

Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • "universe of merchants" bit POV I would suggest a better word than universe. DONE!
  • You have eight references in a row in the last paragraph in the lead, which is not necssary remove some or move them about, to say after the relevant artist. DONE!
  • An image of one of the artists would be good. DONE!
  • The weeks at number one table seems a bit weird; firstly the numbers in the weeks at number one column should be centrally aligned, and I would move this column to the end. Also any reason for the current order?. DONE: I got rid of that table.
  • You can remove .com from the refernces they are not Billboard on its own for example would suffice. Answer: Should I removed the ".com" from all refs?. Jaespinoza (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeh you should NapHit (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC) FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in speculative fiction[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… In the last few months it has had a complete overhaul. It is now: 1. Broad in coverage (broader than any of the print encyclopedias used as sources)
2. Fully wikified
3. Referenced.
4. Well written (in my own opinion!)
5. Has free images.

So i'm hoping to submit for GAR soon. As i've written almost all of it alone, i want outside input, especially on the writing and overall flow.

Thanks, Yobmod (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to add more explanation to the lead image. Are these symbols conventionally and widely adopted in SF fiction? Or they have only been used in a single work or by a single author? Or created by a Wikipedian? Eklipse (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, changed the caption to show they are invented by the artist. Image will be changed to include women, once i figure out how.Yobmod (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
But you still didn't answer WHO did invent them or WHERE were they precisely used. I suspect it is the work of a wikipedian, so it qualifies as OR. Eklipse (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Not the work of a wikipedian, but a guy i know in the real world. They weren't used anywhere, they're just pretty (free) images. It seems easier to include copyrighted imaged as "fair use" than orginial art! -rmvd.

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Interesting article - I agree that the lead image does not really fit though. There is no robot sex described in the article and very little alien sex - also by using male symbols, the figure excludes females.
Oki, the picture will be changed, to include women and exclude robots.
  • I wonder if it would make sense to change the title of the article to something broader - one problem is that many SF works that explore homosexuality also explore other types of sex - Odd John implies incest, Varley's Titan, Wizard, and Demon triloogy has lesbian protagonists, but features interspecies sex and the detailed centaur matings possible, etc. Alien sex is hard to define as homosexual, but may certainly require the reader to think outside the box - see Asimov's The Gods Themselves with its three alien species having sex (two using male pronouns, one female) or Varley's centaur variations above.
There is already an (extremely poor) article for Sexuality in SF in general, that article should cover SF approach to sex overall, with a summary of this article in the section there.
I thought the first section explained about alien sexualities being used as metaphors etc - i'll have to make it clearer. ::Anything more would be OR - as far as i remember, the aliens in The Gods Themselves reproduce by a method completely different from humans, so the gramatical genders had nothing to do with actual gender, no? Without gametes, the idea of binary sex soesn't exist, hence nor does homosexuality, except as a metaphor.
OK they do reproduce differently, although I would say without gametes robots can't have sex either. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought the lead focused a shade too much on the bad old repressed days of no sex at all in SF and the article could use more examples from recent works, especially the 1990s
I'll cut back on the repression in the lead, although for most critics this is the most notable thing. "Homophobia is no longer considered acceptable..." is about all the sources say.
  • Article needs more references, for example four of six paragraphs in Modern SF (post New Wave) have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
All paras now have more than one cite. And all quotes.
Jepp - as SF got more accepting, far less people wrote about it! So the post new wave section will be trimmed and sourced.
Would it be possible to find people writing about a particular author's work, which could be quoted? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 3 September 2008 (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

will do.

  • Lots of short one or two sentence paragraphs and some vey short sections - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
I'll combine them, are no real sources showing notability for the lesbian presses for example.

Done.

  • I would split out the list and make it sortable.

Done the split - to List of gay SF. Never seen a sortable list on WP, so no idea how to change that, but is now a different article anyway.

  • Alpha Flight's Northstar - was he gay from day one or was it only revealed in 1983 (hints) and definitively in 1992? This needs to be clearer.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Will do. Thanks!

You are very welcome, thanks for an interesting article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Smithfield, London[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. It recently got GA status and has been considerably improved lately. Feedback on how to further improve this towards FA status would be welcome.

Thanks, DarTar (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Passing on a review, as someone finally reviewed an article i submitted :-)

1. Lead seems very short for such a long article. Try summarising each of the sections to one paragrapgh each (History, Market, Development plans) and inserting into lead, making it 4 paras altogether. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article."
2. Citations! I counted 6 paragraphs makng factual claims with no citations, and other long paragraphs making multiple claims with a cite in the middle, but none for the rest of the text. Maybe some can be diplicated (not for every sentence, but more than now), or new references need to be found.
3. When founded / built? It's history section starts with an undated naming, then jumps to the monastaries. Was Smooth fields just the name of the fields, or was the area already devoloped? Did it grow up around the monasteries? It currently sounds like a village was already there?
4. Should the Nightlife and Racing stuff not be under 20th century / Today sections, rather than history? Or those should be subsections of history, without market etc in between? Ah, now i see: Why are the subsections of "The Market" called "Victorian Smithfield" instead of "Victorian Smithfield Market" (and similar subheadings? It makes is seem that that section is talking about the whole area, and not just the market.
5. Are there any explanations as to why it has such a large market, and was the site for excecutions. It is easily accesible / flat / some aristocrat decided so...? If the sources exist, would be interesting to know. What makes it an area worth a seperate name? Is that just historical? Does it have a legal meaning (separate councillor? School district?)? Would it be marked so on maps or in the A to Z, or is it a name for locals? I'm unsure at the moment!

Good luck!

Oh, and I found this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/backlog. If you found my comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article. Pass it on! :-)Yobmod (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


Southern Cross Expedition[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, apart from the always welcome suggestions for textual improvements, I am particularly interested in getting feedback on the images. I have often had image problems at FAC, and I'd like these, if they exist, to be identified and dealt with before FAC, should the article get there. The article is about a more-or-less forgotten British-Norwegian Antarctic expedition, important mainly because it preceded all the famous expeditions of a few years later, opened doors for them, but got little or no recognition. It forms part of a series of expedition articles, all others of which are now FAs, and it would be nice if this can be brought to a standard whereby it can join them. Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Image check: I corrected problems with the NOAA images, but the following issues remain:
    • Image:Bernacchi at WIdnes.jpg - needs a verifiable source (WP:IUP) and, as a derivative work, needs a copyright tag reflecting the status of the subject (CC-by 3.0 cannot possibly be correct for a 1910 image; CC was founded in 2001)
      • The source is presumably the postcard which the uploader scanned in, having obtained permission to do so from Catalyst Science Discovery, Widnes. That is what I have assumed from the details provided, and I have no other information. I have no idea what the correct copyright tag should be. The image is of secondary importance to the article – should I simply delete it, or do I have other options?
        • Several things: if the uploader had scanned it personally, the image would likely contain metadata and have a higher resolution. Also, if Catalyst Science Discovery Centre provided permission, that would need to be verifiable (i.e. we'd need contact information for the permission granter at the Centre or, preferably, an OTRS ticket). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks, but I won't be using it - it's not an important image for this article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:SouthernXdeparture.jpg - source does not set forth an author or date of publication; how can we corroborate the copyright tag?
      • I don’t think I can prove beyond doubt the date of first publication. My best bet may be to contact the web manager on the source, and ask permission to use the picture. Or if possible find a better ship image.
    • Image:Clem markham.jpg - source links directly to the image itself; where can we confirm the publication date to corroborate the PD-US tag?
      • I am working on this, but not too hopefully, and Clem may have to go.
    • Image:Borchgrevink.jpg - image does not appear at the linked source. Source also has the troubling disclaimer of "All images used on the Polar Pathways website are subject to copyright and can only be used with the express permission of the various copyright owners."
      • Well, it does appear at the linked source when I click on it. This image of Borchgrevink appears in his 1901 book, and I have assumed it to be PD on those grounds alone. As to the warning, can a source claim copyright over an image that appears to be PD through age?
        • I see it now (my adblock settings were too high). If this image appeared in a 1901 book, it's fine. Just add that book's details to the source information. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Borchgrevink Hut.jpg - I question the provenance; there is no metadata, drive-by uploader with talk page warnings and several deleted uploads, partial border on the right side of the image, etc.Quack? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I don’t understand your comments about metadata, drive-by uploads etc, but I take it that you have reason to doubt that the uploader actually is the author of the image. The question is, what am I supposed to do about it?
      • (later) I do understand the comments now, but am uncertain if they amount to a no-no. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Whether or not to include this image is merely a personal suggestion; there isn’t necessarily a policy or guideline to which I can point. My experience simply tells me that something doesn’t smell right. I wouldn’t oppose an FAC, or probably even comment, because all I have is a gut feeling; this image fits the profile of a typical copyvio, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is. From a perhaps philosophical standpoint, I think it's irresponsible for Wikipedia (FAs especially) to contain images for which there is reasonable doubt as to their provenance. I freely admit this to be a conservative approach, perhaps overly so, but I simply don’t care to risk misrepresentations. That being said, however, use your best judgment. If you’re not concerned with the image and believe its inclusion to be necessary, go ahead and leave it in. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
          • In view of this - and I agree with the ethical standpoint - I'll replace it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Newnes-Spy-1894.jpg is fine as-is, although it would be nice to know whether you (Brianboulton) scanned it yourself or obtained it from an online source and to make mention in the image summary accordingly. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I got it on-line and will mention this in the summary. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • One further question: on this is an image entitled: "Mr Colbeck, Mr Bernacchi and Mr Evans skinning a seal", which is explicitly stated as being from Borchgrevink’s expedition account. If I chose to use this image (say instead of the present Bernacchi one), would this statement of origin be enough to establish PD? In confusion, Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I yield to your expertise on this subject matter and these persons; if you believe the credit to "Borchgrevink's 1901 account of the expedition" refers to this, then the support is indeed present, although not optimally so. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I think "Borchgrevink's account of the 1901 expedition" can only refer to that book, since he wrote only one account, it was published in 1901 - and as you might put it, "Quack". Bits of the book (not the best bits) are available in e-book form; the actual volume is extremely rare and prohibitatively expensive. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (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 sources reliable?
      • http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/resources/sth_cross/
        • The site is the work of David Harrowfield, an acknowledged expert on the Cape Adare site which he has visited many times. He has authored various published articles and papers on the site, as well as contributing to the Antarctic Heritage Trust's 1995 book Icy Heritage. I think he can be considered reliable. I ought to have acknowledged his authorship in the list of sources, and now have. Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • http://www.south-pole.com/homepage.html
        • This is a very comprehensive site dealing with all aspects of Antarctic exploration history - I have frequently drawn material from it. Its individual articles all list reputable sources, and where I have particular knowledge, e.g. with the Shackleton and Scott expeditions, I can confirm that the relevant articles stick close to these sources. I have no doubts about the site's general reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/antarctic_ships/fram.htm
        • Coolantarctica is another very wide-ranging, and much-visited site. It is the brainchild of Zoologist Paul Ward, a former marine biologist with the British Antarctic Survey. He has built the site up to be an accessible source of information on many aspects of Antarctic history, geography, wildlife and conservation. I consider this to be an important and reliable source. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Fine with those. Having them out there helps with the whole FAC process! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: In the light of the above comments on images, while I await further clarifications, I have deleted the first four mentioned above, at least until I can verify beyond doubt their PD status. I have kept the hut image, because I can't fully understand the reasons for objecting to it. I have found some replacement images and maps; what this article desperately needs is a prose review. If someone doesn't come along soon, I'll review it myself. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A party including Bull and Borchgrevink had briefly landed, becoming (so they claimed) the first men to set foot on the Antarctic continent. – Wording is odd due to the “so they claimed” parenthetical statement. If there is doubt over whether they were indeed the first men to set foot on the Antarctic continent, that should be addressed in the text but perhaps worded differently.
    • I've transferred the explanation, in reworded form, from f/note to text.
  • In numerous addresses to learned societies he stressed the scientific work that could be carried out by a resident expedition, including the possibility of establishing the location of the South Magnetic Pole. - I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what a "learned society" is. Perhaps it is a UK term for a group of educated people?
    • I think its use goes beyond the UK - Wikipedia has a List of learned societies which includes 30 or more from the USA. But, to avoid possible difficulty with the term, I've reworded the sentence.
  • The others were Anton Fougner, scientific assistant and general handyman; Kolbein Ellifsen, cook and general assistant, and the two Sami dog-handlers, Per Savio and Ole Must. Savio and Must, at 21 and 20 years of age respectively, were the youngest of the party. - Check for puncuation consistency.
    • I've got rid of the semicolon, so the commas are consistent, but I'm still not happy with the sentence and will probably rework it.
  • Unloading began on 17 February. First ashore were the dogs (now reduced to 75 in number) with their two Sami handlers, who remained with them and thus became the first men to spend a night on the Antarctic continent. - I presume the number of dogs was reduced due to death, but some clarification as to why would be helpful.
    • You're probably right, but no explanation is given by the sources. Only one source mentios that 90 were taken, several mention 75 landing. I've dropped the mention of 90, and just left it that 75 landed
  • That day, Southern Cross departed for Australia. - Why?
    • To spend the winter there, I've added this.
  • The zoologist, Nikolai Hansen, had fallen ill during the winter. On 14 October he died, apparently of an intestinal disorder, and became the first person to be buried on the Antarctic continent. - The fact that he became the first person to be buried on the Antarctic continent is stated earlier. I would probably get rid of the first mention of it.
    • Done
  • Unfortunately, their chosen location was cut off from the continent's interior by high mountain ranges, and journeys along the coastline were frustrated by unsafe sea ice. - We shouldn't take a position on the matter, so I would get rid of "Unfortunately".
    • Done
  • This discovery was derided a few years later, by members of the Discovery Expedition, who claimed that the island "did not exist", but its position has since been confirmed at 71°38'S, 170°04'E. - Derided does not seem to be the right word. Perhaps doubted?
    • No, it's definitely "derided", if you read the sneery tone of the Discovery Expedition comments as recorded by Huxley, to the distress of Bernacchi, who was on both expeditions and thought well of Borchgrevink.
  • The first port of call in the Ross Sea was Possession Island, where a tin box left by Borchgrevink and Bull on the 1895 expedition was recovered. - What is the significance of this?
    • The significance (what the box contained, why it was left) is unexplained by the sources. I imagine it was left as proof that the Bull expedition had landed there.
  • They then proceeded southwards, following the Victoria Land coast, discovering further islands, one of which Borchgrevink named after Sir Clements Markham (who remained unimpressed). - By what? the Voyage itself or the naming of an island after him? And why?
    • I've expanded the text a bit, to clarify Markham's grudging attitude
  • Southern Cross returned to England in June 1900, to a cool welcome. – What is a cool welcome?
    • Opposite of a warm welcome. They were treated indifferently, rather than as heroes
  • General comment on footnotes: When you have two footnotes back-to-back, there should not be any spaces between them (ex: Correct:,[1][2] Incorrect [3] [4])
    • Noted.

Good work! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for these helpful comments, which ae much appreciated Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It is my pleasure -- good luck with this wonderful article! --Happyme22 (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments

I read this a few days ago and only got to make comments now - the comments from Happyme22 have improved what was already an extremely good article (and I have heard of learned societies in the US, and cool welcomes). Anyway, here are a few suggestions

  • Why is Norwegian linked in the lead, but British is not? I would either link both (or neither).
    • Thought I'd delinked both - have now.
  • Would it make sense to mention the earlier visit to Possession Island in the Background section?
    • Yes, now included
  • Is the second "in" here needed: Determined that he would lead such an expedition himself, Borchgrevink spent much of the next three years in Australia and in England attempting to gain financial backing.?
    • I've tweaked the sentence.
  • Was the ship in 1894-1895 named Antarctica (per Background) or just Antarctic (per Personnel)?
    • Antarctic is correct - fixed.
  • Would it make sense to link Hobart, Tasmania?
    • Yes, done.
  • How about A few years later his discovery was derided by members of the Discovery Expedition, who claimed that the island "did not exist",[44] but its position has since been confirmed at 71°38'S, 170°04'E.[45]?
    • Yes, done.
  • Would a different verb than "recovered" be better in samples of the continent's natural fauna and flora, and of its geology, had been recovered.[43]? Perhaps collected?
    • Yes. I am adding a bit more here, about he expedition's finds.
  • Would it make sense to include the many Antarctic firsts associated with the expedition in the lead? First overnight stay, first stuctures, etc.
    • This has been done.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Thank you for these various comments, all of which have been incorporated. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Glad to have helped - once the picture issues are resolved, and it is at FAC, please let me know. Have you tried looking on Flickr - there are enough tourists to Antarctica now that there may be some photos there that are free or could have their license changed on request perhaps. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

List of recurring characters in The Simpsons[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs it badly. Thanks, Tj terrorible1 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this aarticle and List of characters in The Simpsons could be merged Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Marging is a seperate issue (see talk), but i don't see much here to review.

Good
A. It is a list, and does it's stated job of listing characters, and keeps the entries concise.
B. It is apporpriately laid out and wikified.

Improvable
1. Would it be possible to use a simpsons poster image as fair use? I've seen some with many many minor characters - a relevant caption might make that allowed for fair use.
2. To get to featured list it needs citations for all of the characters, preferable not just citation to the episode they are in, but to a secondary and/or reliable source (DVD comentary is ok, and there are a quite a few Simpsons non-fiction books). Some are missing even cites to the primary source (the episode). Yobmod (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I owuld make it clear in the lead (which needs refs) what the criteria are for inclusion in this list - does a character have to appear in a certain number of episodes (two) to be listed here? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.


Christina Aguilera[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been subject to three consecutive failed GA nominations, following a deslist in 2006. For most of them, substantial effort has been put into getting these to a modern GA level. For example, each reviewer holds the GA and gives ideas on how to improve the article, which are all considered and improved upon. However, each nomination fails with something along the lines of "there are more problems that are present that are not listed". I'm establishing this peer review to stamp out all possible problems so that we not waste time and milestone template space on failed GAs.

Thanks, wL<speak·check> 08:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Giggy[edit]

  • I think the main thing holding this one back is the little things, and these things can be fixed! A few things that stand out at a glance;
  • Italics. Stuff like MTV shouldn't have it. Blender should. Check your ref publishers too (Ctrl+F is your friend).
  • I don't think Christina Aguilera (disambiguation) is necessary, as everything is linked in the article (so I'd get rid of the hatnote on the main article and delete the dab page).
  • All the images look fine, which is good.
  • "She was signed to RCA Records after recording "Reflection"[2] for the film Mulan." - the most reliable source you can find for this is a Romanian travel guide? Can do better.
  • The first few sentences need resorting. Ideally the first paragraph would be really broad; it should jump out and slap the reader with why she is notable. She's not notable for writing a song for a movie and getting a record label contract anywhere near as much as she's notable for Stripped, Back to Basics, and the other "big things" she's done.
  • Check for stuff like this throughout.
  • Consider the article length the lead could definitely be expanded some more. It really needs to make (decent) mention of each section.
  • Random prose issue: "Aguilera, however, had not yet publicly confirmed her pregnancy at the time" - remove the "however" and the commas and see if it flows better. I'll try and do a full prose review at some point.
  • I hope these comments help. 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). Cheers, —Giggy 05:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Auntof6[edit]

A few sentences that don't read as smoothly as they could, and suggestions for improvement

Sentence 1

In 2000 Aguilera was the face for make-up line Fetish where she worked in choosing colors and packaging for the line, she ended her contract the following year.
This needs more than a comma after "for the line". It could be separate sentences, or separate clauses of a single sentence. Suggestions:
  • In 2000 Aguilera was the face for make-up line Fetish where she worked in choosing colors and packaging for the line. She ended her contract the following year.
  • In 2000 Aguilera was the face for make-up line Fetish where she worked in choosing colors and packaging for the line; she ended her contract the following year.

Sentence 2

The second single, "Beautiful" received critical praise, the classically influenced ballad reached number one in several countries and peaked at #2 in the US.
Like the first example above, this should be two sentences, or at least two clauses. Put a period or a semicolon after "praise", or try this (note the change from "peaked" to "peaking" to have consistent verb tense):
  • The second single, the classically influenced ballad "Beautiful", received critical praise, reaching number one in several countries and peaking at #2 in the US.

Sentence 3

Aguilera's work has earned her numerous awards including five Grammy Awards amongst eighteen nominations.
This needs one or two commas, depending on the meaning. Were all 18 nominations for Grammies? In that case:
  • Aguilera's work has earned her numerous awards, including five Grammy Awards amongst eighteen nominations.
If some of the eighteen were for other awards, then:
  • Aguilera's work has earned her numerous awards, including five Grammy Awards, amongst eighteen nominations.


I haven't tried to list every example, but I hope these help. Auntof6 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


List of Arizona Cardinals head coaches[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hopful I can get this to FL status.

Thanks, Bucs (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviewglass.svg Review by Killervogel5

All right, if you're looking for an FL push, I'll give you the straight FLC review as if I were going to look at a nomination.

  • No lead image - certainly there is something you can use, it's very bland without it.
    • No, these's nothing, I looked everywhere. Bucs (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Image:Cardinals stadium crop.jpg will work fine. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 13:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • That's just where the team plays, it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. BUC (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
          • It's a start. It needs something; it won't pass FLC without one. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The bold text seems forced; it's not necessary, especially over a list of that many cities. For that matter, I think that it should just be Arizona Cardinals. You can talk about the other cities later.
  • 'The Cardinals franchise originates in 1898," - should be "originated"
  • Reference needed for the "Cardinal red" statement.
  • "They then joined the APFA in 1920 making them the oldest franchise in the NFL." - that doesn't make them the oldest team in the NFL.
  • There is a large proportion of red links in the table, I would really like to see stubs created for some/most of them before it hits the FLC.
  • Many people at FLC are going to ask for a sortable table and removal of the colspans. That will require you to re-link each occurence of each name and each season. That way, coaches' tenures are not split up either.
    • No piont really. It would only other them alphabetically. Bucs (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm just telling you what will be asked for during an FLC. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 13:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • List headers have to be linked (playoffs, awards, regular season, etc.), as many articles as can be appropriately found.
    • What should they link to? Bucs (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Playoffs#Playoffs_in_the_National_Football_League, NFL#Awards, and Regular season (NFL). KV5Squawk boxFight on! 13:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • For the playoff columns and the repeated coaches, I would much prefer to see em-dashes as opposed to en-dashes used for the blank years.
  • Coach of the year should be Coach of the Year.
  • Your footnote is blank.
  • "Arizona History" under General references is misspelled.
  • "The all-time leader in games coached is Jim Hanifan, with 89 and in wins is Don Coryell with 42.[2]" - Split this into two sentences or use a semicolon. It's stunted right now.
  • "Zero" is not a winning percentage - it should be "with a winning percentage of .000"
  • Don't italicize Racine Street Cardinals.
  • There should be a comma after Racine Street Cardinals.
  • "They then joined the APFA" - remove then.
  • De-link "As of 2008".
  • "over 1,100 games" - an exact number would be much nicer.
    • That would require a lot of updating. Bucs (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, these things happen. If it's going to be an FL, it will take a lot of work too. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 13:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • What I mean is it will need updating constently even if it get to FL status. BUC (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
          • That's why you don't update during an active season, only at the end. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "in a total of 88 seasons" - "a total of" is redundant; just "in 88 seasons" is good.
  • "In those games" - you can just get rid of that altogether.
  • "while Ray Willsey, Ray Prochaska and Chuck Drulis combined, are statistically the best, with a winning percentage of 1.000." - Having three coaches is a unique circumstance; a short explanation of why this happened should be included in the lead.

I hope this helps. I can re-review after you've looked it over if you'd like; just tell me on my talk page. If not, I will see it again at its FLC as well. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Philadelphia Phillies team records[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm going to make a push for WP:FL with it. I've decided to do this first rather than going straight to the FLCs because this list is quite a different format from the usual lists that I make. All input is welcome. Thank you! KV5Squawk boxFight on! 21:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • "The Philadelphia Phillies have played in 125 seasons in Major League Baseball" I would change played to participated to make it flow a little better
  • Leave a space between the numbers and symbols when these are used
    • There's a reason for this, but no time now... will address later. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, the reason is so that there are no line breaks in cells at lower resolutions. In addition, this is the way I've been doing symbols in my other FLs. I personally think it's ok, but it's my opinion. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 03:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Could the first two notes be placed in the key section would probably make more sense

Overall looks pretty good well done NapHit (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Ruhrfisch comments: Agree this looks pretty good.

  • I wondered if there were some team photos that could be used for the team records sections? Any team photo before 1923 would be PD-Old presumably.
    • I've found 1904 and 1915 team pictures on the Library of Congress website. Nothing remarkable about the 1904 team, but the 1915 team was the first year that the Phillies made the playoffs. I am going to retouch the photo and upload it soon. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I also wondered if it would make sense to have any introductory text at the start of the four major sections (Individual career records, Individual single-season records, Team single-game records, and Team season records. For example the team season records might also mention playoffs or World Series appearances, or the Team single game records might mention who the opponenets were for some of the records. Just an idea.
    • I could definitely do some mini-leads since this is divided up into sections; I don't know what I would write to add substance to the list. I'm having a hard time deciding what to put in there. Suggestions? KV5Squawk boxFight on! 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There been a strong movement to remove date linking in articles - it is not required, but it is something to be aware of. Not sure if it will arise at FLC.
    • Actually, in baseball articles, stand-alone years are supposed to be linked to the appropriate Major League baseball season or year in baseball article. I haven't seen anything like that pop up at FLC, but thanks for the heads-up! KV5Squawk boxFight on! 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps, thanks for your recent peer review work Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Should be done now, either questions answered or problems addressed. When this closes, I think I will slide it on over to FLC. Thanks for all your input! KV5Squawk boxFight on! 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Midway International Airport[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article, needs a peer review if it is going to become a FA. It is currently GA, but I think that improvment is still needed. All comments are welcome!! -Marcusmax (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 13:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from HG (talk · contribs) Hope these thoughts are useful.

  1. The lead is too long. I think some of the locational information can be moved below and key points put up higher. Looks to me like too many links, hard to read that way. Many some of the numerical details can be moved into relevant sections.
  2. Good photos, add dates. Are they regular size?
  3. Ok, I've never looked at an airport article before, but it's a bit dense with information that strikes me, no offense, as sometimes trivial. Like all the runway numbers or the list of Southwest's cities.
  4. Should previous airlines be under the airline section?
  5. The table of incidents is a good start. Maybe give full sentences in the summaries. Maybe combine "Aircraft (Registration)" as one column.
  6. Maybe revise history headings or add date ranges

Well, good luck, you all are on the right track.

Hope I corrected much of which you listed, some things are standard aviation however. -Marcusmax (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the WP:LEAD could be split. I think most FACS have a level of detail where at least a three paragraph lead is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Completed -Marcusmax (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Real Madrid C.F.[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to be a featured one, not just a good one. Thanks, Hadrianos1990 (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs):

  • I'll review in more detail later, but the lead needs to be expanded. The lead should have at least one sentence summarizing each section (level 2 header).
  • Section headers should not have inline citations in them.
  • Some web references are missing accessdates.
  • Prose isn't bad, but get a third-party copyedit anyway before FAC. Some examples:
    • "In July 2000, Florentino Pérez was elected club president vowing to erase the club's debt and modernise the club's facilities, however the primary electoral promise that propelled Pérez to victory was the signing of Luís Figo." Wrong verb tense.
    • "In the early 1990s, La Quinta del Buitre splited up after Martín Vázquez, Emilio Butragueño and Míchel left the club." Wrong verb tense and splitted is spelled wrong anyway.
    • "The fee of €76 million (over US$100 million, £45.8 million) for Zinedine Zidane's transfer from Juventus to Real Madrid in 2001 is the highest ever paid in History of football." The link should be to the history of football article (which shouldn't be capitalized), and insert a "the" before history.
  • "In January 2007, Real Madrid paid their debts of €224 million and fell to second spot behind Manchester United. However, they reached the top again in March by getting massive image rights of €762 million. Manchester United's debt was €872 million in 2007, down from €1.25 billion in 2005." Needs a source
  • Image captions should have periods only if they are complete sentences.
  • Consecutive inline citations should be in numerical order—"As a result, Real Madrid (with the addition of Fernando Morientes in 1997) finally ended its 32-year wait for the seventh European Cup in 1998 under manager Jupp Heynckes, defeating Juventus 1–0 in the final, thanks to a goal from Predrag Mijatović.[29][7]" Should be [7][29].

Dabomb87 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


Security and safety features new to Windows Vista[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want the strengths and weaknesses noted, to focus efforts for improvement.

Thanks, Bettering the Wiki (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Interesting article, but needs some work to get it to GA standards.

  • A major problem is that the article needs many more references, for example the whole Authentication and logon section has no refs. There are also lots of paragraphs without refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • I saw at least one internal link in the article - convert these to inline citations. Many of the current 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 lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and 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 - as it is the article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Lots of listy stuff that needs to be converted to prose
  • Watch for jargon - reduce or explain wherever possible - see WP:JARGON
  • The article is currently just a description of the features - there is almost no history of the development of the new features and there is no critical reaction to them either - what do the trade magazines say about these? Given the generally poor recation to Vista, I am guessing at least some of these have been criticized negatively.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


List of Wranglers (University of Cambridge)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a new listing that will hopefully provide a good way of jumping off into lots of interesting biographical articles. I've collated almost all of the information that is available online. To fill in the gaps I need to go and visit the University Library to look in the Cambridge University Calendar archives. I hope that once this is done, this list will be a good candidate for a Featured List, but would like some feedback on it generally to help it along the way.

Thanks, Mrh30 (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


Osteochondritis dissecans[edit]

Articles should not be simultaneously listed at multiple content review processes (GAN and PR); please pick one and close the other correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because while clearly not FA material, the article is quite thorough in its descriptions of the disease's signs & symptoms, causes, pathophysiology, treatment, etiology etc.. It seems at a good point to ask for review from the Wikipedia community at large as I prepare to nominate it for GA status.

Thanks, FoodPuma (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  • A good effort, with extensive sources. I would suggest applying WP:MEDMOS for the section headers, and generally try to adopt a style that is more likely to be intelligible to the layperson. For instance, not everyone knows what "incidence" means, but they will understand "occurs in X per 100,000 every year". JFW | T@lk 05:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments (from a complete non-expert)
  •  Done Form links to a dab page. Do you really need to link it at all?
  •  Done Image caption in the infobox is a fragment so it doesn't need a full stop.
  •  Done "as well as catching and locking " would it better to say "as well as the joint catching and locking..."? and "... restriction in its range .."?
  •  Done "100,000 every year,[4] " - I would make this a full stop.
  •  Done "with dogs - specifically the German Shepherd - being " - use en or em dash here instead of hyphen.
  •  Done There's possibly a more accurate link for your Medial condyle of femur rather than just condyle.
  •  Done No need to relink bone/cartilage in the pathophysiology section.
  • "of necrotic fragments, intertrabecular osteoid deposition" any chance of linking any of this?
  •  Done "Functional Anatomy" and other headings - no need to overcapitalise unless you're talking about proper nouns.
  •  Done "Dr. Smillie" who's he? What makes what he says relevant?
  •  Done Under the Physical Examination section (which should be Physical examiniation), you can once again either delink the things you've linked once already or just link femoral condyle to the article I suggested above.
  •  Done "Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is useful " - you've already abbreviated this once so just use MRI.
  •  Done "open physes" what are they?
  •  Done " 4--6" "four to six"
  •  Done " 5 years" five years.
  •  Done " autologous osteochondral plugs (OATS)" or "OATS procedure (osteochondral allograft transplant)." - confusing.
  •  Done Check page ranges in the references - use en-dash and not hyphen e.g. refs 10 and 12 to 15.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
  •  Done What about CT in diagnosis? And MR and CT photos?
  • What are the chances of a good outcome with conservative treatment? How much do they improve with surgical management? All it says is "prognosis is favorable"
  • What is the history of the disorder?
  •  Done In the prognosis section you bring up the stages of the condition when this was not discussed earlier.

Cheers Doc James (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


List of UEFA Intertoto Cup winners[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on how to improve this list before I take it to FLC thanks, NapHit (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A long way to go to be featured, I fear.
  • I think that the two basic problems in the title of the article need to be clearly and specifically addressed at the outset (there is no cup, and there were multiple winners each year until 2005).
  • I would have clearer separation of years
  • I would just use the well known a.e.t. rather than a rust-coloured box that requires the reader to go hunting for a key. If the text says "Aggregate 2–2, Montpellier won 3–0 in a penalty shootout " it seems unnecessary to have a box coloured to indicate that the game went to penalties.
There is no need to hunt for the key when it is at the top, andt his format is used in the other lists of this nature NapHit (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Use of flags is overdone: if Karlsruher is in Germany and Bordeaux is in France on line one, they are likely to still be in the same countries on line two.
  • Not unique to this article, but those trigrammes are not helpful: is someone does not recognise that flag with horizontal red, white and blue bands, the letters SCG are not going to solve it for them.
It will if they click on the link which is the whole point of them being there NapHit (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Well done for finding so many references, but there are a lot of non-English ones there.
That's not a problem as long as they are noted that are not English NapHit (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Dacia Chisinau were not in the 2007 tournament, neither were Lillestrom in the 2006 edition. The table makes it look like they were runners-up.
Yep I will add notes highlighting this, and they are also not included in the winners and runners-up table because of this NapHit (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If qualification for the UEFA cup is considered to be winning the Intertoto (which it is here from 1995-2005), then should there be 11 "winners" in recent years? If not, this discrpancy should be made clearer.
It is in the lead, which states that the format changed from 2005, whereby the team progressing furthest in the UEFA Cup wins the competition outright
In essence, I am not at all sure that the structure of this tournament (which is, in essence, not a tournament at all, but a qualification stage for another tournament) lends itself to a list in this format at all. Sorry I can't be more positive about it.Kevin McE (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Well it is a tournament albeit a qualification one, but its recognised by UEFA as an official tournament, therefore a list of winners I feel is relevant, certainly if a list of winning managers can achieve featured status. NapHit (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You should replace Karlsruher by Karlsruhe. It´s the name of the city. --Hullu poro (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost (season 5)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This needs to go through here to get to FTC. Thanks, –thedemonhog talkedits 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • For more out-of-universe writing, "A few days earlier" should be "A few episodes earlier" in the Cast section.
  • As I have expressed in the Lost WP, Kristin of E! has proven in the last two seasons that most of her information are just her guesses, and bad guesses at that. She never cites her sources (unless she interviews Darlton of course) and her judgement is clouded by vendettas against certain actors/characters. I cannot, in good faith, let her pass as a reliable source.
  • Got more ref info about June 16, 2008 Issue of The Dominion Post. for Gaunt's return, even if it's just a link to a fan post? Because that info is new to me (or I just have a poor memory).
  • Ref 22 says Sonya Walger is likely to return, but the wiki article drops the "likely".
  • Ref 25 is about last season, and we can't extrapolate from the writers' season 4 plan to what will happen in season 5.
  • Maybe mention that an ARG is going on (has it been stated that it leads up to S5 like the last ARG did?)
  • That's all I can find, and I am pretty much up-to-date with Lost stuff

sgeureka tc 22:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job finding the reference #22 inconsistency.  ;) I have continued the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost#Spoiler policy. I could link to this, but that would be a violation of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. Since I was gone for five weeks, I do not really know what is going on with the ARG and am yet to catch-up on it. Diff. –thedemonhog talkedits 18:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment This may seem a tad nit-picky but can we really call Richard Alpert "ageless"? I mean, it's Lost, the answer is not always the obvious one. For all we know, at this point, he's a time traveller or something. Maybe put "apparently" before the word ageless. -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 23:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, –thedemonhog talkedits 18:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • The first two paragraphs in Cast are gigantic. Please divide.
  • Ref number 9 needs a subscriber access, I'm pretty sure this should be mentioned somewhere. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 01:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark Stimson[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hoping for a GA with this article, please let me know if there's anything I still need to work on..............

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to add a link to his Newcastle United profile at [4] --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Jameboy (talk · contribs)
  • disambiguate Plaistow x2
  • [[Queen's Park Rangers F.C.|Queen's Park Rangers]] should be [[Queens Park Rangers F.C.|Queens Park Rangers]] x2. The redirect in itself is acceptable, but the club name must be rendered correctly in the article, i.e. no apostrophe.
  • I can't see a source that says that Millwall were interested in his services as manager(?) (The BBC article mentions only Gillingham and Vale)
  • His playing career (19 years) is given similar coverage to his managerial career (5 years) - just an observation really, I'm not meaning to imply recentism, but I was wondering if any more info could be added to his playing career? (although not just for the sake of it, obviously)

That's all I have for now. --Jameboy (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

    • I'll sort out the first three points ASAP. As for the last one, maybe his managerial career needs to be trimmed slightly but to be honest I couldn't really find much else to say about his playing career. He was very much a "journeyman" player who achieved very little of note (he didn't play in any "major" matches, set any records, or really do any especially noteworthy. I don't think the greater emphasis on his managerial career is a case of recentism, there's just much more to say! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Philitas of Cos[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thinking of FAC; need other pairs of eyes to look for items that would be obvious to an expert but are confusing to general readers, along with any other gotches. Also, this article is relatively brief, as not all that much is known about this important figure; is the article too short to be featured?

Thanks, Eubulides (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The automated review recommended an expanded lead and thorough copyediting for "engaging, even brilliant" prose. I expanded the lead, and hope the prose is engaging and brilliant enough. Eubulides (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

  • "was the most important intellectual in the early years of Hellenistic civilization, and was the first major writer who was both a poet and a scholar." Not an example of brilliant prose. And it is the introducing sentence. The rest however reads quite well IMO (though not a native English speaker).
  • "A Greek associated with Alexandria, he flourished in the second half of the 4th century BC". Check MoS about wikilinking. The last trend in FAC is not to link anything (neither full dates or simple years or centuries).
  • Some sources' full data are in "Bibliography"; some other full data are in "References". Why did you choose not to have all the books together? For instance, why Kayser, Bach etc. aren't they together with Spanoudakis, and the full data are in References? Maybe (and this is just an idea not necessarily correct) you could think about turning "Bibliography" into a prose section explaining how his fragments survived diachronically and are now available to us.
  • Reading the picture in the infobox I see that most sources say that this is not Philitas' image. Then, why should it be there? Just for the sake of having an image?
  • "and his mother, perhaps, Euctione". Why perhaps? Which is the ancient source here?
  • WP:MOS needs " " between any number and unit, symbol or abbreviation that it goes with, such as 92 BC or c. 340. Have a look here. I did some of this stuff. Check the rest.
  • "4th century BC", "Sixth Century B.C.". Inconsistencies in style. I fixed this one. Check the rest.
  • If this note at the end of the article is after you work inaccurate, remove it.

The article is short, but you said yourself that we don't know much about his life. I don't know therefore if it can be further expanded. I liked it in general, but I am not sure if it is ready for FAC; you could try first GAC for further feedback.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. To address the points one by one:
  • This edit trims one of the "was"es from the intro sentence. I don't see an easy way to trim the other one; for what it's worth, the 2nd one doesn't grate on my ear.
  • Your edit removed the wiklink to 4th century BC; thanks. I was never much of a fan of wikilinking to dates.
  • Philitas of Cos #Bibliography is about Philitas' works (as published in several editions). They're all books; I'm not sure what is meant by "all the books together". Only Spanoudakis is cited in References because his edition's commentary is in English, and the other editions' are not.
  • Image:Pseudo-Seneca-Brogi.jpg was there because it is an ancient representation of a type of person that Philitas is supposed to have looked like. It is no more a portrait of Philitas than it is of Hesiod (an article that also uses that image), as the ancient sculptor was just imagining the type (and had no access to an actual portrait of either Hesiod or Philitas). It is a bit of a liberty, yes, but this sort of thing is common in scholarly works that talk about ancient authors, so long as the image is accurately identified. For the same purpose, Andrew Stewart in The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book (2005, ISBN 0199267812), page 201, uses a photograph of a bronze dubbed Philospher from the Antikythera wreck (c. 250–200 BC) to illustrate his discussion of the (now-lost) Hecataeus bronze of Philitas. This is a much-better source than the 19th-century Brizio speculation, so I switched to Image:Antikythera philosopher.JPG, an image of the Philosopher. Thanks for bringing this up.
  • The cited source (Spanoudakis, p. 26) says of Philitas' parents: "His father was called Τήλεφος (Σ Theoc. Tt. 12a?, b, Procl. T. 18a — and Σ A.R. fr. 22?) and if T. 12a is correctly supplemented, his mother Εὐκτιόνη." I made this edit to fold this information in.
  • I checked for more spaces-before-"BC" problems and made this edit to fix what I found.
  • Normally the text uses the usual Wikipedia style "4th century BC", but "Sixth Century B.C." is part of the title of a work, so we should leave that alone. I searched for other inconsistencies with the usual Wikipedia style and found and fixed one, and also changed the title back to match that of the original book.
  • By "If this note at the end of the article is after you work inaccurate" I assume you are referring to the {{1911}}, which says "Public Domain This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainChisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "article name needed". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ". That note is still accurate; some of the phrases in Philitas of Cos are still taken from the 1911 encyclopedia.
Thanks again for your nice review; I hope I've addressed all the points satisfactorily. Eubulides (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I forgot to mention, the article went through GAC twice and is now listed as a good article. Eubulides (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wronkiew[edit]

The first sentence should include the years of his birth and death, as per WP:MOSBIO.
You could get by with fewer inline citations in the introduction.
I think some references to three digit years could be improved by adding "the year" or "BC".
This sentence is too long:

According to St. George Stock's analysis of the story in the Deipnosophistae (9.401e) of Athenaeus of Naucratis, Philitas worried so much over the liar paradox that he wasted away and died of insomnia, as, according to Athenaeus, his epitaph recorded:

Suggested replacement, which can probably be improved further:

Philitas worried so much over the liar paradox that he wasted away and died of insomnia, according to St. George Stock's analysis of the story in the Deipnosophistae (9.401e) of Athenaeus of Naucratis. According to Athenaeus, his epitaph recorded:

Again with this one:

His pupil Hermesianax wrote that a statue of him was erected by the people of Cos, depicting him as "frail with all the glosses"; his contemporary Posidippus wrote that a bronze of Philitas in old age was commissioned from the sculptor Hecataeus of Lesbos by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and that it "included nothing from the physique of heroes.

A short definition of preceptor would help to establish continuity with the later sentence "later tutors of Ptolemaic royal offspring..."
"After he returned to Cos he seems to have led a brotherhood of poets including Theocritus and Aratus" needs a reference citation.
Very briefly explain notation such as "9.401e" on first use.
"Fictitious funerary epigram merely pokes fun at Philitas' literary exactitude" uses uncommon words unnecessarily. Replace it with something simpler.
"Fragments quoted in later authors" should be "fragments quoted by later authors".
Rework sentences at the beginning of paragraphs to say the most familiar things first, for example this sentence:

Philitas wrote Disorderly Words (Ἂτακτοι γλῶσσαι, Ataktoi glôssai), a vocabulary explaining the meanings of rare and obscure poetic words, including words peculiar to certain dialects.

Philitas wrote a vocabulary explaining the meanings of rare and obscure poetic words, including words peculiar to certain dialects, titled Disorderly Words (Ἂτακτοι γλῶσσαι, Ataktoi glôssai).

"His most famous was Demeter (elegiacs)" it might be helpful to expand this to say again that elegiacs is a poetic style.

As a non-expert in Greek history, I found this article to be unnecessarily difficult to comprehend. There's plenty of room to add content to this short article, and I think you should use it by explaining some less common terms. Also, the article would be more readable if you broke up your longer sentences. Hope this helps. Wronkiew (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, since you explicitly asked for it, here is a list of terms in the article that I was not entirely familiar with: lexical study, elegiac verse, Dodecanese island, Anatolia, Suda, preceptor, Ptolemaic, grammarian, Antigonus I Monophthalmus, Megarian dialectic, Deipnosophistae, Boeotia, Persephone, hexameters, paegnia, epigram, and Musaeum. These terms could use some explanation. For example, nowhere in the article is it stated that Cos is an island in the Aegean Sea. Wronkiew (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that review, particularly for the list of unfamiliar terms. I made a series of edits that tried to address each of your points. With one exception: I couldn't come up with a good definition of grammarian that didn't make matters worse ("writer about and teacher of grammar"? but that's pretty wordy, and if grammarian is unfamiliar then grammar is also likely to be unfamiliar too), so I left grammarian alone and hope its wikilink to Grammarian will suffice. Eubulides (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

New York Giants seasons[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this to become a featured list. Before I take it to FLC, I'd like some ideas for refinement. There are two specific concerns of mine that I'd like advice on. First, there are quite a few red links for Giants seasons. Should pages be created for them in advance of a nomination? Second, I've recently read that colors in lists need symbols for accessibility. What exactly needs to be done in that regard?

Thanks, Giants2008 (17-14) 16:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
  • Firstly, to deal with your two specific issues...
    • Yes, I would create articles for the seasons, even if they are, right now, just summaries. Otherwise the list may fall foul of the "few red links" business.
    • As for colours and symbols, I suggest you read WP:MOS#Colors if you haven't already. For a good example of how your list appears to people with various types of colour blindness, run the page through this website - you soon see that some of the colours become very close to one another. Hence the need to add, say, an asterisk, a dagger etc as well as a colour to ensure that no-one is prejudiced against.
  • Link $ to the US version, just to be sure.
  • I'm seeing an odd column issue on the right-hand side of the table...
  • UPI could use being expanded on its first use.
  • "The statistics in the table above are current as of February 3, 2008." - I tend to italicise and simply state "Statistics correct as of February 3, 2008"
  • I would guess that New York Giants seasons is a sub-cat of New York Giants, so the supercat is redundant.

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Haven't gotten to the two important ones yet, but I have made the other changes. There were actually multiple issues on the right side, which are now fixed. Also, I assumed you meant that I should remove the general Giants category, which I did. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've now added symbols for all colors. Last up will be the season pages, which will take me some time. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Stubs have been created for all seasons. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • I don't like to contradict other reviewers, but per WP:$, "it is generally unnecessary to link the symbols of well-known currencies." (the $ sign) I doubt that readers will question what type of dollar the article is talking about, this an US-centric article.
  • "Four years later, the Giants earned another championship, and they made four appearances in the NFL Championship Game from 1939 to 1946, losing each time." "earned"-->won. I think "they" can be removed.
  • Notes e and f need inline citations.

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

All three done. Thanks for both of your reviews. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosauridae[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it and I want to submit it for GA. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Unlike most other groups of dinosaurs, most tyrannosaurids are known from very complete remains." "known from" confuses me.
  • "This has allowed a wide variety of research into their biology."
  • "Alioramus is known from the remains of an individual estimated at between 5 and 6 meters (16.5 to 20 ft) long" Same issue as above.
  • "Tyrannosaurus, Tarbosaurus, and Daspletosaurus had skulls which exceeded 1 meter (3.3 ft) in length,[10] with the largest Tyrannosaurus skull measuring over 1.5 meters (5 ft) long." with + -ing constuction makes for an awkward read.
  • "Unlike earlier tyrannosauroids and most other theropods, however, the maxillary and mandibular teeth of mature tyrannosaurids are not blade-like but extremely thickened and often circular in cross-section."
  • "Tyrannosauridae is uncontroversially divided into two subfamilies." Why is "uncontroversially" specified, readers will assume that.
  • "such as FMNH PR2081 ("Sue") most likely weighed over 5400 kg (6 short tons)" Short tons has already been linked in the lead.
  • "There is some limited evidence of social behavior among some of the tyrannosaurids."
  • "It has also been proposed that tyrannosaurids had such protofeathers." "proposed" doesn't seem to be the right word, maybe "theorized"?
  • "Bony crests are found on the skulls of many theropods, including numerous tyrannosaurids." "numerous" is vague.

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


Homer Simpson[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to have it at FA status by the end of the year. It still has a ways to go, but any tips or advice would be most welcome.

Thanks, Scorpion0422 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • quick comments
"as become the most popular and influential character in the series" - needs a reference
Per WP:LEAD, references are not needed in the lead if they are provided later on, and a lot of evidence of this is provided in the reception and influence sections
I just prefer to see disputable statements like this to be linked to a ref
"embodies ...stereotypes" also
What's wrong with that?
I meant it having a ref too
e Tracey Ullman Show short "Good Night" - appears twice in the intro
"nt "D'oh!", is now included in the Oxford English Dictionary." since what edition? needs reference
Reference is provided in the d'oh section. Year is now included
I am not 100% happy with naming of the section "Character"
Any suggestions for what it could be renamed to?
"Character development" should probably be development
I've checked some other FAs, and they all call it "character development"
since article talks about appearances in the show, what about appearances in other places?
I am extremely against "in pop culture" lists. Now if we're talking about something reported in reliable sources like Homer giving a Leno monologue or appearing in the cancer special, yes. But if we're talking about "Homer appeared in the Family Guy episode PTV where he was hit by Stewie" then I say no because most of these appearances are extremely minor and NN.
I added "series" at teh end of the title of the section Role... which might not be 100% correct. It might have been better to use franchise instead. Anyways, try to split the show and other parts of the franchise, and present them separately.

Nergaal (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The role in the Simpsons section is only about his role in the show. His other appearances may be given their own section later (I haven't decided yet). Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 14:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then try having a section with his role other parts (e.g. games?) When I reviewed the article, it was 100% targeted at the series while made the reader feel like Homer might have a role somewhere else. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "The book The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer includes a chapter analyzing Homer's character from the perspective of Aristotelian virtue ethics." should be expanded and moved to the analysis section. Even though I have the philosophy book, I don't feel qualified to write about it. --Maitch (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


Germanium[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure it covers everything it needs to become a FA. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I just gave the article a quick read. It is extensively referenced and looks fairly complete, but I'm no germanium expert! I apologize for the vagueness of the following comments because because I was not taking notes of each individual issue during this first reading. That said, the article does need copy editing. I noticed several spelling and grammar mistakes, and sentences that could be clearer and paragraphs that could be made more cohesive. There are one-sentence paragraphs that will almost surely raise complaints during the FA process. And there are the usual "unreliable" web sources. There is one webelements.com citation, one to jrank.org, and a few other .com's that I haven't examined in detail (maybe some are appropriate). Finally, the lead looks a bit disorganized. It is not clear what the topic of each paragraph is; I have the impression that organometallic compounds are mentioned too soon in the lead and for no apparent reason; the lead does not make explicit that ekasilicon is germanium. --Itub (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right facts covered by the strange references need a second look, but my first search resulted in nothing. Copyediting for sentence improvment should be done, but for sure not from me, a native speeker is 10times faster. Some of the strange sentences are my fabrications, so I invite anybody to play around with them! The lead was shorter yesterday, and I added things, but not perfect enough. and the ekasilicon was also part of this addition.--Stone (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The reverences which are green are OK from my side.

  1. WebElements.com.
  2. Bulletin for the History of Chemistry
  3. Elementymology & Elements Multidict
  4. Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft
  5. The Manufacturer and Builder
  6. J. Prak. Chemie
  7. J. Prak. Chemie
  8. Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft
  9. Comptes rendus
  10. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
  11. NY Times (1953).
  12. Computer History Museum. might be substituted by Teal, G.K. (1976). "Single crystals of germanium and silicon—Basic to the transistor and integrated circuit". IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices. 23 (7): 621– 639. or [5]
  13. University of Cambridge.
  14. Chemical & Engineering News, American Chemical Society.
  15. Physical Reviews
  16. National Academy of Engineering.
  17. U.S. Geological Survey (2008 2008)
  18. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  19. de Gruyter
  20. Los Alamos National Laboratory.
  21. Science.jrank.org.
  22. Kristall und Technik
  23. WebElements.com
  24. Journal of the American Ceramic Society
  25. Journal of Applied Spectroscopy
  26. Chemical Communications
  27. Pure & Appl. Chem.
  28. Chemical Reviews
  29. Nuclear Physics A
  30. Alpha Fusion Electrical Energy Valve Patent
  31. Ore Geology Reviews
  32. Investor.com the USGS Comodity report states the same
  33. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse:
  34. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse:
  35. Astrophysical J.
  36. Nature
  37. U.S. Geological
  38. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
  39. Russian Journal of Non-Ferrous Metals
  40. Minerals Engineering
  41. U.S. Geological Survey.
  42. Stanford Research Institute
  43. Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophys.
  44. International Journal of Polymeric Materials
  45. III-Vs Review
  46. Kubton.com
  47. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices
  48. Progress in Photovoltaics Research and Applications
  49. Progress in Photovoltaics Research and Applications
  50. Carbon
  51. Proc. SPIE,
  52. ORTEC Manufacturer
  53. International Journal of Modern Physics E
  54. Nuclear Physics A
  55. Investigational New Drugs
  56. Anal. Chem.
  57. stopcancer.com.
  58. American Cancer Society American Cancer Society
  59. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
  60. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
  61. The Galaxy
  62. Harper's new monthly magazine
  63. Elementymology & Elements Multidict
  64. Elementymology & Elements Multidict. Changed to Nobel Lectures, Chemistry 1942-1962. --Itub (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

--Stone (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Talk:Germanium/GA1#Chemistry_accuracy for comments posted by Axiosaurus. --Itub (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Digermane[edit]

while the oxidation state +3 occurs only in the Ge26+ cation. The sentence and the reference to germanium III hydride seems dubiuos. The digermane which is Ge2H6 formally is germaniumIII but it is not germaniumIII hydride, C2H6 is also not carbonIII hydrid , but ethane.--Stone (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


Concerned[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article recently passed GAN, and I want to know how it could be further improved.

Thanks, Diego_pmc Talk 08:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Giggy[edit]

  • Image:Hlcomic.png doesn't really meet NFCC requirements at the moment. Add some critical commentary or something like that to the infobox related to that specific scene, if possible. Using that image for identification goes against WP:NFCC#8, I believe.
  • "a printed version of the comic. However, this proved impractical due to the low resolution of the comic" - repetition of "comic"... maybe "its low resolution" instead?
  • Maybe talk about the comic's storyline (etc.) in the lead too?
  • "as a "hobby"" - does that need to be quoted?
  • "In the same interview he also stated" - either "in the same interview" or "also" is redundant (take your pick)
  • "a comic similarly based" --> "a similar comic based", perhaps?
  • "The creator of Concerned also said" - it gets repetitive to have almost every sentence starting with "X said..." if you get my drift.
  • "The webcomic Concerned..." - just say "Concerned", by now you've made it clear it's a comic.
  • "Throughout the comic Gordon Frohman..." - who's he?
  • "this name was suggested to Livingston by Sam Golgert" - who's Sam Golgert?
  • "the company was complementary about the comic based on their game" - this could be worded better... "the company was pleased to have a comic based on their game" (is that too basic?)...
  • "Valve also intended collaborating" - intended ON collaborating?
  • I hope these comments help. 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). Cheers, Giggy (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I tried to address all the issues you raised. About Hlcomic.png, I edited the infobox caption, and also wrote a more detailed description of its purpose of use on the image's page. Diego_pmc Talk 16:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It's looking really good, well done. I, um, don't really have much more to add! Planning on an FAC? Giggy (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm looking forward to that, yes. Diego_pmc Talk 06:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact, I don't really have a reason I should wait, so I nominated it. Diego_pmc Talk 09:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Burger King legal issues[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after a recent FA review that resulted in the article not being promoted, I made several changes and fixes as well as had others review the article for structure and errors. I am hoping to have others review the article to see if there is any more that needs to be done before I renominate it.

Thanks, Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I agree with most of the FAC complaints about this article - it is overly wordy and could be better organized. I would look at each FAC comment and try to make sure it had been addressed. I would ask for help with the prose from one of the copyeditors at WP:PRV. When several people think it is much improved, I would ask the FAC commenters to take a second look.
  • The article is titled Burger King legal issues so why is the Animal welfare section in the article? Is there a lawsuit in there I missed? Should the article be called Burger King legal issues and controversies instead? Same for the Labor and Islam sections. Why are they in this article?
  • I also fail to see the applicability of some of the information in the Infobox to this article - what does the percent increase in net income in 2007 over 2006 have to do with any of the rest of the article?
  • Provide context for the reader - for example the v. Hoots, v. Hungry Jacks, and Labor sections do not have the date in the first sentence. See WP:PCR
  • The article is very choppy and disconnected - what is the common thread besides the involvement of Burger King in all of these incidents? They are not all legal cases, they are not in chronological order, they do not seem to be grouped in some legal sense (but I am not a legal expert). This needs to be better organized and flow better.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply
  1. I don't understand, I didn't read that from their comments.
  2. The article deals with legal issues, and not all legal issues involve lawsuits. It also covers areas such legal ethics, lawful business practices and legal compliance. Additionally matters of business ethics also fall under the aegis of legal issues. explanation:
    1. The animal welfare section is about animal rights as well as contract law (BK changed their supplier contract format in response to the protests);
    2. The nutrition section shows how the company complies with laws that have sprung up over the years, and how they