Wikipedia:Peer review/September 2011

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

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


Contents

Jessica Mauboy[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Zappa123 and I have made improvements to the article and hopefully it'll be ready for a GA nomination soon. But first we would really like to know if theres any improvements that need to be made. Thanks, Zappa123 (talk) and Oz talk 00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Scott Joplin[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a page which has been worked on by a large number of Wikipedians and it has got to the stage where there is a wealth of information which reflects this composer's life. While there are certainly areas which need development I think it has reached a level where the eye of an outsider would help. Is it within reach of a GAN (which is the obvious next stage)? Is there any area which needs further development or explanation for the general reader?

Many thanks in advance, Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Doing...  Done A really interesting article about one of my favourite pianist and composer in the post-Renaissance period. I will do a comprehensive review!--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 16:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
General
Texas (c. 1867–1880s)
  • "After moving to Texarkana a few years after Joplin was born, Giles began working as a common laborer for the railroad." – I would change it to "After moving to Texarkana a few years following Joplin's birth, Giles began working as a common laborer for the railroad."
  • ""He did not have to play anybody else's music. He made up his own, and it was beautiful; he just got his music out of the air."[7]" ndash; it would be nice to name the author of this quote in the text
Southern states and Chicago (1880s–1894)
  • "By the early 1890s, Ragtime had become popular among African-Americans in the cities of St. Louis and Chicago." – link the cities. I don't think they are common enough; there are still many who don't know these cities. As opposed to this, linking "Los Angeles", for example, would be overlinking.
  • "The Exposition was attended by 27 million Americans and had a profound effect on many areas of American cultural life, including ragtime." – any reason to have "Exposition" capitalicized?
Missouri (1894–1907)
  • "In the 1890s, the town had a population of approximately 14,000 and was the centre of commerce and transport for the region[21] with the town's saloons and brothels of the red-light district on Main St, nicknamed "Battle Row", provided employment for musicians, and it is likely that Joplin worked in this area." – first, change "centre" to "center". He is an American, so should be the grammar. Second, rewrite the sentence and split it, if needed. It is a typical multi-clause sentence, difficult to read.
  • "Also, he performed in the Queen City Cornet Band, and his own six-piece dance orchestra." – Remove "Also". It is redundant and doesn't improve anything.
  • "A tour with his own singing group, the Texas Medley Quartet, gave him his first opportunity to publish his own compositions and it is known that he went to Syracuse, New York and Texas." – delink "Texas". Overlinking
  • "After several unsuccessful approaches to publishers, Joplin signed a contract with John Stillwell Stark a retailer of musical instruments who later became his most important publisher, on 10 August 1899 for a 1% royalty on all sales of the rag, with a minimum sales price of 25c.[32]" – comma missing: "After several unsuccessful approaches to publishers, Joplin signed a contract with John Stillwell Stark, a retailer of musical instruments who later became his most important publisher, on 10 August 1899 for a 1% royalty on all sales of the rag, with a minimum sales price of 25c.[32]
  • "...and under the terms of Joplin's contract with a 1% royalty would have given Joplin an income of $4, or approximately $105 in current value)." – check the end of the sentence.
  • "Joplin could not meet the company’s payroll or pay for the company’s lodgings at a theatrical boarding house. " – replace second appearance of "company's" with "its". Also, per MOS:PUNCT, a curvy apostrophe is not recommended; you used "’" instead of "'"
New York (1907–1917)
  • "In 1914, Joplin and Lottie self-published his "Magnetic Rag". using the name the "Scott Joplin Music Company" which had been formed the previous December.[45]" – remove the period after "Magnetic Rag"
  • "She noted that he "plunged feverishly into the task of orchestrating his opera, day and night, with his friend Sam Patterson standing by to copy out the parts, page by page, as each page of the full score was completed.[46]" – close this quote
  • "By 1916, Joplin was suffering from tertiary syphilis and a resulting descent into madness[47][48]" – period
  • "After Joplin's death at the age of just 49, from advanced syphilis, he was buried in a pauper's grave that remained unmarked for 57 years. His grave at Saint Michaels Cemetery, in East Elmhurst, was finally honored in 1974." – needs in-line citations
  • I am a little bit disappointed about this section. The mention of his dead was so unexpected
Works
  • "...which blended both African-American musical styles with European forms and melodies, and which first became celebrated in the 1890s; ragtime.[7]" – the semicolon should be replaced with a colon
  • "This new art form, the classic rag, combined Afro-American folk music's syncopation and nineteenth-century European romanticism, with its harmonic schemes and its march-like tempos.[40][52]" – link "romanticism"
  • "Joplin wrote his rags as "classical" music in miniature form in order to raise ragtime above its "cheap bordello" origins and produced work which Opera historian Elise Kirk described as "...more tuneful, contrapuntal, infectious, and harmonically colorful than any others of his era."[11]" – "Opera" shouldn't be capitalicized
Treemonisha
  • "and to celebrate the music of his childhood at the end of the 19th Century." – "Century" shouldn't be capitalicized
  • "Curtis's conclusion is similar: "In the end, Treemonisha offered a celebration of literacy, learning, hard work, and community solidarity as the best formula for advancing the race."." – remove the last period
  • "Berlin describes it as a "fine opera, certainly more interesting than most operas then being written in the United States", but then states that Joplin's own libretto showed the composer "was not a competent dramatist" with the book not up to the same quality as the music.[64]" – too many "than"s and "then"s in one sentence; what about "but later states that Joplin's own libretto showed the composer "was not a competent dramatist" with the book not up to the same quality as the music.[64]"?
Performance skills
  • "The second roll recording of "Maple Leaf Rag", on the UniRecord label from June 1916 was described by biographer Blesh as "... shocking... disorganized and completely distressing to hear."[70]" – remove the comma
Legacy
  • "Just over thirty years later he was recognized, and later historian Rudi Blesh would write a large book about ragtime, which he dedicated to the memory of Scott Joplin.[51]" – deitalicize "was"
  • "And when he died, notes jazz historian Floyd Levin, "those few who realized his greatness bowed their heads in sorrow. This was the passing of the king of all ragtime writers, the man who gave America a genuine native music."[77]" – "After his dead, jazz historian Floyd Levin noted: "those....""
Revival
  • "Billboard" should be italicized, as magazine
  • "The Billboard "Best-Selling Classical LPs" chart for 28 September 1974 has the record at #5, with the follow-up "Volume 2" at #4, and a combined set of both volumes at #3. Separately both volumes had been on the chart for 64 weeks. In the top 7 spots on that chart, 6 of the entries were recordings of Joplin's work, three of which were Rifkin's.[82]" do not use "#", instead write it out, eg "at number..."
  • "Rifkin did a tour in 1974, which included appearances on BBC Television and a sell-out concert at London's Royal Festival Hall.[84] " – replace "Rifkin" with "he"
  • "In 1979 Alan Rich in the New York Magazine wrote that by giving artists like Rifkin the opportunity to put Joplin's music on record Nonesuch Records "created, almost alone, the Scott Joplin revival."[85]" – delink "Nonesuch Records" and remove "record" before it.
  • "In January 1971, Harold C. Schonberg, music critic at the New York Times, having just heard the Rifkin album, wrote a featured Sunday edition article entitled "Scholars, Get Busy on Scott Joplin!"[86]" – "New York Times" should be "The New York Times" and italicized, as newspaper. See also MOS:ITALICS
  • "His version of "The Entertainer" reached #3 on the Billboard Hot 100 and the American Top 40 music chart on May 18, 1974,[89][90]" – replace the number sign with "at number 3"; we mostly do not use it on Wikipedia.
  • "Thanks to the film and its score, Joplin's work became appreciated in both the popular music world and in the classical music world, becoming (in the words of music magazine Record World), the "classical phenomenon of the decade".[91]"
Other awards and recognition
  • Needs in-line citations
References
Notes
  • Ref 12: Publisher is "Dictionary.com, LLC" and work "dictionary.com"
  • Ref 16: a space missing between "p." and the number; check other references
  • Ref 38 and 41: The same website
  • Ref 48: Link Time
  • Ref 68: "31 July 2010" should be "2010-07-31"; be consistent
  • Ref 94: same
Bibliography
  • same here: be consistent in date formats
  • isbn needed for several books
  • Only use the {{cite book}} template
External links
  • Ok
Recordings and sheet music
  • same
Lead

Ok, now to your questions: Yes it can pass the GAN. The article is comprehensive and informative. You can add a section about Joplin's influences and the other way around, but that is not mandatory. But all in all this article is impressively great! --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 12:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for all these comments. I (or any other editor) will work through these suggestions. Great work! Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Done almost all of the above, except for fleshing out the New York section, adding some of the additional awards refs, and fixing some of the referencing so its all in the bibliography rather than the text.Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The "Other awards and recognition section" needs to be merged into paragraph form and expanded. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning that; it was on my mental list of things to do! Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Rachel McAdams[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to submit it for Featured Article status when it reaches the necessary standard. I'd be grateful for any feedback. Which sections require more detail? Does it read well?

Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

This article is well-focused and is grounded in a variety of reputable sources and it would be nice to see it sitting alongside the featured articles of her co-stars Cillian Murphy and Eric Bana. It's got a way to go before it reaches featured status though. There are many FA-standard actor articles on which to model this one (see WP:ACTOR#Featured articles).

  • Lead
    • This is a good lead and the paragraphs mirror the structure of the main article well. As the article develops however, so should the lead.
  • Early life
    • As the lead isn't part of the article proper you should begin this section with her full name.
  • Career
    • Instead of breaking up this section by decade, consider separating it by her pre-break career (2001-2006), her post-break career (2008-Sherlock Holmes) and her career as a star (Morning Glory-present). That makes it a little more interesting, and you can focus the article on how her career has developed instead of trying to slot it into date ranges that don't quite fit.
  • Early 2000s
    • Most of this section is "She was in [film name]. It did well/poorly at the box office and she got good/bad reviews." Try to incorporate information on how she prepared for roles and specific reviews of her performance rather than just how well/poorly the film did. This information won't be available for everything but there should be some good stuff for the big films like Mean Girls and Red Eye -- in the Mean Girls paragraph you've just got "McAdams herself received favourable reviews,[25][26] with USA Today praising her "comic flair".[27]" Can you incorporate opinion from refs 25 and 26?
    • In The Notebook paragraph, "New York Times" should be "The New York Times" and it doesn't need re-linking in the Wedding Crashers and Family Stone paragraphs.
    • "In the smash-hit comedy[...]". This is back-of-DVD-box writing and not really suitable for an encyclopedia.
  • Late 2000s
    • "Variety's critic felt that, while McAdams had been "regrettably absent from the big screen since The Family Stone nearly two years ago" and here "endows her readings with tender feeling", "her natural vivaciousness and spontaneity are straightjacketed by the format".[56]" The quotes in this sentence are extremely awkward and underwhelming. My rule of thumb when incorporating quotes from reviewers is only include the quote if you would lose the reviewers' intended effect if you reword it. The first quote doesn't add anything to the article, the second is quite good and the third is quite confusing when taken out of context. What format does McCarthy mean? The genre of the film?
    • This section features more multiple linkings of the same publication (NYT and Variety).
    • "2010's Morning Glory, a behind-the-scenes look at an ailing morning television program[...]" This wording makes the film sound like a documentary.
    • "While critics found the movie "formulaic"[...]" Who are these pluraled critics?
  • Filmography
    • Good use of sorting but the Notes column should be unsortable.
  • Further reading should be below references. Are page numbers available for the InStyle article?
  • References
    • Some dates are formatted as MONTH-DAY-YEAR and others as YYYY-MM-DD. This should be consistent.
    • Some publishers are in brackets and others aren't. This should be consistent.
    • There are bare URLs in many places, particularly in the 70-100 range. You need author, publication date, title, publication, and access date for web refs.
    • "New York Times" should be "The New York Times".

Bradley0110 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review it - very helpful. It'll take me a little while but I'll work through the issues outlined.Popeye191 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


WindSeeker[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping in the near future that the article will become a featured article. Before I nominate it for the status, I will like someone else's opinion of if the article is fine the way it is or what needs to be changed / fixed / improved in order for the article to become a featured article on Wikipedia. Thanks, Dom497 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Review no longer needed.--Dom497 (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Coconut crab[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was a Featured Article in the olden days, back when referencing standards weren't so strict. I have been working to reference existing material, which isn't all that challenging, but I could do with extra input about what content it should include, where the tone might be inappropriate, and similar improvements. I would like to see it at least up to GA status before too long.

Thank you, Stemonitis (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. The prose is clear and easy to read. The images are fetching. Here are a few suggestions from a non-biologist:

  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to try to mention something from each of the main text sections. The existing lead says little or nothing about the "Respiration", "Sense of smell", and "Life cycle" subsections or the "Conservation" section.
  •  Done. I will also revisit the lead after any significant modification to the text. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The lead should include nothing important that does not appear in the main text sections. The existing lead has interesting material about the crab's alternate names and the reasons for them, but I don't see this material in the main text. It might be useful to add a "Name" section that would include the material about rumors of pot-stealing and also the material from the "Diet" section that talks about the perception that the crabs in some sense steal coconuts. This material might fit nicely into the "Taxonomy" section as in Macaroni Penguin, a featured article. Perhaps the material about "unga or kaveu" from the "Relationship with people" subsection would fit in here as well.
  • I would consider moving the Taxonomy section to the top rather than the bottom, as it is, for example in Marsh rice rat and Bog turtle, both featured articles.
  • I don't see a lot of overlinking, but I don't think I would link "tail", "leg", "abdomen", "lung", or any other words that I thought were commonly understood without an explanation. On the other hand, "pereiopods" (in the "Life cycle" section), a term few readers will know, might be linked to Decapod anatomy.
  • I found the tidbit about Amelia Earhart quite interesting. I will probably never forget it.
  • "Thomas Hale Streets" should be redlinked only once.
  • Claims such as "Coconut crabs often try to steal food from each other and will pull their food into their burrows to be safe while eating", which appears in the "Diet" section, should be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. Most of the claims in the article are sourced, but in the case of paragraphs with a source for something in the middle, it's hard to tell what might support the rest of the paragraph. Every paragraph needs a source, but so does every unusual claim, every set of statistics, and every direct quotation.
  • The license for File:Birgus latro (Bora-Bora).jpg may not survive close scrutiny. It should include a specific date rather than the vague "old film picture". Was the scanned material really in the public domain? How can we tell?
  • I am confused here. The uploader User:Mbz1 appears to be Mila Zinkova, the author of the photograph, and has released the image under a free licence. The date of the photo is thus irrelevant, isn't it? I see no claim that anything is in the public domain. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, oops! I read too hastily and misinterpreted "old film picture" to mean "movie" when it must mean a photo that Mila Zinkova took with a film camera and then scanned later. Finetooth (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The Manual of Style generally frowns on fancy quotes and recommends block quotes for quotations of four lines or more. The Streets quotation is so short that I would include it in the text with ordinary quotation marks around it, or I might simply paraphrase it.
  • The bibliography entries for books should include the place of publication as well as the publisher. You can usually find this kind of information via WorldCat.
  • The ISBN numbers should include the hyphens. A handy converter tool lives here.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting subject; certainly something that would make a good featured article. At this stage, the lead section is a little short; for an article of this length, the lead should be two to three times what it is now. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)#Length. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


Days Gone Bye[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article for GA soon. I would like some feedback on the article so I can possibly make some improvements.

Thanks in advanced, DAP388 (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2011

Taking up the review (will be done in steps) Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead
  • "Days Gone Bye" was well received by television critics, whom' expressed that the episode felt cinematic - Should probably be "... who expressed" as it is followed by a predicate.
  • "Several critics noted comparisons to the episode with those of Lost." - Did they write about comparisons others had made, or did they compare it to Lost?
  • "The episode garnered a 2.7 rating in the 18–49 demographic, translating to 3.6 million viewers according to the Nielsen ratings" - how about "The episode garnered a Nielsen rating of 2.7 in the 18–49 demographic, translating to 3.6 million viewers."
Plot
  • "... they are faced with two armed suspects. Grimes, unaware that there is a third suspect, is shot in the chest." - This doesn't read well, perhaps rephrasing?
  • "He is severely wounded and is in a coma." - How about "He is severely wounded and falls into a coma."
  • "He investigates the building and shortly leaves the scene. Grimes returns to his home, only to find the door being open." - How about "He investigates the building and shortly thereafter leaves the scene. Grimes returns to his home, only to find the door hanging open."
  • "His wife and child are no where to be seen. As he frantically searches for any signs of his family, and young boy and his father approach the scene. Grimes is suddenly assaulted with a shovel, and he loses consciousness in the process." - What about the zombie that he tries calling? That's rather important.
  • "... puts him out of his misery" - Is there an NPOV way of saying this?
  • "... "sorry this happened to you". - Should be "... "sorry this happened to [her]"
  • "... grisly discovery ..." - Grisly seems to be POV
  • "... but walkers grab at him from both ends." - Why should the reader know what walkers are? Hasn't been explained yet.
  • Style note: Some of these simple sentences could be made compound.
Conception
  • "At the 2010 Comic-Con International in San Diego, California, Darabont himself had been a fan of the zombie genre since seeing George A. Romero's 1968 film Night of the Living Dead when he was fourteen-years-old." - Should be something like "At the 2010 Comic-Con International in San Diego, California, Darabont said that he had been a fan of the zombie genre since seeing George A. Romero's 1968 film Night of the Living Dead when he was fourteen-years-old.
  • "Darabont recalls walking into a comic book store in Burbank, California and seeing The Walking Dead on the shelf in 2005." - This doesn't read well to me, but I can't think of a fix.
Writing
  • "Jack LoGiudice also joined the writing team, along with Robert Kirkman, also an executive producer." - Executive producer of the episode? Part of the series? An unrelated series?
  • Rather heavy on details not related to this episode.
Filming
  • "David Tattersall was the director of photography for the pilot episode with David Boyd as the director of photography on the remainder of the episodes." - David Boyd's bit may not be pertinent to this episode.
Marketing
  • "In the documentary, comic series creator and show executive producer Robert Kirkman as well as artist Charlie Adlard say they are pleased with how faithful the show is to the comic and remark on the similarities between the actors and the comic's original character drawings" - Should be "... say that they ..."
Ratings
  • "Upon airing, the epimsode was viewed by over 5.35 million viewers, making it the highest rated series premiere in the network's history" - "Upon airing" seems unnecessary.
  • "The terrestrial premiere (including Ireland and Scotland) aired on Channel 5 on April 10, 2011, garnering 1.5 million viewers in the process." - "... in the process" should be cut.
Overall
  • Make sure somebody from the Guild of Copy Editors takes a look. I've seen missing spaces, commas, tense agreement, and misspellings.
  • Don't overlink. Don't wikilink common terms.
  • Seems to be an over-reliance on quotes. Could you trim them a bit?
  • There is a dead link. Could it be fixed?
Looks pretty good, but it needs some work as outlined above. Perhaps, if you have the time, you could help review another article; it may help you look at this one more critically as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips! Sorry it took so long for me to reply. I have school right now. DAP388 (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Santos FC[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is getting closer and closer towards becoming FA material I know there is still a bit more work to do but I would like imputs from other editors to see what everyone thinks. Plus, I think I have shown, with this page, that there are many things other editors could use to upgrade other football clubs' pages, new ways to do things. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

It is a welcome sight to see a peer review request for an article about an important team from a country that is under-represented on Wikipedia in terms of well-developed articles. Unfortunately this article has a very long way to go before it is FA material. FA nominations are a daunting place for first-time nominators; reaching good article status is probably a better thing to aim for before heading to FAC.

  • The lead is way over-referenced, ten references for a single fact is probably the most extreme I have ever seen.
  • The referencing for the rest of the article swings between over-zealous and and completely absent, depending on the section. Some of the sections look like they have been put through a machine translator, and make little sense: Santos tried to transform the twenty-first century in a time of galactic rain - what? Given the lack of sense in the sections from 1936 onward, they should either be improved immediately or removed until a time when such improvements can be made, as they are of next to no use to the reader at the moment.
  • Why does referencing It is also the only Brazilian club outside Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Belo Horizonte and Porto Alegre to win an international tournament. take nine sources?
  • The list of recent seasons is an example of recentism, and should be removed. A graph would probably be a better option, like the one at Ipswich_Town_F.C.#Statistics_and_records.
  • Why on earth is Pelé listed in the current squad?
  • Which of the works in the Further reading section are principally about Santos? Keep those, remove the others.
  • Escape to Victory may have featured Pelé, but this is an article about Santos, not Pelé.
  • Do a particular type of people follow Santos, just as Flamengo are seen as working class an Fluminense upper class? How does the level of support compare to other Brazilian teams?
  • My English-language book on Brazilian football introduces Santos by saying they are the only one of the state's big teams to come from outside Sao Paulo, this could do with being mentioned.
  • Am I right in thinking that there are a whole bunch of other clubs called Santos in South America who have named themselves after this one?

Hope this helps. I haven't gone through the entirety of the article in depth; if you require further comments pleas ask on my talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


Stephen Sondheim[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to improve it's quality. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Phaeton23 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

from Tim riley

Having failed to follow up my comments at the earlier PR I shall do so here in the next day or two. Tim riley (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Jamie or Jimmy Hammerstein? You use both names in the article.
  • "Sondheim agreed, and despite frequent dissonance and a highly chromatic style, his music remains resolutely tonal" – citation needed
  • "Ironically, Sondheim has expressed his dislike of movie musicals" – be careful with "ironic" or variants – as my favourite style guide has it, "Do not use when what you mean is strange, coincidental, paradoxical or amusing (if you mean them say so, or leave the reader to decide.)"
  • "In 1954…" - two "London's" in successive sentences. Clunky.
  • "and a full British premiere with the new songs due in 2009" – and did it take place?
  • "He has said that this is the one project he has regretted" – bit of a tease to say this but not to say why he regrets it.
  • "To fans, Sondheim's musical sophistication is considered to be greater than that of many of his musical theatre peers, and his lyrics are likewise renowned for their ambiguity, wit, and urbanity." – Wholly POV unless you can find a respectable citation
  • "Notably, the score was mostly composed" – if it is notable then you don't need to say so (and if it were not notable it oughtn't to be here)
  • "the most non-traditional" – a bit effortful: why not "the least traditional"?
  • "Sondheim—Prince" – en dash, not em dash needed here
  • [24][25][26][27][28] – overkill on the references here, surely?
  • "Sondheim's more "traditional" scores" – why the quotation marks?
  • "performance flop. "Merrily did not succeed" – opening quotes before Merrily seem to be a typo
  • "Pacific Overtures (1976) had music" – why does this show get a second write-up? It is already covered four paras earlier
  • "Weidman would also write the book for Road Show" – does that mean he wrote it? The subjunctive is confusing.
  • "Sondheim was asked to translate Mahagonny-Songspiel, although he did not state the time."– What does this mean?
  • "female sculptor" – the word"sculptress" exists for just such a use

I hope these few points are useful. On the whole the article contains most of what one would hope to see, and is generally well referenced. General point: there are a lot of short paragraphs, some of which could with advantage be combined to help the flow of the prose. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


Stop Crying Your Heart Out[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to GA status - what needs to be done?

Thanks, --Addihockey10 e-mail 01:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Here by request. :-) Few things I notice that need to be addressed: There are a few quotes missing references, mostly in the "References" section. There's also a "clarification needed" tag on one of the "Appearances in other media" that has to be taken care of before it goes to GAC. The range of information you cover looks good; the depth could probably be extended a bit more, but I don't know that it'll be necessary for GA status. Looks pretty good in general, though. Good luck. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Here also by request, I think it needs significantly more prose before it can be qualified for GA status. I'd be happy to give it a more thorough review once this has been done. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Calvin999

  • The Covers section needs to have reliable sources. I had copy-edited the section, but some of the points you included had no sources, and one source was wrong information. So you need to provide reliable sources for all the "citation needed" tags which I put there. CalvinNaNaNaC'mon! 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
     Done I think --Addihockey10 e-mail 12:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    27, 28, 29 and 30 are all missing work parameters and 29 and 30 are missing publishers. CalvinNaNaNaC'mon! 21:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
     Done - Thanks :-) Anything else? --Addihockey10 e-mail 22:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    Some of them rare still wrong. Do you want me to correct them? Also, did you know she performed the song on MTV Unplugged in Germany? She did an acoustic version. CalvinNaNaNaC'mon! 11:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    Okay - I'm new to this article stuff so I'll look at the diff to see what I did wrong. --Addihockey10 e-mail 15:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by David Fuchs
  • The article leaves me confused and lacks context. The article lead is decent, but the article body starts out immediately by talking about the internet leak. What about the origins, development, inspiration and recording of the song (the "behind-the-scenes" content)? I think the best organization would be development, etc, then release information (including the leak), then reception, then all the charts and then the cover version information.
  • A lot of the article is unsourced, tagged or no, and there are issues with stating opinions as fact (for example, a reviewer's comments that the song is an "epic weepy" anthem is pretty much regarded as the "real" interpretation given that it's not attributed to any person.) Likewise, a lot of the material is original research, to wit the entire synopsis of the music video is merely sourced to a Youtube video. "The song is featured in the film Made of Honor, starring Patrick Dempsey and Michelle Monaghan. It appears towards the end of the film." is not fully supported by the ref given. These are serious issues and alongside the structure problems are the biggest things that need to be addressed.
    • In similar veins: ""10 Minutes of Noise and Confusion – Part Two" is the second part of a feature covering 48 hours on the road with Oasis during the Tour of Brotherly Love, which was a tour of the United States with the Black Crowes in May and June 2001." is unsourced, and also has no context—why is this mentioned in the track listing?
    • Personnel: unsourced (you could use the liner notes for this.)
      Comment What do you mean by liner notes? --Addihockey10 e-mail 03:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
      • <old man voice>Whaddaya mean, y don' know what 'liner notes' is? Back in my day we didn't have the internet, just liner notes!</voice> Usually in the Liner notes they'll have a list of production credits somewhere. You can cite them with {{Cite album-notes}}. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Much of the sourcing for the "cover versions" section is dubious or non-existent.
      Fixed --Addihockey10 e-mail 03:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Non-free media concerns: There is no real critical commentary that supports the inclusion of File:Stop_Crying_Your_Heart_Out.ogg per WP:NFCC.

In short, I think this article needs more content and a lot more rigorous sourcing to meet GA requirements. I don't watchlist these reviews, so if you have any queries take it to my talk page. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


2009 Cataño oil refinery fire[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This was a major event in Puerto Rico's recent history, with broad environmental, economic, and even political consequences. I would like to improve this article to GA and even eventually FA, but I am not sure were to begin, what to keep what to take out etc.

There is a lot of information missing, it seems like it was barely updated since it was started and stopped being news. Any help would be awesome.

Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this article, which is a long way from GA quality. You wrote: "There is a lot of information missing, it seems like it was barely updated since it was started and stopped being news." That is exactly right. To have any hope of GA, you will need to find updated information including the final damage estimates, details about the lawsuit, and details about how Puerto Rico is coping with the loss of the refinery. If I were working on the article, I would fix the dates to include the year as well as the month and day, and I'd try to answer questions almost any reader would ask such as "Has Fort Buchanan re-opened"? Is the investigation over? Was the final cost to the Puerto Rican government $6.4 million, or was the final number bigger than that? Who is suing? How is the suit progressing? Was Gulf Oil accountable in any way? What are the political repercussions, if any?

  • After you finish adding new information, you might ask someone at WP:GOCE#REQ to look the article over for Manual of Style issues. I note some below, but I don't think I caught them all.
  • The link checker at the top of this review page finds three dead URLs in the citations. They are probably the ones marked with "dead link" tags. You might be able to find the wire service items in the archives of another newspaper that you have access to. Sometimes you can find archives of files that have gone missing by using the Wayback Machine or just doing a Google search.
  • I ran a Google search just now using the search string "oil refinery fire puerto rico" and got 469,000 hits. This is an absurdly large number, but it's a start, and the first 20 items or so look interesting.

Event

  • "The tanks exploded at approximately 12:23 a.m. and could be heard in places as far away as Cidra, 11 miles away and shook windows and doors over two miles away." - The imperial units should be given in metric also; i.e., 11 miles (18 km) and 2 miles (3 km).
  • "At some point the flames reached a height of 100 feet (30 m) above the refinery near 50 feet." - This is unclear. I'm not sure what is meant by "above the refinery near 50 feet". Do you mean "directly above the refinery"?
  • "Fortunately, nobody was critically injured in the explosion." - Even though you might find no one who would disagree with the sentiment, "fortunately" is an editorial comment best left out. It's better to just report the facts: "Nobody was critically injured in the explosion."

Initial response

  • "The call came to the Puerto Rico 9-1-1 office at 12:27 am." - Here I see "am", but in the first sentence of the "Event" section I see "a.m.", and in the lead I see "12:23am" run together with no space. I would recommend "a.m." separated from the digits by a space. In addition I would add a no-break code to keep the digits and the "a.m." from being accidentally separated by line break on various computer screens. WP:NBSP has details about uses of the no-break code.
  • "Later, due to the seriousness of the situation, PRFD... " - The Manual of Style recommends spelling out and abbreviating things like this on first use. Otherwise, the reader has to figure out what PRFD might mean. The place to explain this one would be in the previous sentence: "The Puerto Rico Fire Department stations of Bayamon... ". The fix looks like this: "The Puerto Rico Fire Department (PRFD) stations of Bayamon... ". Then PRFD makes sense by itself later on. ATF is another one, as is EPA, and you might find more.

Government aid

  • A lot of the information in this section is out of date, especially the reference to October 25, which refers to 2009 I assume.

Investigation

  • "The Caribbean Petroleum Corporation supplies most of Puerto Rico's oil and gasoline, which is marketed under the Gulf Oil brand name, but only 10 percent is managed from this plant." - This seems out of date too. The next section says the company has filed for bankruptcy. Do they still supply most of Puerto Rico's oil and gasoline? If not, who does?

Aftermath

  • "The action was filed by lawyers John Navares, Camilo Salas, and Daniel Becnel." - On behalf of whom? Also, I only count two lawsuits, the one filed by the three lawyers and the one filed on behalf of 1,000 defendants.

References

  • Use a single kind of date formatting throughout the reference section, not 2009-10-25 in one place and October 23, 2009 in another.
  • Add an access date to the citations that don't have one; e.g., citation 13.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


Rangers F.C.[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I Have listed this article for peer review as looking to get all Scottish Premier League clubs up to GA Standard and above.

Thanks, Warburton1368 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of small, 2-3 sentenced paragraphs that could be combined; there are {citation needed} tags in the article that needs to be addressed; "Nine in a row" is a very small subsection that might need to be expanded or combined with another subsection; "The Old Firm and sectarianism" section has a tag reading "This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies." this needs to be addressed, as well as the {citation needed} tags in that section; "Superleague Formula" section needs to be expanded as well as the {citation needed} tags in that section needed to be addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

  • I agree with all of the points above - PR is not for articles with major clean up banners (like the one in the sectarianism section) and these would be a quick fail at WP:GAN or WP:FAC
  • A model article is usefulf for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on British football teams that would be excellent models for this article.
  • Toolbox on this PR page has an external link checker which shows quite a few dead links - these would have to be fixed before GAN
  • Toolbox also finds one dab link that needs to be taken care of
  • 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. However the plc thing is only in the lead.
  • I think the lead needs to be expanded to be a true summary. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. As noted above, many of the sections are quite short and could be combined.
  • Articles need to be broad in coverage for GA and comprehensive for FAC - hard to see how this is either with no mention of the years between 1939 and 1971 in the history section.
  • On a related note, please read up on WP:RECENTISM and look at the coverage here. This is also a WP:WEIGHT issue.
  • Another quick fail reason at GAN or FAC would be the lack of references. For example sentences after a ref in a paragraph that do not themselves have a ref need at least one - example By 1876 Rangers had their first internationalist, with Moses McNeil representing Scotland in a match against Wales, and by 1877 Rangers had reached a Scottish Cup final. The first ever Old Firm match took place in 1888, the year of Celtic's establishment. Rangers lost 5–2 in a friendly to a team composed largely of "guest players" from Hibernian.
  • Or there are whole section like Nine in a row which have zero refs and need them. Also any citation needed tags.
  • Need more images
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


Heidi Game[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… imagine you're watching football on a Sunday afternoon and just as Daryle Lamonica prepares to lead his team, which is losing by three points, down the field with a minute remaining in the game, the feed is cut and replaced with a little girl on a Swiss mountain preempting you of a thrilling conclusion to the game. Not working for you? Perhaps the blown switchboards, jammed telephones and confusion behind the scenes is more of your cup of tea then. Wehwalt and I have reworked the article extensively as it has a mixture of both football and TV which we hope will appeal to everyone in one way or another. Our plan is to take it to FAC and we would appreciate any and all feedback before doing so.

Thanks, The Writer 2.0 Talk 10:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Here is some stuff to be getting on with, on the lead and first section. More will follow:-

Lead
  • the host Oakland Raiders" → "the hosts Oakland Raiders"
  • Overlong and overcomplicated sentence: "It is well-remembered for the exciting finish, as Oakland scored two touchdowns in the final minute to overcome a 32–29 New York lead, and for the fact that the winning scores were not seen by much of the country, as NBC had broken away from the game to begin the television film, Heidi at 7 p.m. in the Eastern Time Zone." Rewording is necessary; "well-remembered" is an awkward adjective; touchdown needs a link; by "the country" I think you mean the TV audience; NBC needs to be spelt out at first mention. I suggest somethink like this: "It is memorable for an exciting finish, when Oakland scored two touchdowns in the final minute to overcome a 32–29 New York lead. However, much of the television audience was unaware of the final result, because the National Broadcasing Company (NBC) had broken away from the game to begin the television film, Heidi at 7 p.m. in the Eastern Time Zone".
  • "NBC executives had ordered that Heidi must begin on time, but given the exciting game, they changed their minds". Saying "they changed their minds" isn't specific enough. They "decided to postpone the start of the film and continue their coverage of the game".
  • Rather than "As they did so" I'd say "As 7 p.m. approached..."
  • "NBC installed telephones, known as Heidi phones, which were connected to a different telephone exchange than other network phones, for use in similar emergencies." It is not clear from this what use these "Heidi" phones were put to.
  • The last sentences have nothing to do with the subject of this article. You might mention these later results as part of a brief aftermath, but they are not significant enough (in relation to this article) to be in the lead.
Football
  • "...began play in 1960". Is is American English? To me, this should be either "to play" or playing"
  • "so much so that" reads oddly when it is emphasising a lack of success. "To the extent that" might be better.
  • "Although the two teams did not play in the same division..." yet the rest of this paragraph describes them playing each other aparently on a regular basis. How come?
The original AFL had eight teams and a fourteen game schedule; so that was home and away against everyone. By 1966, there were ten teams split into two five team divisions, so you played your four divisional rivals twice each, one (rotating) team in the other division home and away, and the remaining teams in the other division once.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a reference that may help from Don Maynard's You Can't Catch Sunshine: "each AFL team played every other team in the league twice a year."
  • "would be" → "was"
  • "The ill-feeling of the prior years..."; "of previous years..." This is another of those sentences that needs some severe ce attention. At present it rambles on and on.
  • "Ewbank also blamed Davis..." What had Ewbank previously blamed Davis for?

Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the comments Brian, looking forward to more! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that between TW2.0 and me, we have addressed the comments to date, though perhaps not quite using the same words. Brian, when you resume, could you again look at the lede and ensure it is satisfactory?
Lede looks OK now, and the other stuff, too. I'll march on with the rest now. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuing...

Television

Not much in this section. Just:-

  • Some overlong sentences, e.g. "For this game, the Burbank BOC was to receive the feed from Oakland, insert commercials and network announcements, and send the modified feed via telephone wire to a switching station west of Chicago near the Mississippi River where an engineer was stationed to activate the Oakland feed into the full network when the game began, to cut it on instruction and then to return to his base."
  • "New York-area" leaves something to be desired as a geographical indicator
  • "The Buffalo Bills at San Diego Chargers game": can a game be "at" another team? I suspect this is some kind of football shorthand, but it reads strangely.
Football action

I will largely have to let this section pass because I don't have sufficient football knowledge to query iT. A few minor quibbles:-

  • "48 yard pass" (and many similar): should this form have a hyphen ("48-yard pass") when it is used adjectivally? You do have "50-yard touchdown pass" later on.
  • You have used numerics for "1 yard touchdown" and "3 yard pass" etc, yet we have "five seconds remaining" and "two-point conversion". What is the rationale?
  • Pipe link gave the jeering crowd the finger
Television and decisions
  • The first paragraph, which explains why the game overran, needs a short introduction and/or rearrangement of content.
  • Some of the prose is laborious, e.g. "Promising Cline a return call, Connal began trying to reach Lindemann. He was successful in doing so, by telephone". This could be "After promising Cline a return call, Connal reached Lindemann by telephone."
  • Some details seem a little inconsequential, e.g. "Although both of the NBC president's telephone lines at his home were initially busy..." Why do we need to know this?
TV reaction
  • "...Goodman called a BOC phone whose number was not part of NBC's CIrcle-7 exchange (which blew a fuse 26 times in an hour), to which only he knew the number." I found this difficult to fathom. How about: "Goodman called a BOC phone to which only he knew the number and which was not part of NBC's CIrcle-7 exchange (which blew a fuse 26 times in an hour)."?
  • "...about the missing ending of the football game". I find that "...ing ...ing" rarely works well. DBesides which, the ending wasn't "missing", it was the people that missed it. So "...about missing the end of the football game."
  • Could we say "co-announcer" or some such, rather than "partner", which sounds as though the pair were living together?
  • I'm not sure that one can say tht the network turned the fiasco into a "success". You could say that it turned it to advantage by the subsequent self-mockery
  • I don't think #6 should be in the text, meaning "sixth", and the sentence is not fully grammatical
Football events
  • "snafu" is non-encyclopedic slang. You might just as well say "balls-up", "cock-up" or similar.
  • "The Jets left their white road uniforms in Oakland..." etc. What has this to do with the Heidi game?
  • "...he received a telephone call from his wife in the locker room..." Definitely ambiguous!
  • "While in California, the Jets wrote to Mel Hein, AFL supervisor of officials, complaining that an official had used profane language to Hudson, provoking a response which led to his expulsion." Clarify who was expelled, and from what. You should also clarify what, precisely, the various fines were imposed for.
  • "...However, the AFL did reassign..." → "The AFL reassigned..." (it's not a "however" sentence)
  • In my view there is too much detail on the subsequent Shea Stadium Jets v. Raiders game. This goes way beyond the supposed focus of this article.

That seems to be it. Good luck with the article. As I find it impossible to watch all my peer review articles, please contact my talkpage if you wish to raise anything with me or if you would like me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. TW2.0, this is mostly for you, I guess:

I think we should cut back the AFL championship stuff to the score and the bizarro ending. I think we leave in the uniforms, we are entitled to trace the ill feeling between the two teams, which is part of the story. I guess for consistency's sake we need to go with hyphens. I suggest "broadcast partner" instead of partner.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


Paul Kelly (musician)[edit]

Previous peer review

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

The article failed Featured Article in June 2010. Since that time edits have improved its structure according to the FAR, and subsequent, comments. It was checked by a Copy Editor in June 2011. I have completed further editing and fixed references – most are now archived to reduce link rot. Together with Dan arndt, we intend to apply for FA after this review.

Thanks, shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Efe (talk · contribs) comments
  • He later recalled beware of missing punctuation marks
  • "It was an open-tuning and had four lines about catching trains. I have got a recording of it somewhere. It was called "Catching a Train". I wrote a lot of songs about trains early on, trains and fires, and then I moved on to water".
    • I've decided to go with your advice here and use 'Catching a Train' inside the quote.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Placement of quotation marks after or before another punctuation marks (e.g. period, comma, etc.) Please see Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_inside_or_outside.
    • It may be more complicated by Australian English treating quotations and punctuation marks differently from American English. In this instance the full stop would be included if it is known to exist in the original work after "water", it is not included if the original sentence continued after "water".–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Many audio samples do not meet WP:NFCC#8.
    • I thought the Contextual significance was ably demonstrated by the supplied captions. Can you explain how they don't meet this criterion?
      1. "Billy Baxter" was Paul Kelly's first charting single.
      2. "To Her Door" is Paul Kelly's highest charting single to date.
      3. "How to Make Gravy" was nominated for an APRA Award for 'Song of the Year'.
      4. "Foggy Highway" has been recorded by Kelly, then by Geyer and then by PK & the Stormwater Boys. It is indicative of his strength as a songwriter.
  • There are sections that have so many information. Try trimming them down according to significance. Also, avoid staccato-like paragraph. Merge those related.
    • This is difficult without further examples. I've tried trimming where I could, however I may be too close to the material to do as you ask: that's one of the reasons I put it up for PR.–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Efe (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort.–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. Sorry to have taken so long in making my comments, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs which are biographies of musicians and seem like they owuld be good models. See Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music_biographies.
    • I've looked at about 20 of these previously, both before the first FA and before this second PR. I've tended to concentrate on solo musicians, particularly Australian ones. Most recently I've looked at Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Bernard Fanning and Percy Grainger.
  • A model article might be helpful for the MOS issues raised above - keeping a song title in double quoutes sounds reasonable to me. I am not always the best judge of WP:LQ but there will be people looking at that at FAC.
    • Dylan's article maintains "Song Titles", whereas Lennon's goes for 'Song Titles' inside quotes. I couldn't find a relevant sample in Fanning or Grainger.
    • I've gone with Efe's advice and use song title as 'Catching a Train' inside a quote.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I would treat the unsuccessful FAC as a useful review and make sure that every issue raised in it has been addressed too.
    • I certainly did. I was sure I got all those issues and would like to hear of any you believe I may have missed.
  • The lead image has a lot of blue sky - I would crop it so that you can see more of Kelly and his face and less sky.
    • I tried to keep the image as close to original as possible. I have already removed a logo. I will crop it a little further to focus on the main image.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I would give a cite / ref for the Rolling Stone quote in the lead, especially since the second quote (by Kelly) is referenced.
  • It seems odd that he is so influential, but neither the Dots nor the Coloured Girls/Messengers have their own articles. I would at least make redirects for the band names to the sections on them in this article.
    • Outside of their work for PK, I don't think the Dots or Coloured Girls/Messengers had any notable activity. Unlike Professor Ratbaggy and Stardust Five, which each issued a self-titled album with contribution spread around each ensemble more than a regular PK&tD or PK&tCG/PK&tM release. A separate article for each would probably duplicate much of this article (not just the section that deals with the specific backing band). If sufficient interested editors want separate articles then this could be achieved but would take some time and effort to sort out what would be left for the main article.
    • As for existing Re-directs: each of the variants I could think of has a re-direct to the main PK article but not to the specific section. Or do you mean the second sentence of the Lead? Should wikilinks to the sections lower in this article be placed there?
  • It seems pretty clear that his family were Catholics and I see he is in the category for Autralian Roman Catholics - I would include this in the article (in the Early life section most likely). It would help explain his sisiter becoming a nun, the line about ringing the bells, the Christian Brothers, etc.
    • I'll have to find the exact page(s) in his memoir but I recall that Kelly explained that he hasn't been a Catholic for about forty years or from the age of 16. I could add a sentence like Kelly was raised as a Roman Catholic but has described himself as no longer belonging to that faith. once I get that ref.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I am uncomfortable with these two sentences According to legend, he was born outside North Adelaide's Calvary Hospital in a taxi. This event appears in his lyrics for the Comedy (1991) album track, "It's All Downhill from Here":[4][5] If you look at the original article (ref 4) it says "Legend has it that Paul Kelly was born in a taxi outside North Adelaide’s Calvary Hospital."[1] It sounds to me more like a figure of speech in the magazine and I would say something to make this clearer - perhaps something like "According to Rip It Up" magazine, "legend has it" that Kelly's mother gave birth to him "in a taxi outside North Adelaide's Calvary Hospital".[4] (move the ref back for the direct quote)
  • Done.
  • As for the second sentence introducing the quotation itself, I would be very careful to avoid WP:OR - does the lyrics book have some sort of explanatory text from Kelly that says this? If it is just the fact that his lyric refers to his birth this way, but the interpretation is original I would make it more a statement of fact. So if it is just the lyric, I would say something like In the lyric for his Comedy (1991) album track, "It's All Downhill from Here", Kelly wrote:[5] If it is in the book, I would say that (Kelly confirms the legend in his 1993 book Lyrics and included it in the song "It's All Donwhill from Here" on his 1991 album Comedy:
  • Done.
  • Similar concerns with In his semi-autobiographical song, "Adelaide", from Post (1985), he recalls these events:[5] (though since the Lyrics book was just referenced, not as much attribution detail is needed here). The basic problem is that lyrics can be first person and fictional - Johnny Cash didn't really shoot a man in Reno, just to watch him die ;-)
  • You make a good point. Kelly describes writing this song in his memoir pp. 13-14. He told people (e.g. his living aunts) that it was made-up: "I'm writing fiction not autobiography". However his aunts, friends and journalists weren't convinced: "They were right to be wary, to sniff the answer with suspicion." In any case, I've gone with your suggestion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The hardest criteria for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. The prose here is decent, but not great. I will try to point out some rough spots, but a light copyedit would help too.
  • As indicated above, the article went through a copy edit in June.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Rough sentence - the film is mentioned way too late in the sentence, and the sentence is long and complex and would probably be better split in two. Paul Kelly and the Dots supplied "Rocking Institution" for the soundtrack and Kelly added to the score[35] of the 1982 film Starstruck, a Gillian Armstrong film which starred Jo Kennedy.[36]
  • Avoid needless repetition - early on there are the sentences Their son, Declan, was born in 1980.[30][31] He later worked in a record store, as a DJ, and as a radio presenter on 3RRR's Against the Arctic from 2006.[9][12] Then in the Personal life section this is almost all repeated Paul Kelly's first marriage (1980–1984) was to Hilary Brown, which produced a son, Declan Kelly. As of 2007, Declan presented a radio show on Triple R; he was a DJ around Melbourne and played the drums.[186] I would keep the first sentence about the birth of Declan in the "1974–1984: Early career and with the Dots" section, but leave the material for waht happens to Declan for the Personal life section.
  • I would also keep the focus on Paul Kelly - not sure that this needs to be in the article Fairfax later had a small part in Young Einstein (1986) and the lead role in two TV miniseries, The Harp in the South (1986) and Poor Man's Orange (1987).[37] How does it help the reader's understanding of him? Your call, but I think this may be what Efe is getting at in the too much infomration comment
  • Another general language issue is to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs where possible as they interrupt the flow of the article. There are not al ot of these, but Kelly's national 'More Songs from the South' tour in December 2009 ... is one.
  • As for the fair use sound clips, the more there is in the article about a song that is used for a sound clip, the better. So if a song has attracted critical commentary and the clip caption can tie into that, it makes a much stronger fair use case than "this is his first hit". So if a critic (making this up) has talked about the jangling guitars or driving beat or plaintive vocals in a song, then using that part of the song as a clip and putting in the caption makes it a much better fair use. Fake exmaple caption: "Song X from Kelly's album Y, which critic Z called "one of the most haunting lyrics ever recorded south of the Equator".[ref]
  • I've had a go at these and hope that the expanded captions are better now.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The photo from "One Night the Moon" is lovely, but needs to be more than just an illustration for the article (the reader already knows what he looks like). Again if critics have praised this scence, or if the costumes or something make this image special, say so. The criteria I always try to keep in mind is "How does this image enhance the reader's understanding in ways that text alone does not?"
  • I've had a go at expanding the caption with a quote from Screen Australia Online curator on the significance of the lullaby scene.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Another sentence I would recast Hadley (bass guitar, backing vocals), Haymes (keyboards, organ, backing vocals), Kelly (vocals, guitar), and Luscombe (drums) formed Professor Ratbaggy in 1999. I owuld keep the focus on Kelly, so perhaps "In 1999 Kelly formed the band Professor Ratbaggy with ..... Then the next sentence could say he contributed vocals and guitar to their debut album with songs written jointly by all the band members.
  • SOmetimes articles use free images of the places someone has been - so if there is a typical image of St Kilda or someplace else important in hisl ife or career, that could be used here.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The following clarification is transcluded from my talkpage:

I meant the bands are called "The Dots" and "The Coloured Girls" and "The Messengers" in the second sentence of the lead (and elsewhere in the article), so I searched for each of those names and found two red links and a dab that did not list the band in question. I would be fine with redirests to his article for the first two and listing him (linked) and the band in the dab.

I did not check for "Paul Kelly and the Dots" or "Paul Kelly and the Coloured Girls" or "Paul Kelly and the Messengers" so of course these redirects all exist. I think a redirect to his article is OK (does not need to be to a section).

As for the captions and fair use, sorry to be unclear. I really meant that the more the article discusses the fair use media, the better. This does not have to be in the captions, though if there can be some sort of tie in there, that is better (but WP:CAPTION also calls for concise captions).

Just so you know I lisetened to all of "To Her Door" online - quite a good song. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've supplied the requested Redirects and will work on the incorporating the recently added material in captions into the adjacent text.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I've had a go at the captions and moved material across to the main text as close to the sample/image as practicable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hampden Park[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have significantly expanded it over the last month or so, mainly using a book commemorating the stadium's 100th birthday as reference material. I have also added some online references for some issues.

Thanks, Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

As a national stadium, this has a few different aspects to the usual stadium articles. What level are you trying to get it to?

  • I'm not sure to be honest. GA at least. FA may be difficult given the extensive history of the ground, most of which can't be sourced online. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If available, an image of the stadium during a cup final or Scotland match would be useful. While perhaps harder to find, a picture taken during a Queen's Park match with a couple of hundred people rattling around in an enormous stadium could provide an interesting contrast.
    • I have added a free image of a Scotland match. There are pictures in the book I have of QPFC matches at Hampden but those are copyrighted and wouldn't qualify for fair use. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There is little in the way of architectural detail. Presumably building what was then the biggest stadium in the world was quite a feat of engineering.
    • Added a bit about this from the book. Apparently it was a noted architect who designed the original third Hampden (if that isn't an oxymoron). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • While Scottish Cup finals are mentioned in various places, there's nothing in the body stating that apart from during redevelopment, Hampden has been the venue for the cup final since the 1920s.
  • Related to that, everything mentioned in the lead should also be mentioned in the body.
  • The "other uses" section could do with being grouped into sporting and non-sporting sections to prevent all the stubby sub-headings.
    • Done, although I think the headings I have come up with are a bit clunky. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Anachronistic as it may sound, it would probably be better to put the sentences about the Olympics and Commonwealth Games at the end of the history section instead of in their own "Future" section.

More to follow. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Some more:

  • The Hampden Roar originated... presumably the noise had happened before, but this was the incident that caused the term to be coined. Its not particularly clear.
    • I think the language is clearer now. Undoubtedly there must have been "roars" before that match, but the book says something florid like "it first came to the world's attention" after the game mentioned, which was quite dramatic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The sentence about the museum is a bit lost on its own. What facilities does modern-day Hampden have? Is there anything that could be added to make a fuller section?
  • Finally, the Inglis test – no article on a British stadium can truly be considered comprehensive unless it cites a book by Inglis. If you want me to email some material from the relevant pages of The Football Grounds of Great Britain, pop a note on my talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Queen's Hall[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having overhauled this article I think it might now be a possible candidate for GA, and would be most grateful for any comments here on balance, prose and referencing and indeed anything else. Tim riley (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I can't do a full review at the moment, but here are a few thoughts:

  • In my view the article is potentially well above GA standard and you should aim higher
  • In the lead I would combine the first and second paragraphs
  • Also in the lead, I'd look again at the sentence beginning "These two ensembles..." which, as presently constructed, has rather too many commas.
  • Background: Most of this section is concerned with the building of the hall and particularly its decorative features. I don't think this qualifies as "Background". The background to the creation of the hall is confined to the first two paragraphs; it may be possible to expand these. The remainder should be in a section entitled "Construction" or some such.
  • Early years: There is a link available to Band of the Coldstream Guards
  • You can also link smoking concert
  • Promenade concerts: I find this wording unsettling: "Prices were up to five times lower than those customarily charged..." I think it's the dying fall in "up to five times lower...". How about "Prices were as little as a fifth of those customarily charged"?
  • Other presentations: "On 14 January 1896, the first public film show was presented..." Please amplify. First public film show anywhere? Or just in Britain?
  • Early 20th C: A private bugbear - journals don't write themselves (The Musical Times wrote...) This or similar occurs several times
  • First world war etc: Link Zeppelin
  • Same section: in view of your global readership, you need to explain "the newly-established BBC" rather than forcing such readers to use the link.
  • Second World War: Graphically done, but I found the leap from the smouldering ruins and burnt-up instruments of May 1941 to the different world of 1954 a little abrupt. I think there needs to be a short linking paragraph between the present second and third paragraph.

I know this isn't a complete review, but I hope you'll find these few points helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - many thanks. I'll work through these points over the next few days. Tim riley (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
All above suggestions acted upon. I am most grateful (and also for the suggestion of going for FA, on which I'll ponder). Tim riley (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom Tower[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done all the editing on it and it needs a second opinion. I also would like an opinion on where it stands as far as potentially becoming a featured article in the future. It's nearly as broad and comprehensive as it can possibly be relative to the subject matter so far.

PS a fact from it was a DYK on Sunday, August 14.

Thanks, Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this article. However, I wonder whether it is a bit premature. After all, the building is not even started yet; who knows what might happen in the construction stages to change the projected design substantially. At the very least, the aticle will require constant amendment right up to the time when the building is complete and operational. My advice is that you consider retitling the article something like "Kingdom Tower project", and confine it to the planning and preparatory stages.

I haven't had time to carry out a line-by-line review of the article, but in a fairly quick survey I have identified a number of points for attention:-

  • Prose: needs more work:-
  • Some of your sentences are far too long and convoluted. Examples:
  • "Talal is the chairman of Kingdom Holding Company (KHC), the largest company in Saudi Arabia,[8] which owns the project, and a partner in Jeddah Economic Company (JEC), which was formed in 2009 for the development of Kingdom Tower and City."
  • The whole first paragraph of your "Overview" section is a single sentence at present.
  • "Besix Group (Belgian Six Construct), which constructed the Burj Khalifa, was previously considered for the contract, but did not win, partially because SBG invested in Jeddah Economic Company (JEC),[26] contributing SR1.5 billion (US$400 million) towards the development of the project,[27] and holding a 16.6 percent stake in Jeddah Economic Company."[28]
  • "Later, when the proposal was more serious, they won a design competition between eight leading architectural firms including Kohn Pedersen Fox, Pickard Chilton, Pelli Clarke Pelli, and Foster + Partners, as well as the firm Smith formerly worked for, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill,[38] which was the final competitor in the competition before AS + GG was chosen."[39]
  • Redundant and unnecessary words included in the prose. Examples:
  • "...and forecast that it will actually have negative financial consequences.
  • "It will essentially become a new district of Jeddah"
  • "...no land tracts of such size were available closer to the city, anyway
You should check for other instances of this
  • Some of the prose is grammatically incorrect. Again, I can only quote one or two examples here, but I think that a full prose check by an experienced copyeditor is essential:-
  • "Reception of the proposal has been highly polarized, receiving high praise..." As written this dos not make sense. It is critical opinion, not the reception itself, that has been polarized. It is the proposal, not the reception, that received high praise. The sentemce needs to be rewritten along the following lines: "Critical reaction to the proposal has been highly polarized. It has been highly praised by some as as a culturally significant icon that will symbolize the nation's wealth and power, while others..." etc
  • "In March 2010, Adrian Smith of Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture (AS + GG) was selected as the preliminary architect (though they deny involvement in the earlier, mile-high designs)".
  • "The future towers' site..." → "The future tower's site..."
  • I noticed the strange word "gentrification" in: "The developers' theory is that the international attention gained through large developments and having the world's tallest building will incur gentrification of the country". First, "gentrification" isn.t something which is "incurred". Perhaps "achieved" but...the word does not appear in the cited source, and so should not be used here.

I don't have time for much more comment, but a brief word on the article's structure. At present the article is organised rather untidily. I am not sure of the purpose of the "Overview" section which is rather a mishmash of information. Some of this information, and from elsewhere in the article, could be used to create a "Historical background" section which would provide a better general context. From that point the article should follow the natural chronology up to the present date.

I hope you find these comments helpful. If you wish to raise any of these points with me, please contact me through my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


Lighters (song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a while ago, I wrote a full draft on this article and almost completely rewrote it. Of course many users have contributed to it since. I am planning Lighters (song) for good article status and I wanted to get a second opinion on how to drastically improve this article.

If you are willing enough to review it, I am hoping you are very familiar with Wikipedia's manual of style and that you are familiar with the policies. Please be as strict with it as you can. I don't want this article to just satisfy the good article criteria. I want it to be its absolute best.

Thanks, WIKIPEDIAN PENGUIN (♫♫) 15:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just think it's a bit too early for the article to become a good article, as the song is too new; especially the fact that the music video is still being shot, and obviously causing the music video section severely lack information-SCB '92 (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I nominated the article before any news about the video was revealed. I'll wait till there is a well developed Music video section. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And have a screenshot of the music video after the music video premieres-SCB '92 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I always do that. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Articles that meet the "absolute best" standards on Wikipedia are FAs, so I will review this as if it were at FAC - see WP:WIAFA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on singles that seem as if they would be useful models.
  • Biggest concern I have is the language, which is the most difficult FA criterion for most articles to mee (1a, a professional level of English). This is also a GA concern. I would make sure this gets a copy edit before GAN - I will try to point out as many problems as possible, but these will only be examples, not a complete list. See Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music. A relatively recent FA on a song is 4 Minutes (Madonna song) which may be a good model as it features other singers too.
  • First sentence - should featuring Bruno Mars be in there? His name is on the single cover.
  • Also the (2011) in the first sentence seems awkward - since the date of release is given in the next sentence, is this needed?
  • This is not a normal use of the word "impacted" It impacted mainstream radio in the United States on July 5, 2011, and was released by Shady Records. Also try to avoid passive voice wherever possible - how about something like "Shady Records released the song for mainstream radio airplay in the United States on July 5, 2011."?
  • how about "...who was added after the original cut."? The song features American singer-songwriter Bruno Mars, who was not in the original cut.
  • I do not think something can have both positive and mixed reviews - mixed means there were both poisitive and negative reviews. Tighten this too The song was met with both positive and mixed reviews[;] where some critics praised the change in style [as a break from more hardcore and aggressive themes of] from the other tracks found in Hell: The Sequel, complimenting it as a break from more hardcore and aggressive themes, while others criticized it for the same reason.
  • The Background section is confused and difficult to follow. Part of that is because it does not seem to go in chronological order - since this is telling a story, why not tell it in order (unless there is some very good reason not to). I also think part of the problem is that much of it seems to be from topics addressed in other sections of the article - mostly Composition.
  • I would assume that Background would talk at least briefly about why the group was formed, and perhaps about how the song came to be a collaboration with Mars (though that could be in Composition).
  • The infobox says it was recorded in California and Michigan - this sentence is a mess, not sure what it is trying to say - probably needs to be split into two or more sentences and the apparent contradiction removed. The song was recorded in Los Angeles, California in various places; it was recorded in Effigy Studios by Mike Strange, Isolation Studios by Asar and Levcon Studios by Ari Levine of The Smeezingtons, a music production and songwriting group consisting of Philip Lawrence and Bruno Mars as well.[3]
  • Similarly Composition has critical reception in it.
  • Isn't the structure of the song more like: Chorus (by Mars), Verse 1 (Eminem), Chorus (Mars), Verse 2 (Royce ...), Bridge (music) (Mars), and Chorus (Mars)?
  • MOS Says to use "double quotes" not 'single quotes' - Bruno Mars' next two plays of the hook and his own 'verse' use a fast bass beat and rhythm. The final play of the hook is without any percussion, similar to the first play.[14] (I think his verse is the bridge)
  • Avoid WP:OVERLINKing
  • MOS says once a person is introduced with their full name, only their last name should be used - so Bruno Mars (first time) and then just Mars (can get away with Bruno Mars on first use in the body of the article (after the lead).
  • What the article calls "red sparks" are red highway flares - see Flare (pyrotechnic)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


Write amplification[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working toward FA status if at all possible. We brought this article to GA status last year and have made a few additional improvements since then. I would appreciate any feedback or comments that other editors think we need to do to make it through a FA review.

Thanks, § Music Sorter § (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Doing... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments
  • In the second paragraph of Basic SSD operation, it would be helpful to give a rough estimate of the maximum number of P/E cycles on a typical device. Are we talking hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Brazillions?
 Done - Added data to the paragraph.
  • Why does Calculating the value use the future tense? Wikipedia ain't no time machine, bro.
 Done - Good catch. Fixed.
  • "On the theoretical side, the simplest formula..." This implies that there are more complicated formulas. What are they?
 Done
  • "Once every block of an SSD has been written one time, the SSD controller will need to return to some of the initial blocks which no longer have current data (also called stale blocks). The data in these blocks were replaced with newly written blocks and now they are waiting to be erased so that new data can be written into them." These sentences gets a gold medal in the Most Inconsistent Tense competition. Present perfect "has been written", future "will need", passive preterite "were replaced", and present progressive "are waiting". Ya'll need to pick a consistent time frame for discussing garbage collection.
 Done - Rewrote section to simplify. The two paragraphs were actually trying to say similar things. Let me know if it makes more sense now.
It does! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "All SSDs include some level of garbage collection. The only question is when and how fast it will operate." Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not a children's story. Suggested rephrasing: "All SSDs include some level of garbage collection, though the frequency and speed at which it operates varies widely." or something like that.
 Done - Rewritten.
  • "If the data in some of the pages of the block are no longer needed, all of the other pages with good data in that block must be read and re-written into newly erased blocks." This sentence seems to have been written under the assumption that the SSD has already been filled, which may not always be the case. I suggest replacing "newly erased blocks" with "empty blocks" or "available blocks".
 Done - Rewritten.
  • "The result is that the data is rewritten to another location in the Flash memory increasing the write amplification and at some point the host will tell the controller to delete that data (or TRIM it)." Perhaps this would be obvious to someone with more knowledge of memory systems, but how is the second part of this sentence relevant? I suggest either shortening to "The result is that the data is rewritten to another location in the Flash memory, thereby increasing the write amplification." or adding a bit more explanation of how TRIM relates to WA.
 Done - Rewritten. See if that helps. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, I have literally no idea what the numbers 1 and 0.5 refer to. Obviously there is some sort of metric for quantifying write amplification, but what kind of metric is this? Could be a percentage of some total, a ratio, or a totally arbitrary scale. Whatever the system is, it should not be used in the article until it has been fully explained.
 Done - Good catch. Intro sentence modified to better define the term. Let me know if that helps.
So write amplification is a phenomenon that represents a ratio...? I think there's too much going on the first sentence now. I've rearranged the content with this edit; let me know what you think. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that edit results in a better description. I think you had a very good initial comment that the intro sentence does not explain what it is. Moving the clarification of it being a ratio to the second paragraph is too far away. I disagree that the edit I made had too much going on, but if you feel strongly about that I recommend we move something else from the first paragraph. Maybe we need to break it into two paragraphs, or keep the ratio in the first sentence and lets move the "undesirable phenomenon" to another spot further down. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of any article should answer the general question "What is this thing?", which I believe is adequately answered with or without the ratio information. The ratio stuff answers the question "How is this thing measured?" which, although important, does not stand out in my mind as something that needs to be shoved into the first sentence. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is Over-provisioning included in this article? It seems clear to me that this is an entirely separate topic that should have its own article. While I haven't read through the entire article yet, it seems that there are several sections that are only tangentially related to WA. I think some of these could be consolidated to paragraphs under the Factors that affect the value heading.
 Done - Oops. I did not realize I left out the description of the connection to Write Amplification. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The additional stuff definitely helps to clarify the relevance of the topic, but it still seems like there is a lot of superfluous detail that would be better suited to a separate article. The second paragraph in particular ("The first level of over-provisioning...") seems to be unnecessarily specific for this article. Surely there must be enough information that is specific to over-provisioning that it can stand as its own article, yes? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if you find these types of comments helpful. I would be happy to continue reviewing the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is great feedback. Having written much of this myself, I recognize I cannot see the forest for the trees. I believe your fresh perspective is adding great value and I would love to get more feedback. Having reviewed a number of articles for others in the past I recognize the significant time it takes to provide this feedback and I really appreciate it. Also let me know if you ever need any feedback on any articles and I would be happy to help. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

European route E71[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like a fresh opinion on steps required to raise quality of the article to B or GA.

Thanks, Tomobe03 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Comments—The article needs a basic history of the route to be more than a start-class for WP:HWY. I'll grant that most details about the constituent highways' histories will be in those articles, but this article needs some type of history, perhaps a generalized overview of how and when the E71 designation came to be with a summary of how the constituent highways came to be as well. Imzadi 1979  17:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your comments. I'll get around to implementing your advice.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 Done (at least as a start)--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I expanded that section too now. I tried to get some sort of balance to the section as a summary of the constituent highways, as proposed. Thanks for the pointers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several GAs on Croation highways at Category:GA-Class Highways articles. There are also many FAs on highways at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Transport
  • I now see that some of the model GAs are Croation highways which are included in this route. I would look at those articles and see what details there can be added here
For the time being I would not like to include level of information currently present in the, say A1 (Croatia) in this article per WP:SUMMARY, i.e. I'd like to strike a balance in this article and provide more detailed info in the constituent road articles (such as the A1). In my opinion that concept would allow a better overview while retaining details in linked articles, in line with the above comments regarding History made by Imzadi. If this means that the article my fall short of GA - so be it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I note that all of the GAs and the FAs that I checked all have a map of the course of the highway, so that seems like a priority for this article.

Not done The map would add to the article. I don't have access to one right now, but I'll try to get one into the article before any GA nomination.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • The lead is currently only one paragraph long and by WP:LEAD can be up to four paragraphs, depending on length of the article. My guess is that this could be 2 or 3 paragraphs.

Not done WP:LEAD specifies one to two paragraphs for articles up to 15,000 characters long. Since this article has approximately 9,500 characters (including the lead itself) I don't think it is necessary to add another paragraph without an additional justification.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • 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

Not done Actually, I rechecked this and found no omission. I am aware that this is required of a good lead. Did you have anything specific in mind that I may be missing?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • The lead has several fairly vague statements like The motorway sections are generally tolled through varying systems and rates. Reading the section on tolls, it looksl ike the tolled parts are only in Hungary and Croatia, so I think those specifics should be added to the lead. Also through varying systems and rates tells the reader very little than just having The motorway sections are generally tolled would - I would not include rates as that seems like it owuld be too specific and falls under WP:NOT, but mentioning the specific kind of systems (mostly ETC and some ticket) seems like it would help here.

 Done per suggestion --Tomobe03 (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Language is OK in places and needs some work in others - in the lead this is not grammatically correct The E71 route is gradually upgraded from a regular two-lane road to motorway standards since 1970s, and the upgrades are still being carried out in some areas. and should be something like The E71 route has gradually been upgraded from a regular two-lane road to motorway standards since 1970s; upgrades are still being carried out in some areas. (tightened the last phrase)

 Done per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I think this will need a copy edit befor GAN
 Done It appears that GOCE did some copyediting...
  • Last paragraph of Route description is pretty long and could probably be split in two

 Done Yes, I agree this will allow more comfortable reading of the text.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I think it would help to provide context to the reader to give some sort of explanatory sentence before this one The 2008 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) report on the E-road network specifies that the E71 route diverges from the A1 motorway at Karlovac interchange and switches to the D1 state road passing through Karlovac towards Plitvice Lakes, switches to the D217 and reaches Ličko Petrovo Selo/Izačić border crossing to Bosnia and Herzegovina. (which could be the start of the nex paragraph mentioned above). The explanatory sentence could be something like Although the E71 route is legally specified over one set of highways, as of 2011, there are differences between that route and what is actually marked with signs ... Not great, but maybe it gives you an idea.

 Done in a similar manner. I rearranged the paragraph, splitting it in two and adding a sentence for clarification.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • There is some repetition in the article - for example the Course section describes plans to upgrade the northernmost section to the R4 expressway, and then the Hostory section repeats most of this information in slightly different form. I think I would pare down the description in Course (though I think one sentence saying this is the future R4 route would be fine) and put most of the detail in History.

 Done in a similar manner to the suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Would it make sense to have a future plans subsection of History?

 Done IMO it would. Otherwise there is an abrupt skip from history to future developments, yet there are too few documented development plans to warrant a full section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Why no mention of Bosnia and Herzegovinia highways in See also?

 Done ... sort of. There is no Highways in Bosnia and Herzegovina article, so I wikilinked a more general Transport in Bosnia and Herzegovina until such an article is created.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Your comments are useful and I appreciate the effort. I'll tackle the issues pointed out shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Once again thanks for the comments. I'll have to postpone inclusion of a map until I manage to get or make one. Even though I did not do anything about the lead right now, I am aware it leaves some room for improvement and hopefully I'll get around to touch-up the lead before any GA, which will have to wait for a map anyway. In the meantime I hope this helps move quality of the article towards the B class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fiona Graham[edit]

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

There are questions regarding whether the article deals appropriately with the subject's professional identity as a geisha in the light of Japanese cultural norms. Issues include the title of the article, which arguably should be her professional title and her age which is customarily not mentioned.

Thanks, User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This article is nowhere near ready for a full peer review which, per WP:PR is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". Among the more obvious deficiencies in the present article are the following:-

  • The article does not say what a "geisha" is - surely an essential piece of information?
  • The prose is choppy, anecdotal and lacking a clear chronological flow. The article thus appears as a collection of incidents rather than a proper biography.
  • Some sections, e.g. "Academic career", are undeveloped. Others are inappropriately titled; for example, the section headed "Geisha training" has practically nothing in it about training.
  • The "Wanaka Gym court case and fine" section appears detached from and unrelated to the rest of the article
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should provide a summary overview of the main article, rather than a few introductory statements.

If you are seriosly interested in producing a quality article, I suggest that as a preliminary to its proper development you take a look at other biographical articles, to get some idea as to what is required. Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Fred, this is not really the right venue for your questions, which I'm also concerned about, but before I take it to the article talk page I'm going to email you first. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If Day[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed GA and I hope to take it to FAC in future. The article details a very bizarre event in Canadian history: the invasion of Winnipeg by Nazi soldiers. Or not.

Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty good article. Just some minor style things:
  • I'd link Manitoba in the first sentence. It's linked twice later in the article.
  • The lead's pretty short, although it's not missing anything major.
  • These bonds were sold to individuals and corporations throughout Canada, and were loans to the government to allow for increased war spending. → This sentence is a little weird. The two clauses of the conjunction aren't really parallel ("were sold" and "were loans"). I'd rewrite it, something like These bonds, which were loans to the government to allow for increased war spending, were sold to individuals and corporations throughout Canada. or vice versa.
  • $45 million ($617 million today) → The inflation calculator uses the consumer price index. Is this suitable for war budgeting? I read somewhere that we don't do inflation calculators as a rule because different things inflate differently. In any case, the original price has 2 significant figures so I'd write "$620 million" or just "$600 million".
  • $24.5-million quota → I wouldn't hyphenate a dollar value.
  • a 3 kilometres perimeter → I'd expect this to be "a 3-kilometre perimeter" or "a 3 kilometre perimeter".
  • E. A. Pridham and D.S. McKay. → These are spaced differently.
  • 5:45&nbspam → typo
  • wore them throughout the day – the temperature was below −8 °C (18 °F) → I wouldn't use an en dash and a minus sign in the same sentence; it looks jarring. A colon or semicolon would work here.
  • Life Magazine, Newsweek, The New York Times and The Christian Science Monitor → It might be good to explicitly say that these are U.S. papers.
  • Paramount should be linked.
It's a great story. Good luck. —Designate (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! I've addressed most of them, except for the inflation thing. It was requested at GAN, but I have no real preference either way, so if anyone else weighs in I'll just drop it. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
We're all on the same page, I agreed with the comments except that we've never had broad consensus on how to use the inflation template. User:Dank/MIL#inflation may be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
One last thing: in the first "Effects" paragraph, you have four consecutive sentences which end in "the event". That should be avoided. —Designate (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - you ought to include volume/issue information for ref 22. Also, the lead is a bit short. Eisfbnore talk 07:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Both done, thanks for commenting. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry, I dropped the ball on this one, I meant to say more before it closed. I mentioned above that I liked Designate's comments. Apart from some unimportant formatting issues (nbsp's before ellipses, and second commas, which are supported by Chicago, which has been influential in Canada for a century), I don't see anything to fix on a quick read. I'll look more closely if this hits ACR or FAC. Really entertaining article; I wish I saw more of these at ACR. - Dank (push to talk) 10:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sitti Nurbaya[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel like this has a good chance to make GA. What improvements should I make before nominating? Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I can offer suggestions from the viewpoint of a reader who knows nothing about Indonesian literature and little about Indonesia.

Lead

  • " ...is a 1922 Indonesian novel by Marah Rusli. It was published by Balai Pustaka." - This might be slightly smoother if you moved 1922 to the second sentence: " ... is an Indonesian novel by Marah Rusli. It was published in 1922 by Balai Pustaka."
Done.
  • Instead of forcing readers like me to link through to other articles for a basic understanding of terms like Balai Pustaka, it would be helpful, I think, to include a brief explanation in the text. Something like "Balai Pustaka, the state-owned bureau of literature, published the work in 1922".
Done
  • Likewise, Minangkabau could be briefly explained in the lead. Maybe "The cultures of the Minangkabau people of West Sumatra and those of Europe influenced the book... ".
Done
  • Is the influence European or is it Dutch? Europe includes a lot of different cultures.
Source says European, but is generalizing based on Dutch culture. Changed to Dutch.
  • "Not long afterwards, Nurbaya marries the abusive and rich Datuk Meringgih as a way for her father to escape debt, eventually being killed by him." - This is a bit unclear since it might mean that Datuk Meringgih killed her father. Maybe "Not long afterwards, Nurbaya marries the abusive and rich Datuk Meringgih as a way for her father to escape debt, and Meringgih eventually kills her."
Fixed

Writing

  • "a noble background with a degree in Veterinary Science" - No caps on "veterinary science".
Done
  • "According to Bakri Siregar... " - Maybe briefly describe Bakri Siregar with something like "literary critic" or "Indonesian author" or whatever is appropriate? Outsiders are not likely to know who he or she is. Ditto for A. Teeuw and others on first use of their names.
Done
  • "Rusli was told to return to his hometown and marry a Minangkabau woman... " - Who told him to do that? Where did the pressure come from?
Done
  • Would Rusli have had to divorce his wife first, or could he be married to two women at the same time? Polygamy is mentioned much later in the article but might be mentioned here as well.
After double checking the source (both English and its Indonesian translation), it seems that he never married the Sundanese woman; his choosing her was enough to cause his family's reaction.
  • Would it be helpful to add a sentence to this section explaining the long-standing Dutch connection to Indonesia? Perhaps a bit about this history could then also appear in the lead. It's hinted at in "then a member of the Dutch colonial army", but quite a few readers might wonder why a Dutch colonial army is fighting in Indonesia. The link to "Dutch colonial government" in the "Plot" section is helpful, but I think saying something explicit in the text might be helpful too. From when to when were the Dutch in Indonesia? I take it that Balai Pustaka was Dutch or controlled by the Dutch. Would it be possible to explain their motives in publishing the book, if a reliable source or sources address that question?
Done

Plot

  • "Meanwhile, Datuk Meringgih, jealous of Baginda Sulaiman's... " - Usually just the last name is used on second and subsequent references to the same person.
Done

Characters

  • "her as a character that is capable of making her own decisions" - She is a "who" rather than a "that".
Done

Style

  • "comes across as lacking" - Maybe "is seen by Siregar as inept"?
Quotation marks added. The original is "kurang baik", which literally translated would be "less than good".
  • "clichéed descriptions" - Nothing should be linked from within a direct quotation, according to the Manual of Style. Ditto for "dalang" in the Reception section.
Done

Themes

  • File:Minangkabau wedding 2.jpg is used to illustrate the idea of forced marriage. Were the couple in the illustration forced to marry? If not, is it accurate and ethical to use their image in this way?
Removed

Other

  • Did Rusli publish any other work?
His only work that was received even a tenth as well as Sitti Nurbaya was Anak dan Kemenakan, which doesn't seem to be related.
  • Could anything be added about quantities? How many copies did Balai Pustaka originally print? Did the book sell well? Any idea how many copies have been printed altogether? Has the book or its translations and adaptations made money for anyone? Any stats at all?
Have not found any information on that. It is currently in its 44th printing; information added to the article.

References

  • The date formatting throughout the references should be consistent. Citation 23 does not match the others.
That was a newspaper article, but I've cut the month and day
  • The ISBNs should include the hyphens. A handy tool here will convert them.
Done
  • Does the Mahayana book need a place of publication. I'm assuming that Grasindo is the publisher.
Done
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


Family Guy[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FA. Over the years I have developed the artical and a while ago it was copy edited. But before I nominate it I would like to get some feedback to see how I can improve the articale.

Thanks, Pedro J. the rookie 17:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I can't stand Family Guy, but there are still a number of errors in the article, so this peer review has been closed. A\/\93r-(0la 22:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The point of a peer review is to discuss improvements of an article. Why, if there are errors in the article, would the discussion be closed instead of pointing out the errors so they can be fixed? Gage (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, CE is made to get feedback from editors and get consensus that the artical is ready for FAC or FLC. If it has any errors you should put them here so I can address them. Also your opinion about the show is irrelevant. Pedro J. the rookie 23:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review is over already. A\/\93r-(0la 00:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What gives you authority to close it? GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I prefer The Simpsons over FG. Anyways, the peer review was closed because the "Family Guy" article may not meet portions of the GA criteria. Also the "SKL/LKS" article fails meet the GA criteria, and both articles should've been delisted from GA status I believe. All Wikipedia users will never get these two articles to GA or FA again. A\/\93r-(0la 00:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I repeat again your opinion of the show is not relevant, important or anything of value. Not to make assumptions but does this have anything to do with you already having an artical for PR. Just to make my point the reasons to close a PR are: listings older than one month with no activity in the last two days, listings inactive for two weeks (semi-automated peer reviews do not count as activity), inappropriate listings, articles that have become featured article or featured list candidates, and nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed, and I believe none of those things have happened. So either give a good, valid, intelligent concern worth my and other contributors to the WP:FG's or just don't comment. Pedro J. the rookie 00:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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

  • There is a toolbox on this PR page which shows one dab link that needs to be fixed. It also finds several problem external links including some that are dead or forbidden now.
  • Copying what I wrote in the previous peer review, "LEAD - I think I would put some indication of time in the first paragraph - began airing in 1999, currently in its eighth [ninth] season, something like that.
  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see anything on the voice cast or on the lawsuits, for example.
  • The last paragraph of the lead feels like too much detail / focus on the spinoffs and tie ins, not enough focus on the series itself (which is what the article is about).
  • Most difficult criterion for most articles at FAC to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. Some examples of problems follow (not a complete list)
  • First sentence of Origins does nto seem to match the rest of that section. MacFarlane initially conceived Family Guy in 1995 while studying animation at the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD).[1] He came up with a student film with characters that eventually developed into Peter and Brian. You could say something like "Family Guy can trace its roots back to 1995, when MacFarlane was studying animation at the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD).[1]
  • Which is it - slow evolution into the current version While working on the series, the characters of Larry and his dog Steve slowly evolved into Peter and Brian.[3][6] or basically the same thing with different names for the dad and dog ...the difference between the first short, The Life of Larry, and Family Guy, was that "Life of Larry was shown primarily in my dorm room and Family Guy was shown after the Super Bowl."[5]
  • Another part of FAC is making sure things are done consistently - is MADtv italicized or not, for example? Attention to detail helps make the path through FAC smoother.
  • I would add specific years / dates here: Family Guy was originally pitched to Fox in the same year as King of the Hill, but the show was not bought until years later, when King of the Hill became successful.[7] Also the last phrase makes it sound as if the success of King of the Hill led to FOX picking up Family Guy - is that the case??
  • The organization of the article is currently confused. I ownder if it would be clearer with a History section first. This could have the current Origin section, followed by the current Early history and cancellation section (perhaps call this First run and cancellation, maybe add the years in parentheses after?), then have the Cult success and revival section - again with years.
  • I would then have the Production section. I would also try to tie production information into dates as much as possible (or perhaps relate it to the season number). For example the Executive producers section seems confused without dates, also not sure it should be the first section in Production. Would Writing, Voice cast, and then Executive producers make more sense as an order?
  • Seems odd that there is nothing on writing in the last 3 years (after 2008)
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - some of the structural issues raised here might be resolved by looking at FAs on animated series.
  • The Voice cast mentions a lot of characters, but the Characters section comes later in the article, so the reader does not necessarily know who the characters not already mentioned in the lead are (like Herbert)
  • Would Lawsuits fit better in the Controversies section? Also seems odd that were the three lawsuits in less than a year and then no more since.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get it to featured article status. It has all ready been reviewed by Ruby2010 (twice), but the opposers of the first nomination (Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Brianboulton (talk · contribs), and ultimately SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs)) still think the article is incomprehensible (see here, here, and regrettably here). I want to make sure the article, specifically its plot section, is comprehensible by the general (i.e. non-Chuck-viewing) reader, and if not, how specifically to get it there. I also want to make sure there are no remaining errors such as grammar issues or MOS violations in references.

Thanks, Boycool (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs
  • {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Some initial comments:
    • It seems odd to pack so much info into the lead about the background, especially since most of it's not actually in the article body. I understand the issues of trying to make plot sections for involved episodes seem clear, but the solution is usually less details, not more.
      • What details would you suggest removing? --Boycool (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Along those lines, the plot can be trimmed a bit more, but I'll try my hand at it first to try and spare you more grief.
    • The reception section suffers a bit because its grouped by critic opinions, rather than reaction to specific aspects of the episode. I'm not sure if this is a better way of doing it based on the reviews but it comes off awkwardly like a laundry list.
    • I'll prolly have more to say after I go through for a full edit, and I'll take a better look at the previous FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Design management[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article has potential for FA status and would like to further improve it.

  • It was nominated as GA in June 2011.
  • It was completely copy-edited by a the Guild of Copy Editors (as a group effort) in August 2011.

Comments on what is still needed to improve to bring it to a FA level are very welcome.

Thanks, Wiki4des (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry it has taken so long to review this aqrticle and thanks for your work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is sueful for ideas and examples to follow. I am not sure what a good model would be here, but note that there are several FAs in Category:FA-Class WikiProject Business articles which might give some ideas.
  • I think this article would have a difficult time passing FAC in its current state.
  • The lead does not follow WP:LEAD, which says that the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. The cdurrent lead feels more like an introduction to the topic than a summary. By the way, 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
  • To make sure it is a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • There are quite a few unsourced statements, which would be a quick fail at FAC. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. If a paragraph has a ref early, then sentences following it without a ref, these need some sort of citation (ref) too. AAn example (one of many) of this is from the Notion of the term "design management" section: Although they did not use the term "design management", they stressed identical issues; while the design community discussed methodologies for design. Christopher Alexander's work played an important role in the development of the design methodology, where he devoted his attention to the problems of form and context; and focused on disassembling complex design challenges into constituent parts to approach a solution. His intention was to bring more rationalism and structure into the solving of design problems.
  • A few examples of other things that need refs follow (not a complete list). I also note that there are two citation needed tags.
    • The three part definitaion in the Extended definition section needs a ref.
    • Whole first paragraph of the Managing design systematically (1960s–1970s) section has no refs - I note that it includes a direct quotation - these ALWAYS need refs
    • Whole second pqaragraph of Politic (till 2000s) section on Nazis
  • References need to be formatted consistently and to provide all required information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed - many ofthe refs here with internet links do not have access dates. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There are images which are illegible - both File:Business Model Canvas.png and File:Dm-definition.pdf cannot be read in the article. The latter image may be better if it were cropped to remove excess white space.
  • Article needs to follow WP:HEAD better for section headers - the general rule is to avoid repeating the name of the article in a section header (or header in a subheader) if at all possible. So the header Notion of the term "design management" could just be Notion of the term (the reader already knows what the article is about and what the term is)
  • Article needs to follow WP:ITALIC in its use of italic and bold - why are names in captions in bold face?
  • The prose is not up to a professional level of English, which is WP:WIAFA criterion 1a. This is the most difficult criterion for most articles to meet a FAC. I am not a business expert, and I felt this was written in business-speak, which made it more difficult to follow and comprehend.
  • The article is very list-y and these lists should converted to prose wherever possible (not all of them, but hopefully most)
  • Long quotes should be attributed and put into context - in the Defining quotes section, who are Peter Gorb and Jon Thackara (and why should their quotes be used to define the topic)? So if you say here that Gorb is a published author of important works in the field and is affiliated with various universities (as the article does later), that helps.
  • In general make sure to provide context to the reader - most readers will not know as much on the topic as the main editors do and so context is more needed and helpful for them
  • Speaking of Gorb, the article is often confusing or even apparently contradictory. For example In his Classification of Design (1976), Gorb divided design into three different classes. OK, so I figure we will next read what the three classes are. However, what follows is a list of four things with many examples after each Design management operates in and across all three classes: product (e.g. industrial design, packaging design, service design), information (e.g. graphic design, branding, media design, web design), interaction (usability, human-computer interaction), and environment (e.g. retail design, exhibition design, interior design).[8] I am lost.
  • There are also places where the prose is just not grammatically correct, i.e. "proofing" (should be "proving" or better yet, "The following references prove this argument") in Design improves the performance of the innovation policy and of the communications policy of the firm. Following references are proofing this argument: ...
  • Avoid vague time terms like recent(ly) - these can become out of date and it is better to include actual years (since 2008, for example)
  • The header "Politics (since the 2010s)" to me makes no sense - I would think that the 2010s are the current decade, so we would need to wait until the 2020s to be "since the 2010s". If "after 2010" or in this decade are meant, then I find it odd that the first ref is from 1993 (17 years before 2010)
  • See also is generally for links not already in the article - see WP:See also
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


Indian National Army[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because article is too long ,NPOV,The ToC is overwhelmingly long…

Thanks, RohG ??· 05:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Dana Boomer

Just a few quick thoughts;

  • I'm not sure I agree with the article being "too long". It's at almost 5,900 words, not counting the bullets, and with bullets probably around 6,500. This is on the low end of the WP:SIZE recommended guidelines of 6,000-10,000 maximum word count, and I know I've seen articles much longer.
  • Check English variations - I see defence and defense, recognize and recognise, etc.
  • Check weasel wording and make sure that sourcing is up to snuff - for example, the "is considered" in the first paragraph of the Troop strength section needs a qualifier (by who is it considered) and a source (for the statistics and the considering).
  • There are a lot of bullet-pointed lists in the article - it should be considered whether these could be turned into prose, as I think many of them could.
  • I'm not sure what the purpose is of having the bullet pointed references in both the notes section and the refs section.
  • What makes Ref #69 (Rose India) a reliable source? Check other refs for reliability, and, if aiming for FAC, high quality.
  • Some areas need checking for referencing - especially on statistics and opinion. For example, last paragraph of Second INA section (45 kids, "affectionately known"), second paragraph of INA in operation (opinion attributed to Sahgal), second paragraph of Relations (opinion attributed to Fraser), etc.

These are my thoughts for now. I think that attention is needed most significantly on the referencing, and once that has been done, the format and length of the article will fall into place more easily. Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


Comment: No edits have been made to the article since Dana's excellent review. - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


List of Indianapolis Colts starting quarterbacks[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on submitting it for WP:FLC. I've patterned it after other NFL pages for starting quarterbacks that have reached featured list criteria. I would appreciate any feedback or comments.

Thanks, Seimi2602 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FLC.

  • Glad you have one or more model articles (lists) already, as a model is useful for ideas and examples to follow
  • There is a toolbox on this page which shows disambiguation links - this has some, though one is to the Baltimore Colts (so might be one you want to keep)
  • The first sentence does not really follow WP:LEAD which says in part The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. The current first sentence does not even mention the word quarterback: The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject.
  • Avoid vague time terms like currently - They are currently members of the South Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL). could be something like They have been members of the South Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL) since YEAR.
  • I would the year to this sentence After 31 seasons in Baltimore, Colts owner Robert Irsay moved the team to Indianapolis.
  • I would rewrite this The Colts' past starting quarterbacks include Pro Football Hall of Fame inductee Johnny Unitas, as well as the Associated Press National Football League Most Valuable Player Award (MVP) winners Earl Morrall and Bert Jones. Unitas also won the MVP award three times in his career. to focus on Unitas first, then the other MVPs. So perhaps something like The Colts' past starting quarterbacks include Pro Football Hall of Fame inductee Johnny Unitas, who won the Associated Press National Football League Most Valuable Player Award (MVP) three times. Other Colt QB MVP winners are Earl Morrall and Bert Jones.
  • This seems like it could be tightened: The franchise's first starting quarterback was Fred Enke, who started 9 games in total for the Colts. maybe Fred Enke was the Colts' first starting quarterback, and started 9 games for the team.
  • Problem sentence - be consistent on capitalization of quarterback, and MOS says to spell out numbers less than 10 The Colts struggled early on to find consistency and stability at the Quarterback position with 5 different quarterbacks starting at least on[e] game in the first two seasons of the franchise.
  • MOS also says to use "first" not "1st", etc (spell out less than 10)
  • I would give the year(s) of the season Shaw completed
  • Avoid needless repetition - spot it here and win a prize (a better article) In 1970 the Colts, with Unitas under center, would return to the Superbowl in 1970.
  • Or here When the Colts entered the league in 1953 the Colts played a 12-game schedule.
  • ALso try to avoid using the same word or variants more than once in the same sentence, if possible. See award(ed) here: During his eight year tenure as the Colts' starting quarterback Jones led the team to three consecutive AFC East division titles and was awarded the 1976 AP MVP award.
  • MOS says to use someone's full name the first time in an article (so "Johnny Unitas") and then just their last name after that (so just "Unitas") unless there is more than one person with the same last name in the article, or thefull name is used in a direct quote (can also use full name a second time on first use after the lead in the article body)
  • Third and fourth paragraphs of History need references, as does the first paragraph of Statistics
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


Venetian Ionian Islands[edit]

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

Thanks, Marcofran (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis[edit]
Lead
  • I would recommend completely rewriting the lead. As it stands, the lead hold a large number of sources which aren't found elsewhere in the body. Per WP:LEAD, it should summarise the rest of the article, it shouldn't contain any new information. It's a good idea to try and incorporate information from every section in the lead somehow. I'd start the first paragraph with a description of the territory, then go into its creation and its governance, then its fall. Do this last though, after working on the rest of the article.
Relations between Venice and Byzantium
  • Is there a reason you call what wikipedia calls _ the "Barbaric invasions"?
  • Clarify Fall of the West means the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, which Venice was a part of.
  • Replace "kept being considered" with "remained considered"
  • I'd suggest removing "Still and all, its independence would be proved inevitable;" it doesn't add anything to the article.
  • I'd replace "Emperor's suzerainty had faded away over the years" with "the influence of the Eastern Roman Emperor slowly faded away."
  • Replace "could be considered" with "functioned as"
  • Remove the word "being" in the next sentence
  • Do the sources provide a list of treaties? If so include that instead of giving a seemingly random example.
  • Remove "against" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
  • "dissolution of the first" what? "Sack of the second" what?
  • "Its" should not have an apostrophe here.
  • What outcome is meant by "this outcome"?
  • Who was "Charles" and how was Venice relevant to him?
  • This whole section seems quite irrelevant to the rest of the article. Explain somewhere what relations have to do with the Venetian Ionian Islands. Perhaps it should go under background in History?
Appellation
  • Remove "There are different names and spellings for each island, too", it's quite obvious and doesn't add anything.
  • Did the Ottoman Empire call them anything specific?
History
  • Remove the word "Nevertheless", doesn't seem to make sense in this context.
  • Would the Frankokratia section be better kept as part of Background?
  • By "Turks" in the Frankokratia section do you mean Ottomans?
  • How did Venice take back Corfu?
  • "With the Treaty of Passarowitz Cythera and Anticythera passed to the Venetian Republic and remained under its control until its fall." Clarify the what the "its" in this sentence are.
  • Give more information about the Despotate of Epirus.
  • Some of the information is not in chronological order, which is slightly strange. In addition, is something missing from the end?
  • Include a section about what happened just after Venice
Administration
  • Can this section incorporate more information about domestic leaders?
  • Were the islands ever governed as a group?
Economy
  • Join the first two paragraphs here together
  • Was all trade limited to just Venice? Were the islands part of any trade routes? Any information about imports?
Demographics
  • Are the population figures presented from a census?
  • The language and education subsections seem a bit forced to me. It may be best to simply mix that information into the main section. It is interesting to me that the educated (higher-class) would know Venetian. Was Greek the language of the settlers or the people who lived there when it was conquered by Venice?
  • How does stopping education help Venetian colonial policy?
  • Did Jews live in a grotto here? Is that why they were transferred?
Legacy
  • Are you sure the current population of the Islands recalls Venice with nostalgia? If so, why? Make sure those words are used in the source.
  • Is there a current legal special status for Italian in the Ionian Islands?

From the looks of it, this article is very well sourced. The main problem I can see would be the writing, so when the content it done I suggest asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Sorry this took so long, and good luck with the article! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Appellation
  • I found nothing on administrative division; but logically all the islands would form part of the Rumelia Eyalet (Pashalik of Yanina) and Morea Eyalet, located entirely on the Balkan Peninsula, and opposite the islands. Right?
History
  • Which information is not in chronological order?
  • I know, I have to add something on the a) aftermath and b) on how Venice took back Corfu.
Administration
  • Nothing else on domestic authorities.
  • Yes, they were, by the Provveditore generale da Mar. I've included this.
Economy
  • Yes, that's what the source says and I found they were part of one trade route. I found nothing on imports, though.
Demographics
  • I am not sure about all of them; why?
  • What do you mean a bit forced? Which main section you mean? As the islands were part of the Byzantine Empire, Greek language would be the language of the indigenous people, the people before the conquest. But as it is mentioned there were some Greek-speaking settlers, too.
  • I don't know. It does not mention in the source. What should I do?
  • Wrong expression.
Legacy
  • This word is exatly what the writer of the source uses.
  • I did not find anything on Italian language for today. Why?

I'll try to include more about the aftermath and the Venetian conquest of Corfu in History and I will rewrite the Lead. --Marcofran (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Appellation
  • That makes sense to me, perhaps a source on one of those will mention the Ionian islands.
History
  • Dates within the Frankokratia and the Venetian conquest sections jump around a bit between dates. I can see that it seems to be arranged on an island basis, but it still seems slightly off. Perhaps the Frankokratia information can be integrated into the Venetian conquest section? Slightly not on the topic of venetian topic perhaps, but the shift from 1479 back to 1386 and then 1286 is a bit disconcerting. There are a few options here, with the two most obvious ones to me being having all actions in complete chronological order or rework everything except the very beginning and end on an island basis. There could be much better options here though, any thoughts?
  • Section as a whole is looking much more complete now. Perhaps combine dissolution and aftermath into one section, it detracts slightly from the main point of the article which is their Venetian rule. However, from my knowledge of history, what you've written is quite a good concise summary.
Administration
  • Ah, excellent. Question on Corfu then; Paragraph two states "The head of the reggimento, had the title of Provveditore in all the islands except for Corfu, where he was called Bailo." Paragraph three states "In Corfu the Venetian officials included a Bailo, a Provveditore and a Capitano, two Consiglieri, a Capitano della cittadella and a Castellano della fortezza." To me, these seem to conflict, one saying there wasn't a Provveditore and one saying there was.
Demographics
  • I find it useful to include information about how statistics were obtained, especially historical figures, this helps to differentiate between guesses by historians and actual figures obtained in some way by the rulers of the time.
  • When I say forced, I mean it seems like you went out of your way to create whole sections on language and education whereas the text seems to indicate they are not that special or unique. I also feel they would feel more connected if they were included after the information on immigration, which would make connections such as the one you pointed out with Greek settlers easier to make. As both sections are just short paragraphs I thought that they may as well be combined.
    • In the sentence "It actually became the "official" language of the Government and the laws", the word "actually" should be removed if there's no reason to keep it. The quotation marks around "official" should be removed too, and I'd suggest removed "and the laws" as redundant.
    • Rewrite "Thus, the Venetian language was to become" as "The Venetian language became".
  • If reasons are not mentioned in the source, perhaps add the exact quote from the source to the reference, which shows the context the author mentions it in.
Legacy
  • The wording just seemed a bit WP:PEACOCKy to me. If it's in the source, it's fine in my opinion. Perhaps add the quote to the reference.
  • I was wondering if there was any legal legacy about the language as well as social. Any firmer statements, such as figures on current numbers of Italian speakers would help firm this section up a little.
Sorry for this late response, couple of real life interruptions, but looking better. Remember to alternate the images down the page, per WP:MOSIMAGES. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Appellation
  • I didn't find anything in these sources. The only thing I found is travel books of 1813 and 1823 where Cythera is included as part of the Morea. But I thing this has nothing to do with this period. Right? So, nothing on administration?
History
  • I can't think of something else... But the whole section of Francokratia is part of the Background. Should I change the order only in the Venetian Conquest section?
Administration
  • This means that the head of the reggimento was called Bailo and in other places Provveditore, not that there was no official in Corfu with the title of Provveditore.
Demographics
  • Unfortunately, nothing on which were guesses by historians and which were actual figures.
  • Done!
  • Done!
Legacy
  • Done
  • I found nothing because modern Greek cencus does not include data about language.
Can you think of any other improvements? --Marcofran (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
History
  • It's up to you. Perhaps the copyeditor will be able to do something, just give it some thought.
Administration
  • So the Bailo was the superior on Corfu?
You're obviously the one with all of the sources, so I suppose if you feel that the article is comprehensive based on information out there, that will be what is needed. A note on the lead; it shouldn't really have any sources by itself or information that needs to be sourced. When I write the leads, what I sometimes do is take a copy of the whole article and trim that down till I have something lead sized. Timeconsuming, but makes sure all the information is in the article, and ensures you've examined what there is in the article. You can then remove references from the lead. Sorry for the slow response again, my main computer wasn't working, and I was very busy in life, so all I had time to do was watchlist upkeep. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want It to become a GA but, need peer reviews first.

Thanks, Mike 289 16:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody please answer this review?Mike 289 17:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Belovedfreak

Bearing in mind the peer review process is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work", there's unfortunately not a whole lot to go on here. It's quite a way from meeting the good article criteria. I will give some suggestions though. Apart from more content, if available, the article needs a thorough copyedit and more citations to reliable sources. Some suggestions:

  • The article needs proofreading at the very least as I quickly spotted missing punctuation and missing spaces
  • The lead should summarise the rest of the article (see WP:LEAD) which it doesn't at the moment, although there isn't too much content in the article yet
  • The first sentence of the article (beyond the lead) starts "During development, the device..." - what device? Remember that the lead is summarising the article, not just acting as an introduction. The first sentence of the main part of the article should make it clear what we're talking about.
  • "...the device was known as HTC "Doubleshot" and was leaked out to the public as its official name" - not a great sentence - the device was leaked as its official name? What does that mean?
  • "...many people hated cameras found on most phones" - really? People hate cameras on phones?
  • "The team then created the 4G Slide to be capable of using a very strong camera." - I'm not really sure what is being said here. Does this phone have a stronger camera than all other phones? What is meant by "stronger" anyway? More megapixels? More powerful zoom? Better at withstanding being dropped on the floor?
  • "The phone confirms the rumors set on multiple blogs" - what rumors? Are these notable blogs we're talking about?
  • "The 4G Slide features build nearly the same as the MyTouch 4G." - what does this mean?
  • "But the similarities end there." - incomplete sentence
  • You have 6 empty sections
  • Please make sure all sources used meet the guideline at Identifying reliable sources
  • To be honest, I don't understand some of what is here. It is an article about a piece of technology, so it is by necessity going to be somewhat technological and use jargon, but it needs to be as accessible as possible to a reasonably intelligent reader. For example, what's multi touch sensing? What's a genius button?

I'm not sure what else to say based on the amount that's there, but I hope that helps. --BelovedFreak 22:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


Barbara Gordon[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm thinking of nominating the article for FA. I'd appreciate notes on whether or not to do away with the fictional character biography and merge all of the (essential) info into the publication history.

Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


John Day Fossil Beds National Monument[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take it to FAC. Petrified Forest National Park, a featured article that I nominated about a year ago, was my main model. It's a Triassic park, whereas John Day Fossil Beds National Monument is a Cenozoic park. Any suggestions about how to improve the article will be appreciated.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Very informative, beautifully illustrated. A few issues and suggestions:-

Lead
  • Possible ovedetailing in lead? The two sentences beginning "The park's headquarters..." and "Scientific work in the fossil beds..." come to mind as perhaps unnecessaryin a broad summary lead.
  • Capitalisation of Elk, Raccoons, Coyotes? Is this satndard?
I'm glad you asked because this question arises again and again, and I have tended to duck it. The Wikipedia guidelines for capitalization of names of plants and animals contain some variables. I rely mainly on the guidelines found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Animals, plants, and other organisms. The guidelines urge consistency within an article but list three acceptable kinds of consistency, only two of which might apply to this article. They recommend either (1) "title case for common names of species throughout, and lower case for common names of groups of species as in (the Golden Eagle is a relatively large eagle; see WP:BIRDS);" or (2) "lower-case initial letters for common names, which may work well for non-specialist articles that happen to refer to different taxonomic groups." In addition, the guidelines say "For particular groups of organisms, there are particular rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms; for example, official common names of birds." What I've done in past articles is to follow guideline (2) plus the bird guideline because my articles are what I would generally call "non-technical", though some of the sections like the geology section in this article might fairly be called "technical". In this article, for no good reason except my usual uneasy feeling about which guidelines to follow, I followed guideline (1) plus the bird guideline, which makes the capitalization like that of Fauna of Scotland. This might be a mistake, since it makes lots of capitals stand out on the page, which I'm not sure is a good idea. I would be happy to follow either guideline, but I'm hoping to be nudged one way or the other. The answer to your specific question is "yes", but "elk, raccoon, coyote" are also standard. Is there any consensus about which is better in this particular article? I have no strong opinion one way or the other. Finetooth (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
My personal preference, as an anti-capitalist (in a manner of speaking), is to minimise the use of caps, so my natural instincts would be for guideline 2. Even so, I think there will always be cases where caps are conventionally used - "Great White" rather than "great white" for sharks, for example, but I think these are few and far between. Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I minimized them, making the usual exception for birds. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Geography
  • "The Painted Hills Unit, which lies about halfway between the other two units..." You could lose "units" to avoid repetition
History
  • I would add the word "tribes" after "groups such as the Warm Springs, Umatilla and Wasco..." Also, no details are given as to when these people inhabited the area. It seems quite a jump forward whenwe learn later in the paragraph that Northern Paiutes had moved into the region in the 18th century.
R: Agreed. I need to review my sources and see if I can answer the "when" question and make the sequence of events a bit more complete. I'll post another note when I've done that. Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I revised this paragraph to include slightly more specific dates for the tribes for whom historic records exist. I deleted the sentence about the first 10,000 years because it did not seem to have anything to do with the fossil beds. None of the National Park Service material says anything about Clovis points or anything else really old in or near the monument. The rock art, which is not so old, is the oldest evidence of local human activity that is mentioned. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you "ascend" a river? I no you go upriver, but somehow "ascend" reads oddly
  • Perhaps a word or two of explanation as to why Oregon became a magnet for settlers? (maybe just rearrange the information at the start of the paragraph?)
R: Good suggestion. I'll add something either to the main text or to a footnote. I'll post a further note when I've done that. Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Duly added to the main text. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "Remote and arid, the John Day basin near the fossil beds slowly attracted homesteaders". It seems to me that the sentence needs an "Although..." at the beginning, or perhaps "was slow to attract homesteaders" if that is the intended sense.
Geology and paleontology
  • Maybe I am slow but, regrettably, I am unable to interpret the diagram. I am not even sure what information it is conveying. Also, I had to struggle a bit to understand the prose in this section - I found myself wondering what words like "uplifting" and "member" mean in this context.
R: Not your fault. I need to give this some careful thought and see if I can make the section clearer via a combination of links and a better caption for the diagram. I'll post another note here when I've done that. Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I made quite a few changes to this section in the hopes of making it more clear. I expanded the caption to better explain how the chart is to be interpreted, and I changed the word "Formation" to "Strata" in the main text to match "Strata" in the chart. I eliminated some terms like "member" that were not necessary, and I linked and briefly explained "uplift", and I linked a few other terms. Fixing this was harder than repairing the history bits, so I'd like to know if it is now OK or if it's still murky. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Flora
  • A very minor prose style point: adverbial beginnings to sentences are in my view best avoided. Thus: "Commonly seen at the Clarno and Sheep Rock units are..." better as "...are commonly seen at the..." etc
  • Is there a possible link to explain "riparian vegetation"?
Another one this far down in the article seems fine to me, so I added it. Finetooth (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Fauna
  • If possible, avoid "commonly seen" in the first sentence (to avoid repetiton). "Frequently seen"?
  • The list of birds in the first paragraph is a bit overwhelming! Maybe shorten it a little? I also wonder what he convention is on capitals?
Yes, I got a bit carried away. I've shortened the list by nine. The capital convention is governed by the bird rule, which says to use title case for common bird names. They would stay as they are whether I used general guideline (1) or general guideline (2) above. On the other hand, if I switch to general guideline (2), non-birds like Common Side-blotched Lizard would become "common side-blotched lizard" unless (oh, dear) the name includes a word that by itself requires a capital letter, as in "Pacific tree frog." Finetooth (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "extirpated"; not the commonest of words. Perhaps "wiped out".
  • "reintroduced" is not a hyphenated word
  • "Commonly seen are..." again
  • Link seeps
Activities
  • "Except for the Cant Ranch, individual park buildings are open every day except Federal holidays between Thanksgiving (the fourth Thursday of November) and Presidents Day (the third Monday of February)." Some lack of clarity here. One way of reading this that the park buildings are closed except between Thanksgiving and President's Day. I assume this is not what is intended? Perhaps a comma after "open every day" would clarify.
References
  • Refs 46 and 51 lack publisher information. Check for others
  • I notice that the external link checking tool indicates that a large number of your online links are not working. I had no trouble with these, so I suspect the tool is misbehaving, though I thought I'd mention it.

That's all. Nice work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the thorough review. Reading your suggestions quickly, I find myself in agreement with most. I'll work on making changes over the next few days and, following your example, I'll comment only on the suggestions that I don't immediately adopt. Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
All done except for the four that I comment on above. I plan to improve three (marked with R) more rough patches, based on your recommendations, but they will take a little more time. The fourth is the capitalization question, on which I waffle and seek guidance, as explained above. Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
More difficult bits now done too. Better, I hope. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this is very well done and beautifully illustrated. As requested I have taken a look at the article and feel that it seems pretty much ready for FAC. Thanks for your work on it, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • Since all the fossil animals listed are mammals (I think), would it make sense to say something about that in the lead? WHen I see something more recent than 65 million years ago I know there are no dinosaurs, but I am not sure most readers have that number etched in their brains.
  • One dot on the locator map, but three sub-units.... I do not know if this would be useful or not, but I have added extra dots to maps for places with multiple locations - see the Exelon Pavilions map in its infobox.
  • Would it be better just to say "Midwest" (but keep the link)? Leaving drought, worn-out farms, and economic problems behind, they emigrated from states like Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa in the Midwestern United States to Oregon, especially the Willamette Valley in the western part of the state.[19]
  • What kind of mines? Settlement was made more practical by a supply route from The Dalles on the Columbia River to mines at Canyon City in the upper John Day valley.[20]
  • Is "to the Internet" needed in Both transmit continuous real-time images to the Internet; one shows the paleontology lab... (where else do webcams transmit?)
  • File:Joda geologic timeline.png seems a bit wide on my monitor - would it still be legible as "upright" (now just thumb size)?
  • I do not normally think of shale etc as flowing - assume it was as bits and pieces within the lahars? The flows of shale, siltstones, conglomerates, and breccias entombed plants and animals caught in their paths;...
  • Should the caption be Indian Paintbrush or Applegate's Indian Paintbrush?
  • This sentnece took me a while to figure out - not sure how to make it clearer Individual park buildings are closed on Federal holidays between Thanksgiving (the fourth Thursday of November) and Presidents Day (the third Monday of February).
    • I wonder if changing the order would help - if I understand correctly, the park land itself is always open (in daylight hours) and only the buildings are closed a few days each winter. So maybe if the order of the sentences were switched so that when the buildings are usually open came first that would help. Perhaps something like this
Hours of operation for the Cant Ranch vary seasonally.[64] The ranch house contains a cultural museum, restrooms, and a drinking fountain as well as park staff headquarters.[13] Other park buildings are open every day from March to October. They are closed on Federal holidays between Thanksgiving (the fourth Thursday of November) and Presidents Day (the third Monday of February). Operating hours for the main visitor center (Thomas Condon Paleontology Center) are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Its amenities include a fossil museum, theater, education classroom, bookstore, restrooms, and drinking fountains.[13]
Much better, thank you. I have adopted your wording. Finetooth (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your helpful comments. I'll use them to improve the article later this week. Finetooth (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I've followed all of your recommendations except one. I'm not sure how to add two more dots or how to get them in exactly the right place. How did you do the extra ones for Exelon Pavilion? I could use blue for the Painted Hills Unit and green for the Clarno Unit and explain that in the map caption. Perhaps adding them by hand using Paint.NET would work. I could approximate the locations, I guess, and make something roundish pixel by pixel. That seems clumsy, though. Any tips? Finetooth (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I see where the dots in the Exelon Pavilion caption came from: File:Red pog.svg and its cousins. Finetooth (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as I recall I had to play around with them a bit to get them to be the correct apparent size. I think I added them to an article in different sizes in preview mode and just did screen captures to see which looked the right size. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I added the File:Red pog.svg and its blue cousin to the Exelon Pavilion map page as sources - thanks (and sorry). Please also let me know when this is at FAC, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll play around with the dots and see what I can do. I just didn't want to reinvent the wheel (or dot) if you knew of a quick fix. I'll be sure to let you know when this goes to FAC. I'm going to let it reside at PR for a while yet. Wehwalt or others may yet weigh in. Finetooth (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I might try a dot that is 10 or 11 pixels wide to start. I also realized it might help to say which unit is in which county. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I found coordinates from Google Earth for each pavilion and then put those into the map finders here on Wikipedia (again probably with a coordinate template in preview mode). Once I had a good idea of where the dots should go, I added them. For this map I would look at features on county and state borders (vertically it lines up with this bump and horizontally is about 2/3 of the way above the southern edge of this county - that sort of thing). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Excellent tips. I did not think of using the map finders in that way, and I had no clear notion of what pixel width to start with. Finetooth (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. Fairly easy after reading your tips. I tried 10 and 11 pixels and then settled on 12 pixels. The blue dot looks smaller than the other two to me, but they are all 12 pixels. I also added a couple of sentences to the Geography text explaining which county or counties the units are in. The dots are a very useful thing to master. Thanks again. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks good, though I see what you mean about the blue dot appearing smaller. I suppose you could try making it 13 pixels and seeing how that looks (if you want). Could also add actual dots to the caption, so something like the following, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Location of the units of the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument in Oregon: Red pog.svg Sheep Rock; Blue pog.svg Painted Hills; Green pog.svg Clarno. Inset: Oregon in the United States
  • Reviewing This will be piecemeal, in two or three parts.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I regret how slow I am doing it, and proffer the excuse that I am presently traveling and have had a touch of being under the weather. Expect the second half tomorrow, here is the first:
  • Lede
Somewhere in the lede should be mentioned that it is administered by the National Park Service.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't the date of establishment be better at the end of the third paragraph?
Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
"roam the units" Very poetic, but in actuality many of them have holes, like birds of the air have nests. Suggest rephrase that does not imply a migratory wont.
Not all of the critters stay in one place or necessarily have a home base within the park boundaries. I substituted "frequent" for "roam". Is that any better? Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Geography
"some of which are separated from one another by farms and ranches and other parcels of land that are not part of the park.[12] Too many ands. You might do well to split this sentence.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph with the distances seems difficult to read. Can you improve the prose? Or put this in a chart or something?
Unnecessary detail might be the problem here. I removed several of the distances in the hopes of making the prose less sleep-inducing. Finetooth (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • History
", Condon accompanied soldiers traveling through the region, where he discovered rich fossil beds" This is rather awkward, suggest "where" be omitted and a new sentence started after that.
Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Why was it only Condon's subsequent trips that caused interest? What about the ones in 1865?
You are quite right. I removed the word "subsequent". Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • " first State Geologist " Almost certainly lower case, but you may wish to check MOS.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If it was known when the John Day Fossil Beds were first called that. I would include that.
Agreed and done. I added a note saying that Othniel C. Marsh named the beds in 1875. Finetooth (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "from the Officers" Because of the unusual name, which is only mentioned once previously, I would say "from the Officer family" if the source will justify this.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "encouraged by Merriam," Merriam has been mentioned once, as part of a list. Can you say something brief about him here to explain his interest?
Yes. I've altered the first sentence of the paragraph to read, "Merriam, a University of California paleontologist who had led expeditions to the region in 1899 and 1900, encouraged the State of Oregon to protect the area." Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. He wanted to protect the area. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "After much planning and political debate, the national monument was established on October 8, 1975." National monuments just don't happen. One or two ways: either Act of Congress or the President exercising his authority under the Antiquities Act. You have to say which for this article to be comprehensive.
Quite right. It was an Act of Congress, but the authorization and the establishment did not occur at the same time. I added two explanatory sentences: "In 1974 Congress authorized the National Park Service to establish the national monument, and President Gerald R. Ford signed the authorization into law. After the State of Oregon had completed the land transfer of the three state parks to the Federal government, the monument was officially established on October 8, 1975." Finetooth (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I would make the house itself, rather than the district it is enclosed in, the subject of the penultimate paragraph. That way, you avoid a little lurch when you switch from talking about the district to the house.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Generally a good effort, but you can't get that fuzzy about the establishment of the monument!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your suggestions. They look helpful, and I'll consider each one carefully in the coming days and post individual replies here. I, too, am busy with other things, and there's no reason to hurry. I hope you regain your full health soon and that your trip goes well. I look forward to any other suggestions you might make. Finetooth (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I found myself in agreement with all of your suggestions above, and I've made alterations accordingly. Any other suggestions will certainly be welcome. Finetooth (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, here are the rest of my comments. I'll look back in in a day or so to see if there are any points that require discussion (I gather there are none above).

  • Geology
" had thus shifted to the west." I'd strike the thus. I'm not quite sure it is justified, and it doesn't sound right somehow.
I agree. Removed. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
"Preserved in places like " I'd strike "in places like".
Yes, seems unnecessary. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
A date for the Rattlesnake Strata might be interesting.
Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
"Analysis of the John Day fossils" ... This sentence seems to be needing a good lead in, like "In addition to adding to our knowledge of past life, analysis ..." Not necessarily that exactly, just the general idea.
Changed to "In addition..." to improve the flow from one sentence to the next. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
"within the monument." Isn't this implied by the "at the park" earlier? Suggest this be stricken, perhaps say "at the monument" earlier in the sentence. Whatever you think best.
Good point. I have reduced the instances to one, "within the monument". Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
" for retrieval by researchers worldwide" I find this odd. How are they retrieved worldwide? Are images of them retrieved? If you mean they can apply to have them sent to them, perhaps that can be clarified.
None of my sources suggest that the fossils are sent to individuals, though I agree that the sentence seems to imply this. I changed the end of the sentence to say: "... stored in climate-controlled cabinets, and made available for research."
  • Climate
I do not quarrel with the technical accuracy of the first sentence but for the lay reader, can it be mentioned that this is an annual figure?
Done. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
"At Mitchell" This jars somehow, it feels like you are setting up a comparison. Perhaps a gentler way to begin is something like "The National Weather Service maintains a station at Mitchell, near ...
It's meant to make clear that the numbers are specific to Mitchell rather than to the whole monument. I leave it to the reader to infer that the weather elsewhere in the monument is probably similar to the weather in Mitchell, but my source doesn't say that it is. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thought of a way to soften a bit, though. Better? Finetooth (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Biology
"In other parts of the park," From what? From bare slopes? If so, there's a scalar problem with this comparison, you seem to be comparing a micro phenomenon (bare slopes) with a macro (other parts of the park). Some rephrasing seems in order.
Rephrased to maintain the same scale, surface to surface. Finetooth (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
"Important to many of these communities" This sentence took me a bit of time to puzzle out. I would suggest putting the black crust before the list of its constituents.
Done. I split the sentence in two and put the crust before the components. Finetooth (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Junipers are an invasive species? Perhaps a certain species of juniper? I thought junipers were indigenous continent wide.
You are right. This one is the evil Western juniper, Juniperus occidentalis. Added the common name and the link. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps throw the reader an word such as "drier" (or whatever it is) to explain why there are different wildflowers at the different areas.
The sources that I've consulted don't say exactly why the flowers differ from unit to unit. I would say that soil types, terrain (pitch, for example), and availability of water are important factors, and there may be other factors. I think readers will infer something like this from the first paragraph of this section, especially the first sentence: "More than 80 soil types support a wide variety of flora within the monument." Finetooth (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
"were reintroduced to " Would this be "were reintroduced in"?
Yes. "In" is more accurate, and I've made the change. Finetooth (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Even though I understand it's part of the name, there's entirely too much use of the word lizard in the third paragraph of Fauna. Can sentences mention the varieties of lizard, listing by pipes to the partial name without the word lizard?
Done. Finetooth (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
"Rattlesnakes, though poisonous, are shy and usually flee before being seen. Lizards feed on insects, and snakes help keep rodent populations in check by eating them" A fine natural history lesson, but I wonder if it should be included in this article. You are the editor, I merely point out my concern.
Removed the sentence with the unnecessary details. Finetooth (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
" Chinook salmon and steelhead pass through the monument each year on their way to and from upstream spawning beds and the Pacific Ocean. " This sentence could be read to say that individual fish make a round trip in the same year, which is not the case. Perhaps break it up with the young fish and old fish.
Rather than adding more details, I deleted "each year". Finetooth (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Activities
"can be had from rangers at the monument." Odd phrasing, perhaps "can be obtained from rangers at the monument". But couldn't interested people just call? As land line service to the monument was not among the types of phone service excluded earlier in the article, I would guess the NPS facilities there have phone service.
I changed this to say: "Specific times, which are variable, are available from rangers at the monument; the visitor information telephone number is (541) 987-2333." Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Revised again to "Specific times for the activities are available from rangers at the monument; the visitor information telephone number is (541) 987-2333. Finetooth (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That's about it. Nice article, should do well. One thing: While the conventional map showing the location in Oregon in the infobox is fine, consider adding the map from the NPS brochure I gather you have, showing the three units in relation to each other, as it will show relative size and also road connections, etc. Well down in the article, I would find a place.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

While I was map-making, I thought a lot about adding the conventional map and decided against. The article already has four maps, and a fifth would be largely redundant. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll work on the rest of your suggestions ASAP, but I have another commitment that I must attend to. I may not get to all of them until much later in the week. Finetooth (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
That's the lot, I think. In almost all cases, I took your advice. The fifth map is an exception, but if other editors think it's needed, I can always add it. Finetooth (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2011 (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 know that it has some issues, and I want to work at it and improve it.

Thanks, AdrianRO talk 17:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not think that I have ever seen an article which has had 9 peer reviews before (and I have seen a lot of PRs). I would go through them and see the suggestions made - some of them are very helpful. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on football teams, including FC Barcelona (though there is an edit war there right now)
  • The PR toolbox on this page show several dead ELs here
  • There is also one dab link that the dab finder shows
  • The lead does not follow WP:LEAD as well as it could. 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. However the information on the other "royal" yeams seems to only be in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but in History headers I see no mention of Santiago Bernabéu Yeste and Los Galácticos
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Spanish Super Cup is linked twice in just the lead
  • I also wonder if the list of all the cups they won belongs in the lead - I would definitely list the ones that are records and a few of the more important cups but I also think the lead needs to summarize and save detail for the body of the article.
  • A FA requirement is comprehansiveness but I see History has a big gap with no istory (1932 to 1945). SInce this was the Spanish Civil War and the club is by name identified with the royalty, I think this is worth mentioning. Make sure there are major no gaps in history or coverage
  • I also worry about WP:RECENT issues. The History section is divided into four subsections, each very roughly the same length. The first covers 42 years, the second 33 years, the third 20 years, and the last 11 years. This is also a WP:WEIGHT issue
  • Nicknames like The Whites need to be defined before use - so In 1998, under manager Jupp Heynckes, The Whites defeated Juventus 1–0 in the final thanks to a goal from Predrag Mijatović.[21] See WP:PCR
  • Needs a ref At the end of the 2009–10 season, the club board of directors of the clud stated that Real Madrid had a net debt of €244.6 million, 82.1 million lower than the previous fiscal year.
  • Lats two paragraphs of Popular culture have zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Article uses very few books as refs, though some are in the Further reading - for FAC it needs to use the best sources available.
  • I have no idea what this ref refers to Ghemawat, Pankaj. p. 2
  • All refs will be checked at FAC
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Events inc[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to ensure this meets Wikipedia standards and becomes 'official.' Thanks, Carmdru (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Unfortunately it has many major issues and may not meet notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A major problem is that the article has no references to independent and reliable third-party sources. Although it has a few external links, these are very general and do not specifically mention this firm. This is important for many reasons, which follow.
  • The most urgent reason external references are needed is to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements - see WP:NN, which says in part Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. If the article cannot show that it is notable through citing external refs, it will be deleted.
  • The refs need to be to reliable sources - see WP:RS. These sources must be independent of the company itself in order to verify the claims made here - see [[WP:V] and WP:CITE
  • 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
  • So for example, the current external link to harvard.edu should be a link to something about the event at Harvard, either from Harvard itself or better yet to a news story about the event which mentions the role this company plays.
  • Similarly the quotes in the Client Response section all need to be sourced and it is not enough to say Bill Cosby said this to me - the quote has to have appeared in some sort of reliable published source cited here.
  • I also note that you have put this article on your talk page and that your user page is a biref version of this too. Since you seem to have worked almost exclsively on it - you should read about possible conflict of interest at WP:COI and may want to read WP:SPA too
  • The article reads like an advertisement and needs to be written from a neutral point of view - see WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV
  • Article uses bold and italic in ways that do not follow WP:ITALIC
  • There is one dead link - see [http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Events_inc here
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


OK Computer[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A few other users and I have recently been working on shaping this article up for featuring, and it's very nearly there. One of the users has been meaning to do a copyedit but it's been a while since I've heard from him. A peer review in the meantime couldn't hurt, right? I'm mostly looking for a pair of fresh eyes to make sure the quality of the prose is feature-worthy, but if any other issues needs to be addressed then please give the whole article a look! Thanks. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy off-Wiki. The copyedit will take place over this weekend, and I have started on the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It's all good man, thanks for starting the copyedit. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Make sure the citations are consistent; just saw two different ways of formatting a magazine cite in the Background section (with and without templates). Comb through the entire article and make sure everything lines up. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I've double-checked and it looks like all citations in the article now use templates, good catch. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is one of my favorite albums (although I am not an expert on it). Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Kid A and In Rainbows are both FAs about Radiohead albums and seems like they would be useful models to me.
  • The lead seems a bit sparse / too short to me. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, and I think the lead here could easily be three paragraphs. See WP:LEAD
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Britpop is linked twice just in the lead, for example.
  • The most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet is a professional level of English (1a). The prose here is decent, but sentences like They were encouraged by recording sessions with engineer Nigel Godrich, who had assisted John Leckie in producing The Bends and had produced several Radiohead B-sides.[2] would be problematic at FAC - the antecedent of "They" is unclear (as the previous sentence refers to the band and several people who could have been producers).
  • Avoid needless repetition - as one example consider these two sentences. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the Recording section is: While at Canned Applause, the band completed preliminary recording for "No Surprises", "Subterranean Homesick Alien", "The Tourist", and "Electioneering".[8] Then the fifth sentence of the second paragraph of the same section is In spite of these difficulties, the group had nearly completed recording four songs—"Electioneering", "No Surprises", "Subterranean Homesick Alien", and "The Tourist"—when they left Canned Applause.[11] This does not need to be in the article twice.
  • I also note that wikilinks should be used on the first use of the term in almost all cases - in the previos two sentences, No Surprises is linked on the second occurrence.
  • The MOS says to use "per cent" (Brit Eng) instead of % in most cases. I would also split this into two sentences. O'Brien was similarly pleased with the recordings, estimating that 80% of the album was recorded live and[. He] noted "I hate doing overdubs, because it just doesn't feel natural. ... Something special happens when you're playing live; a lot of it is just looking at one another and knowing there are four other people making it happen".[17]
  • I would also split this into two ...But not emotionless at all. In fact, the very opposite".[27] and [He added] that "Loads of the music on OK Computer is extremely uplifting.
  • I would make this the start of a new paragraph "Paranoid Android", the band's second-longest recorded studio track at 6:23, ...
  • Also I would clarify the whole "band's second-longest recorded studio track at 6:23" bit - second longest ever? (then say as of 2011). Second longest to date (when they made this album)? Then say that. My guess is that clarifying will also require splitting the sentence (start the new one after this part).
  • I know this is a direct quote, but it reads oddly - probably should be checked against the original It's a song where there doesn't have to happen anything every 3 seconds.
  • Again need to clarify - highest chart position (ever? to date? for this album?) Despite a lack of radio play, the song charted at number three in the United Kingdom, giving Radiohead their highest singles chart position.[64]
  • I would add more free images - there are quite a few of the band members, some from the era when they were writing / recording this. If this is a FA and appears on the Main Page it needs a better free image than the house where they recorded much of the album.
  • Some articles put sales figures in the Reception section
  • No information on significant covers - Christopher O'Riley has covered songs from this album on both his Radioead cover albums (they both have articles here and have gotten some press).
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Move the reissue section into the release section to keep things nice and orderly. Jamming it into the tracklist section is far less logical organization. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved it to just after the Legacy section. I don't particularly want to put it under Release because that screws up the chronological flow of the article. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment Refrain from relying on reviews (which are essentially opinion pieces) for factual information like "no remastering had been done on studio tracks, and the liner notes are not expanded or supplemented". The latter is covered in the direct quote from the review anyway in the following paragraph in a way that's clearly couched in the reviewer's POV. Also, I don't see the need to detail the reissue bonus DVD contents in the tracklist section. Outside of a prose context, it comes off like a product description. WesleyDodds (talk)


Only Girl (In the World)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to take this to FAC, but I want someone to review this article who is very familiar and experienced with the FAC process and to really scrutinise the article as if it was actually going through the FAC process.

Thanks, CalvinNaNaNaC'mon! 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Doing... --Efe (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  • through The Island Def Jam Music Group I think that should be Def Jam only. Its the label that releases singles and albums. --Efe (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    Done CalvinNaNaNaC'mon!
  • with Rihanna choosing it for inclusion before she had recorded it a case of a n+ing phrasing. A guide is here: User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing. --Efe (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    Done CalvinNaNaNaC'mon!
  • as well as the direction of moving away from the darker themes which were present on Rated R (2009) I think that should have been saved for the album's article. --Efe (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    No I don't agree, because this is the first song from the album after Rated R (even LTWYL was quite dark in it's theme), Only Girl represents the first song to move away from her darker material. CalvinNaNaNaC'mon!
  • Well, it seems like I'm reading a review for the album, not for the single. Presently, that review was nor established in some way to connect with the song. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "Only Girl" debuted at number seventy-five on the US Billboard Hot 100 and peaked at number one in its eleventh week, giving Rihanna her ninth number one single on the chart, as well as peaking at number one on the Hot Dance Club Songs and Pop Songs charts. Perhaps you could trim this down. Like directly saying that it topped the chart on its eleventh week. Those sub charts too could be removed, and saved for the appropriate section below. --Efe (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    *: Done (To a degree). CalvinNaNaNaC'mon!
  • and filmed outside of Los Angeles exactly where? --Efe (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    It was undisclosed as far as I know. Rihanna said in a interview "we found a couple of landscapes a couple of hours outside of Los Angeles." (Says in the Music video section..) CalvinNaNaNaC'mon!

Partial for now. Just ping me when I need to respond. My watchlist's getting longer. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  • The song was performed for the first time on Saturday Night Live. The song was also performed on series seven of The X Factor in the United Kingdom and at the 2010 American Music Awards in Los Angeles as part of a medley with "Love the Way You Lie (Part II)" and "What's My Name?". Could be entirely removed. --Efe (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    Noo, I'm keeping the Live performance sentence. CalvinNaNaNaC'mon!
  • Up to you. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That table for the awards could removed, too. Just incorporate the fact in the prose. --Efe (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    Done CalvinNaNaNaC'mon! 17:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Could someone else participate in this please? CalvinNaNaNaC'mon! 10:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


John Tyler[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
John Tyler, the 10th president of the United States. I'm hoping to get this to GA but it's pretty clunky right now. Any comments/suggestions/criticisms would help me figure out where to go with this.

Thanks a lot, Designate (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


This Little Light[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see if I can get it up to GA standard. I've compared it to some (much shorter) good articles about songs, and this one seems to be of a similar(ish) quality, but I wanted to run it through a PR before I listed it at GAN. My main areas of concern are whether it's an issue that some of the section headers are being displaced, and whether the article is using too many pieces of non-free media - the single was accompanied by two distinctly different music videos, so is it appropriate to have two separate screenshots? I also welcome any other ways that this article could be improved. Thanks very much in advance! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Background and release

  • "... is based around ..." -> "... is based on ..."
  • "... at a gig ..."
    "Gig" is informal, which is not a suitable language for an encyclopaedia.
  • "... eight-date schools tour ..."
    What is an "eight-date"?
  • "The band encouraged people to make a note of the release date and to download the single, with Lindz West, LZ7's frontman, remarking: "What we don't want is anyone phoning up stations and saying 'Why aren't you playing this song?', because that just creates a bad name for us in the first place. What we do want is people buying it and getting it to the position where it has to go on the radio airplay lists and the stations have to play it.""
    West's words can be summarised ("West asked consumers to buy the song"); they are not needed in its full form, which seems to be an advertisement (a positive spiel of their motives that come straight from their mouths). Regardless, every artist would be requesting consumers and his or her fan to buy the music, so I do not think this information is a notable part about this song.
  • "It featured alongside remixes from Kenny Hayes and Starz Angels as part of a four-track EP, ..."
    This sentence is wrong (the verb "feature" is wrongly used). See here.

Critical reception

  • ""This Little Light" received little radio airplay and few reviews from mainstream music critics."
    The cited source is correct for "little radio airplay" but does not state anything related to "few reviews from mainstream music critics".
  • It is not noted that three of the four reviews raised here are from sites devoted to Christian music (big difference from the general music reviewers).

Sources

  • One might ask about sound7.de as well.

Media

  • File:ThisLittleLightVideo1.PNG and File:ThisLittleLightVideo2.png: These are simply images that just describes the scene, which words are perfectly doing well. I do not need the image to visualize the band members in an ice cream van, nor of it to think of them handing out lights to the crowd. Similarly, the picture of the band as they perform in a park surrounded by tall buildings does not give me further understanding than what "These stories are cut between shots of LZ7 performing "This Little Light" both in front of the tower block and in front of garages." already says. In short, these images fail WP:NFCC #8 (contextual significance). To fulfill #8, the images must be illustrating commentary of some significance that would require more than words to fully understand the idea/scenario presented; the commentary must also be closely relevant to the image.
  • File:LZ7ThisLittleLight.ogg: The assertion that "The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style, and may contain part of the song's chorus" is false. Nowhere in this current article does it relate to this specific sample. The reviewers' comments are generic in focus (i.e. on the whole song instead of the sample). This then also violates NFCC #8. A music sample could be justified if there is critical commentary specific about a sequence or melody in the music, describing certain attributes or experience that would require listening to the sample to understand. I am not seeing anything that specific in the article at the moment to justify this piece.

The big concerns are of the use of "non-free" media. I understand that this song is not really widely covered by mainstream reviews, but maybe there is a limit in terms of Wikipedia-quality to what can be assessed for borderline or low-notability items if we go with reliable sources. Jappalang (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks very much for the review Jappalang, your comments have been really helpful. Clearly it's not going to be quite as easy to get this article to GA status as I first thought - looks like I've still got quite a lot of work to do, so I'd best get on it. Thanks again! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Knowle West, Bristol[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because having brought it to good article status, I would like to nominate for featured article status. Any comments which would help achieve this are most welcome.

Thanks, Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, i have had a little look at the article

  • Where is Inns Court and Finsbury Park? I assume they are part of Knowle West. Can you make this clear.
Addressed - you mean Filwood Park obviously. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "In 1921, the area was still rural in nature, mostly agricultural and allotment land. Farms included Filwood Farm, Inns Court Farm and Hengrove House." I would reword these sentences.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • When did the hospital at Ham Green close? Where is the nearest hospital for the area now?
Ummm, Ham Green was an isolation hospital about 7 miles away which closed in the 1990s. It was never a hospital serving Knowle West specifically. I am afraid I don't understand your point here. The article states: "There was an Isolation Hospital at Nover's Hill, built in 1892, and eventually superseded by a new hospital at Ham Green, near Pill, opened in 1927" I think that is quite clear. The area is served by Bristol Royal Infirmary, which serves all of central and south Bristol, I don't think that belongs in the history section. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "New homes were built on the Radburn principles which are now considered to be a failure, due to the lack of "a safe and well-overlooked environment." The layout of housing built around short cul-de-sacs "has resulted in a physical environment that contributes to isolation rather than facilitating community interaction", according to a 2009 city council report on the area." What is a "physical environment that contributes to isolation" anyway? Can you also explain what sort of homes were built on Radburn principles and why they have failed? Does everyone within the area agree that the homes are seen as failures?
Well, "has resulted in a physical environment that contributes to isolation rather than facilitating community interaction" is a cited quote - do you think it needs further elaboration? I have added a further quote from the report. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What is the name of and how far away is the nearest secondary school(s) to Knowle West?
I have added nearby schools - current government policies allow parents to "choose" schools, so Knowle Westers may go to any of these - or even further afield. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Other than that, i would say the article is well written. Maybe another picture could be added to the article (such as one of the churches, for example) if possible. Kilnburn (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I plan to take photographs this week. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this article a few days ago, but I've been away.

It is in the History section. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Is the Imperial Tobacco Factory the one next to Imperial Park which has now been converted to flats (and has its own lake)? If so should Imperial Park also get a mention?
I think that would be a matter for the Hartcliffe article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Were all the churches built along with the housing estates in 1920s+ or did some exist before?
I have found dates for two, but the Pentecostals and the Salvation Army do not have dates online. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy to look again in more detail once I've caught up from holiday if that would be useful?— Rod talk 17:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it would, thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Couple things for now:
    • "good blackberry picking walks!" - the exclamation point is probably unnecessary.
Dealt with. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "...as of 2008 was 11,787. 3,007 were under 15 years old..." - I try to avoid starting a sentence with a number.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "...Northern Slopes,;[49]" - double punctuation
Ummm, I am not seeing that. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "...represented the Labour Party." - more accurate statement would be they are members of the Labour Party representing Bristolx.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "1.255 square miles (3.25 km2)" - 1.255 is probably too detailed, 1.26 should be fine.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "To the east is the district of Knowle..." - the subject of the 2nd+3rd sentences of the intro are other places. Use these first couple sentences to define Knowle West. Either re-cast the sentence as "Knowle West is east of xxx" or go for something more about the place itself like history or population. maclean (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I have sorted this. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks for these comments - I shall address these points tomorrow. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
All of these points addressed, I think. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A few more comments:

Lead

  • England is wikilinked in the first sentence. Generally thought well enough known not to need this.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Council housing being developed in the 1930s is in both the first and second paragraphs.
Sorted. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Should "economically inactive" be clarified or wikilinked (perhaps to Unemployment)?
I have added a cite to the official definition, which does not include unemployment. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It was built by Wills, which became part of Imperial Tobacco. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

History

  • I was confused by the 1066 reference in the 1086 survey.
Sorted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I would wikilink the counties "Devon, Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire" (& Gloucestershire, Hampshire in the next sentence) for non UK readers.
Sorted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Should "royal hunting estate" be explained, or perhaps wikilinked to Royal forest?
Sorted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Were there any mills on the Pigeonhouse stream?
I have found no mention of this. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so - they are barely detectable on the ground. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The first homes.... I doubt if they were the first as previously there had been farmhouses & cottages etc. & we know there was a substantial house at Inns Court in the 15th or 16th century.
Wording revised. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Do we have a source for "new wave of development commenced in the 1960s"?
Yes, already there, but new cite inserted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. There was bombing in Bedminster and Knowle to the west. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The punctuation at "street grid pattern.", but" with a full stop at the end of the quote and then a comma may be a bit clumsy
Sorted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Cul-de-sac is wikilinked on the second occurrence but not the first
Words or phrases in quotes shouldn't be wikilinked. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Notable residents

  • I presume the Venture Inn is a local pub but might need to be clarified
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Done, I hadn't noticed that page before. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Amenities

  • 2 occurrences of "following" in the sentence "following the closure of Merrywood School in 2000, following a critical report.."
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not into the lists of bus services but if included I think there is a typo in "90 Henrove to Broadmead".
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Politics

  • The sentence "The MP for the Bristol South constituency since 1987 is Dawn Primarolo, of the Labour Party" might need an extra comma or something
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

References

  • At FAC I suspect some of the online sources such as local community groups etc may be challenged for reliability
OK, will look at those. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Several have a url for publisher (which is italicised, possibly because work rather than publisher parameters are used) rather than the name or an individual or organisation which may be challenged at FAC
Will be going through refs for consistency. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Refs 14,28,32,58 & 60 (all from the City Council) are showing as deadlinks (but this may be temporary)
Yes, they redesigned the site. I have fixed those. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

General comments

Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • There are some short (1 or 2 sentence) paragraphs, which may be commented on at FAC
OK, I need to go through again after recent additions. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope these comments are useful and are not meant to detract from the great work you have put into the article so far.— Rod talk 11:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No, these are all good suggestions. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Equestria Daily[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there is a disagreement over the notability of this article. It is a fansite for My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.

Thanks, Havermayer (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This fan site and it's cousin article are somewhat of a special case. I nominated My Little Pony: Fighting is Magic on the same grounds as Havermayer proposed for Equestria Daily (although he used PROD rather than AfD), with Fighting is Magic having a mind-blowing consensus of keep, leading me to withdraw the nomination. The relevance is that this game is not even recognized by Hasbro, while Equestria Daily has been both documented by reliable sources such as Wired, and has had material sent to EqD from The Hub and Hasbro. I can understand the concerns that Havermayer has made, and I hold no anger with him on his opinion as I believe the creator of the article should remain neutral in such discussions, but I believe I just had to state my two cents. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 11:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep. As mentioned, Equestria Daily has received coverage in mainstream media, and Hasbro/The Hub have acknowledged them as well, sending them exclusives and putting references to the site in official television advertisements. Definitely worth keeping, though I agree that care should be taken to maintain NPOV. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I am closing this peer review for two reasons. It has a major cleanup banner (not allowed for articles submitted to PR - fix the major problems first) and this is NOT the place to decide notability/ If you think the article subject is not notable, then take the article to WP:AfD. That said, the article has at least three refs to relaible independent third-party sources, so it is probably notable. In case it is kept, here are some things that need to be fixed (not a complete list):

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Once sentence is not enough.
  • 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
  • The lead needs to be expanded. My rule of thumb is to include every header or major idea in the article body in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Do not bold Shaun Scotellaro, per WP:ITALIC
  • MOS says once someone's name has been introduced in full, only use the last name (so use Scotellaro, not Shaun)
  • Needs a ref As of September 2011, the site boasts over 40 million hits since its creation in January, and continues to be hosted on Blogspot.
  • The article must lose the neutrality banner, so that issue needs to be resolved
  • The notability issue is even more important as this will be deleted if it is not found to meet WP:NN. This has some refs to relaible third-party sources - it needs more such refs, and less material from the website itself.
  • This is especially true of claims like Eventually, the Friendship is Magic production team, as well as the network on which it airs, The Hub, recognized the existence of the site, and have since occasionally sent official material to Equestria Daily, ... Sourcing it EqD is not a valid option.
  • The Wait Wait ref is only a URL. 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
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to get this article to become a Featured Article, which most of the articles of episodes of the first season of South Park are already FAs, I plan to try and make all articles of the first season of South Park become FAs; haven't edited the article yet, but I plan to; so I can't make it a FAC as I'm not a regula editor of the article; this is currently a GA, and the only problems I see are citations in the lead, and I can't think of anything else that stops it from becoming a FA-SCB '92 (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SCB '92 (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interest in improving this article, but it looks to me like it needs some work before it would be ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. As you note there are already six FAs on South Park episodes from the first season (not quite "most" of the 13 episodes). Cartman Gets an Anal Probe, Weight Gain 4000 and Volcano (South Park) are the first three episodes and seem to be the best models for this article. I also note that the first season epsiodes Damien (South Park), Starvin' Marvin (South Park), and Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo are also FAs and would also likely be useful models.
  • The plot section seems too long and overly detailed here - it is five paragraphs long, and in the first three episodes the plot is only three paragraphs long.
  • Each of the first three episode articles has a free picture of the creators - File:Trey Parker Matt Stone 2007.jpg. One thing to think about is that if this becomes a FA and appears on the Main Page, it needs a free image (not fair use).
  • The model FAs report the contemporary reception of the episode as well as th Nielsen ratings - this does not really do that. I would also give the year for reviews - so Chicago Tribune writer Allan Johnson praised the tolerance toward homosexuality displayed in "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride", which he rated the tenth greatest episode in the series' history.[26] needs the year (2003, six years after the episode aired)
  • Now some specifics on the article itslef. The caption for the lead image is Big Gay Al's boat ride was designed to resemble the ride It's a Small World, an attraction at the Disneyland theme park. but this is not sourced and the exact claim is not repeated in the article itself (it says later Big Gay Al's ride also features a number of miniature characters, among them Olympic figure skater Brian Boitano, singing a song called "We Are Gay", which is a parody of the ride "It's a Small World", an attraction at the Disneyland theme park.[18] ) This would be a problem at FAC.
  • Overall organization is not great - for example the section Conception and objections raised before airing sounds like it should be all focused on what happened before the epsidoe aired. However, it starts with a sentence on who wrote it (not really conception), then a sentence on when it aired (which is in the reception section for most of the model FAs), then a sentence on the creators' assessment of the episode within the first season. Then two sentences on critical reception to the show (which should probably be in the Reception section). All of this is before anything on conception or objections raised before airing is presented.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - does the average reader really need a link to gay and homosexual in the same sentence?
  • WP:HEAD says not to repeat section titles in the titles of subsections, but the "Production" section has a subsection called "Production and animation"
  • Why does the plot section need to tell us that the first incident with the dog humping another is at the bus stop? Is that detail needed? Why doesn't the plot section mention the speech Big Gay Al gives, which is later described in the Production section as similar to the Disneyland ride?
  • The possible source of Big Al (local cross dresser) seems more like it belongs in the Conception section
  • The stuff about what Big Gay Al does in later epsidoes and the movie doesn't really belong in Production (since those are not part of the production of this episode). Perhaps a Legacy section or add it to an expanded "Cultural references and impact" section (which two of the first three FAs have)?
  • Aren't there several themes in the show (related to homosexuality) and not just one? So Themes or Theme?
  • Language is clunbky in spots but I would work on organization first, then prose.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would eventually like to see this article listed as a featured article. I would like comments on the quality of the prose, the comprehensiveness of the article, the reliability of the sources, whether or not there are neutral point of view problems, the style of the article, and the overall quality of the article and its readiness for FA status. Another important type of comment I am looking for is feedback on the article's clarity. Any advice for improving the article is welcome, and please point out anything that needs to be corrected that would prevent promotion to FA.

Thanks, Ltwin (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I think it would be a quick fail at WP:FAC for multiple reasons, so here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs that may be useful models: Bahá'í Faith (though it is fairly old as FAs go and mya not follow all current standards), also First Roumanian-American congregation - see here for all Religion FAs
  • Several disambiguation (dab) links page=General_Council_of_the_Assemblies_of_God_in_the_United_States_of_America here (from the dab checker in the tool box on this PR page)
  • Same toolbox's external links checker finds two dead ELs here. If the dissertation is a WP:RS, it does not need a link (as it is a print resource)
  • The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD. It should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such it does not need references (except for direct quotes and extraordinary claims) as the refs and facts should all be in the bosy of the article. It is OK to have refs in the lead, but they are not required
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However at least this it was ranked the ninth largest denomination in the United States in 2011.[6] is only in the lead as far as I can tell.
  • Looking for ways to expand the lead - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but much of the History does not seem to be in the lead.
  • The lead should have an image - when this does become a FA and appears on the Main Page, it will need a free image.
  • While the article is generally well-references, there are a number of places that still need refs. Often these are sentences towards the end of a paragraph that are after a ref, but that do not have their own ref (yet need one). Examples just from the Origins section include: They were forced to seek their own places of worship, and soon there were hundreds of distinctly Pentecostal congregations. and They were later joined by Eudorus N. Bell, previously a Southern Baptist minister. The AFM had its strength in the rural areas of Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. and Durham was the lead promoter of the Finished Work doctrine which, in time, the AFM would adopt and in doing so discard the Wesleyan view of sanctification as a second work of grace. and late in New issues and doctrinal clarity Other influential leaders, such as G. T. Haywood, adopted the Oneness doctrine as well.
  • Some of the references are lacking required information - for example current ref 125 is just a link. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed.
  • Other refs are inconsistent in how that information is presented - is it "Accessed date" or "accressed date" or "Retrieved date"? {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Prose is OK, but not perfect. For most articles the most difficult criterion to meet at WP:FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. See WP:WIAFA
  • There are several numbered and bullet point lists in the article - many FA reviewers dislike such lists and I would try to convert as many as possible into regular prose (not all need to be converted to prose)
  • The wording of some things sounds like it might be a too close paraphrase and, if it is not, is stilted. One example On the consumption of alcohol, the AG calls on its members and adherents to live life-styles of total abstinence.
  • Another example is the use of the word disciple as a verb in the lead It defines for itself a fourfold mission to evangelize, worship God, disciple believers, and show compassion.[9] - This just sounds odd to my ear
  • Avoid vague time terms like "recent" as they can quickly become dated
  • Or here the term "last two decades" is poorly defined - Even so, churches within the Assemblies of God have experienced revivals in the last two decades which featured worship and practices reminiscent of early Pentecostalism. The ref is from 2010, so in less than three months it will be 2 years old and the time referred to will be 22 years in the past, not 20 years...
  • Four of the images are of the outsides of buildings. Could there be more action shots of AG members doing stuff? The photo inside a church service is a step in the right direction, but that photo is dark and hard to see, especially in the smaller size used in the article.
  • The use of bold text in position statements does not seem to follow WP:ITALIC
  • This is not a complete list of issues, just the ones that come to mind on a quick read through
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


Tropical Storm Debra (1978)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an extensive review of the overall writing and prose of this article. I'd like a detailed sentence-by-sentence review.

Thanks! Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 20:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I cannot go line by line, but will try to point out as many rough spots and problems as I can; here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I assume that you have a model article for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs on hurricanes and storms that seem like they would be useful models.
  • In the lead, I would mention where it formed, the actual number of tornadoes (table shows 5, lead says "several"), and some estimate of the damages it caused (monetary value).
    • Did some research, they have every damage total for every 1970's Atlantic storm except debra. Done for the other two.
  • Florida is east of the Yucatan, so this makes no sense It moved east towards the Yucatán Peninsula over the next day, at the same time as a tropical wave drifted westwards from the Caribbean Sea.
    • Fixed.
  • The word "retraced" to me means that it followed a path it had already taken - for example if it went in a loop. The storm path image does not show such a loop, so the verb seems wrong (perhaps "tracked" would work?). At first the depression drifted westward but, as the western periphery of a high-pressure ridge weakened, it retraced towards the north and slowly strengthened.
    • Fixed.
  • Assuming you want this to eventually reach FA, the language will have to improved considerably. The most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet is 1a (a professional level of English). This sentence seems needlessly convoluted The depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Debra once surface winds of 45 miles per hour (72 km/h) were found, following the analysis of data gathered from a reconnaissance aircraft. Try to avoid passive voice in general - active voice is usually a bit tighter too. Why not something like After a reconnasisance aircraft found surface winds of 45 miles per hour (72 km/h), the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Debra.?
    • Done.
  • I think of one standard atmosphere as 1000 mbar and of storms as low pressure areas, so it seems odd to me that the pressure within the tropical storm never drops below 1000 mbar.
    • Actually, this happens somewhat often with tropical cyclones.
  • Avoid WP:OVERLINKing - mbar only needs to be linked once, for example. If you are using {{convert}}, the link can be turned off.
    • Done.
  • Avoid needless repetition - the last sentence in history Tropical Storm Debra dissipated over Arkansas. is not needed as the article has already said that In south central Arkansas the residual low pressure system merged with a frontal trough on August 29... (if this is not clear enough, then say in this sentence that it dissipated in AR)
    • Reworded.
  • I don't think you can say "the fatality of one person", why not just "causing one fatality" or "killing one person and seriously injuring another"? The Mississippi tornado, which occurred in Turkey Creek, Mississippi, destroyed three mobile homes and a house, causing the fatality of one person and seriously injuring another.[1][2] I also do not think the sentence has to repeat Mississippi (once is enough)
    • Done.
  • Table lists 5 tornadoes, so this sentence in history seems to contradict it (as it says just three tornadoes were confirmed) Many tornadoes were reported from the system in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi shortly after Debra's landfall; after further analysis tornadoes were confirmed as one each in the three states.[2] I would follow it by saying something like two other tornadoes were confirmed, one each in ... (give the states) and give the total spawned by the storm system and its remnants.
    • Done.
  • What is the organizing principle in the Preparations and impact section? It seems to be first paragraph general / multi-state effects, second on Texas, third on Louisiana, and fourth is a hodge podge. I think it is better to go from general to specific, so for example I would move the sentence Flash flood warnings were issued for Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee.[25] from the fourth paragraph to the first (which already discusses rain and flooding)
  • Problem sentence Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and several other oil companies with offshore rigs in Texas shut down operations and about 1,000 employees were evacuated from oil-rigs in Texas and Louisiana.[8][9] Again avoid passive and repetition (Texas and rigs twioe) to get something like Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and other oil companies shut down operations and evacuated about 1,000 employees from offshore oil-rigs in Texas and Louisiana.[8][9]
    • Done.
  • 1st paragraph here is long - perhaps split into an evacuation paragraph and a flooding paragraph (with the sentence from the last paragraph moved there).
    • Done.
  • It might make sense to put this with the oil rig evacuations, so [Despite these evacuations,] a 15-foot (4.6 m) wave killed a person at a rig 80 miles (130 km) offshore from Cameron, Louisiana.[8][10][11][16][17] (and does this really need 5 refs?)
    • Done.
  • Refs ususally follow punctuation, so avoid refs in the middle of sentences like At Grand Chenier, Louisiana, a wind gust of 65 miles per hour (105 km/h) to 70 miles per hour (110 km/h) was recorded[9][10][17] and there were reports of downed trees and damage to roofs in Lake Charles and New Orleans.[9] (could just add a comma after "was recorded").
    • Fixed.
  • I would also try to avoid the ref in the middle in this sentence: Moderate flooding in Rapides Parish was recorded with[13] 6 inches (15 cm) of rain measured at Lake Charles and Lafayette, Louisiana, 3 inches (7.6 cm) of rain at Shreveport, Louisiana, and 3.5 inches (8.9 cm) at Monroe, Louisiana.[14] and see if yoiu can avoid three Louisianas in one sentence- try "Louisiana had moderate flooding, especially in Rapides Parish,[13] 6 inches (15 cm) of rain fell at Lake Charles and Lafayette, 3 inches (7.6 cm) of rain fell at Shreveport, and 3.5 inches (8.9 cm) at Monroe.[14]
    • Done, thanks.
  • In short this needs a copyedit.
  • I would add a summary sentence at the top of the Tornadoes section. Tropical Storm Debra and its remnants spawned five tornadoes in five states in a two day period. These killed one person and caused damage estimated to range between X and Y dollars.
    • Done.
  • Why "August 28 event" (and "August 29 event")? What was the event? Aren't they events (plural)? Why not just give the dates (no "event")
    • Done.
  • Since each tornado was in a unique state, can the sates just be included in Location (DeRidder, Lousiana)? Or is this the standard format for such articles?
    • It is the standard format for these tables.
  • Should the damages sentences include fragments like "1 death[.] Two injuries caused by the tornado. Estimated $50,000–500,000 in damages."
    • Fixed.
  • Does the use of Bold face in the table follow WP:ITALIC?
    • It is the standard format for similar tables.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruhrfisch! HurricaneFan25 15:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

St Anne's Pier[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to take it to WP:GAN at some point. Any comments/suggestions/criticism would be appreciated. Thanks, BelovedFreak 22:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

  • "To begin with, the pier was intended ..."
    "To being with" is redundant.
  • "Originally 914 feet (279 m) long, the subsequent demolition of the seaward end of the pier has left a structure 600 feet (180 m) long."
    This sentence does not seem quite right to me ("subsequent demolition of the seaward end of the pier" is "originally 914 feet long"?); suggest, "Originally 914 feet (279 m) long, the pier was reduced to 600 feet (180 m) after the demolition of its seaward end."

Background

  • "St Anne's-on-the-Sea is a planned seaside resort on the Fylde coast, and at the mouth of the River Ribble, in Lancashire."
    "... on the Fylde coast, and at the mouth of the River Ribble ..." implies to me two locations. Removing "and" seems to me the correct way to go.

Damage and recent history

  • "... turned into a Tyrolean-style beer garden."
    Any idea what is "Tyrolean-style"?
  • "... was held on 7 June 1974, attended by Anne, Princess Royal."
    I think this is where an "and" is warranted; i.e. "was held on 7 June 1974 and attended by Anne, Princess Royal."

Overall, I think the language is clear and the article covers broadly what GA asks for. There could be more to be written since The Strad (Vol 47, 1936, p. 295) writes about the St. Anne's Pier Orchestra, noting that it was orchestrated by William Rees and that the attendance was 900. St Anne's Pier was also where the larva of Thalassomya frauenfeldi Schiner seemed to have been first found (but I think this might be more relevant to the midge article). However, all these are just additional detail that are not really required (in my opinion) for GA. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, and for the additional sources; I wasn't aware of them, so I'll take a look.--BelovedFreak 12:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Russell T Davies[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it through to FA by the end of the year. It's just passed a GAN, and the previous PR has mostly been implemented, but I'm looking for another set of eyes before I nominate it to FAC.

Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was in the middle of a copyedit and I've misplaced the notes I had made on paper. I should have finished the copyedit by tommorow. Sceptre (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
And done. Sceptre (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. managers[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get the article to GA standard (like its sister article History of Tranmere Rovers F.C.) I have no experience of writing lists, so would appreciate any pointers in the right direction.

Thanks! U+003F? 16:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso
The article now at least has the right structure. But the history section is too short, would you say? U+003F? 23:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Much fuller history section now. U+003F? 05:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Soccerbase isn't all that reliable for older managers, so if possible an alternative source would be of benefit. If none is available, change the dates so that it just states "August 1912" etc. instead of the first of the month. Unless Tranmere really did only appoint managers on the first of the month over a period of six decades.
The couple of Tranmere books I have don't go any further than giving mangers' years of service (though these years do agree with Soccerbase). Edited so it displays just months for the older managers. U+003F? 23:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • While I'm pretty terrible at table syntax, all the sorting and what have you looks to be fine.
  • Alas, the Honours type column used by other similar lists might not have so much utility for Tranmere, but listing things like promotions may be an appropriate alternative.

All in all, an expanded History section is the main thing required to get to FL standard, and the rest should be comparatively simple. I see you've asked TRM for feedback, he's an ideal person to spot anything I've missed, as he is one of the directors at FLC.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from TRM
  • No need to bold Tranmere Rovers in the opening sentence, I believe we avoid bold links where possible.
  • "are an English association football club" would say "is a club" here.
  • "This chronological list comprises" avoid. It's difficult, I know, but I would talk about the club rather than "This list" here, and if necesary, add the "This list" (and following sentences) before the table...
Need to expand lead to summarize history. U+003F? 11:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "as well as those who have been in permanent charge." unnecessary. Perhaps "All full-time managers are listed, along with caretaker managers where known..."
  • "24 people have managed the club" -> "As of the ... the club has had 24 managers."
  • "2011–12" is that an em-dash or an en-dash?
  • In the history section, I don't see a real need to relink 1884, Tranmere or manager. Also, refer to Tranmere as Tranmere Rovers rather than simply Tranmere at this point.
  • "from Carr in 1936" perhaps "the following year"...
  • "having no previous experience as player nor manager" not keen on this but having trouble suggesting an alternative.
  • "having won just six of 42"-> "winning just 6 of 42" (MOSNUM says be consistent within a sentence).
  • "all time" -> all-time.
  • Big gap from beginning of WWII and 1961...
  • "two divisions higher than Tranmere" two divisions above.
  • Could link England international to the England national team.
  • "playing regular home" he didn't play them did he? regularly arranging home fixtures on Friday evenings.. or something?
  • En-dash needed for all scores.
  • Link play-offs.
  • Big gap from 1969 to 1987 as well...
  • Consider a refs column so you can separate them from the notes.
  • Don't have spaces between refs.
  • "former England international" link that England the first time round (as I suggested above).
  • Maybe put present or similar in the blank cell for Parry.
  • "rec.sport.soccer" should be "Rec.Sport.Soccer"
  • En-dashes in season ranges in the refs.
  • Check web refs have accessdates.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, I'll work through these. On a general level, do you think it's up to WP:FLC? U+003F? 10:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
No worries. And yes, fix the above and it'll be right on track at FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Ong Thanh[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article for A Class in the future. Any feedbacks for improvement would be highly appreciated.

Thanks, Canpark (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

I have grave concerns over possible close paraphrasing. Some contents from the sources also appear to be misinterpreted and there might slight bias issues.

Lede

  • "In light of heavy punishments meted out by American and other allied forces, North Vietnamese General Tran Van Tra ..."
    "Punishments" is a biased term, giving the sentence the meaning that the North Vietnamese should be killed by the Americans.
  • "... elements of the 1st Infantry Division were air-assaulted into positions around Long Nguyen ..."
    This does not make sense. "Air assault" is not a verb; it is a noun. Furthermore, if one is to associate it with "assault", the sentence would then read that the 1st Infantry Division was "[assaulted]" by some body else.

Background

  • Article: "To make matters worse, the United States had escalated its bombing campaign of targets in North Vietnam, and North Vietnamese leaders feared that Hanoi and much of the country's farmland could be inundated if the Red River dikes came under attack. In political terms, the U.S.-backed government in Saigon was far more stable than anticipated, so the North Vietnamese government was afraid that the Viet Cong may split in order to accommodate a resolution with the Saigon government."
  • Source: "Meanwhile the situation was growing steadily worse for the Communists. The U.S. was escalating its bombing campaign and widening the number of targets. North Vietnamese planners feared that the Red River dikes would be bomed, inundating hundreds of square miles of farmland as well as Hanoi. The regime in Saigon was turning out to be more stable than anticipated, ... . Others feared that the VC might split off and find separate accomodation with Saigon."
  • "Despite the unfavorable developments in South Vietnam, North Vietnamese General Tran Van Tra believed North Vietnam and the Viet Cong could still win the war if they pursued a strategy of attrition."
    This portrays a very different context than what is presented in the source. Here Tran is portrayed as very confident that they would win the war through attrition. In the source, Tran thinks that if there was a chance of victory, it is through attrition: "There was no clear way out of the quandry. North Vietnamese General Tran Van Tra, field commander for operations in the South, stated that all the Communists could do was pursue a war of attrition, ...", "Tran Van Tra believed the best the Communists could do was pubish the United States until the Americans got tired and left."
  • Article: "In other words, the Communist would have to fight on for as long as possible, until the United States recognized that the war was unwinnable and would withdraw its combat forces from Vietnam. To achieve that objective at the tactical level, Tra asserted that North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces would have to destroy American military units, and cause as many casualties as possible until they got tired and left."
  • Source: "Tran Van Tra wrote: So strategically we did not hope to defeat the U.S. Army completely. Our intentions were to fight a long time and cause heavy casualties to the United States, so the United States would see that the war was unwinnable and would leave .... Tran Van Tra believed the best the Communists could do was pubish the United States until the Americans got tired and left."

[I have skipped the rest of the paragraphs.]

Prelude

  • Article: "Triet then marched his starving soldiers southward toward the Ong Thanh Stream to link up with Rear Service Group 83, but again there was no food to be found, so he decided to wait there for the next shipment."
  • Source: "But when they reached Rear Service Group 83 headquarters, there was no rice there either, and they decided to wait there for the next shipment."

[I have skipped the rest of the contents.]

In popular culture

  • I am not a fan of "In popular culture" sections, but I think this does not even fit with such a heading. This is more like "In literature" and even then, I am wondering what is the context for the subject other than people wrote books (of unknown notability) about it.

Images

  • File:Clark Welch Oct. 16.jpg: Dave Berry might be a combat medic, but he said, "Although most were, not all of these photos were taken by me personally. Some were taken by friends or came from archives or other sources." This photograph requires a confirmation (using a OTRS) from Berry that he took the photograph (or that it was taken by a fellow US soldier).
  • File:Vo Minh Triet.jpg: The use of this non-free image in this article violates WP:NFCC #8. This article is not about Vo, neither is there critical commentary that requires an illustration of Vo's appearance to understand its meaning.
  • File:Terry Allen Jr..jpg: "Provided by Jim Shelton" does not mean it was taken by Jim Shelton. For all we know, this could be taken by a Vietnamese soldier or a journalist, who gave a copy of the photograph to Shelton.
  • File:Ong Thanh Oct. 17 1967.jpg: The United States Army Center of Military History has published research performed by non-federal employees.

I think the article has an appropriate structure, but the article has to be rewritten because of the close paraphrases, which would be of grave concerns in an A-class assessment. Jappalang (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


Tijuana[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for GA review. It is lacking something but I am not sure what per say. No doubt it needs more citations and having editors mark the text with {{cn}} tags would be useful and give other editors, myself included, a purpose that would increase the validity of the prose. The education section of the article is currently marked as needing expansion but is the warranted? What kind of information could be added to it if it does need to be expanded. Another section of the article to look at is the history section; how could it better be organized? Overall, how could this article be better improved and made fit for good article status.

Thanks, 08OceanBeachS.D. 17:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this article about an interesting and important city. I have several suggestions, although this is nothing like a complete review. In dealing with the article's major sourcing problems, you will probably have to make many alterations. A line-by-line review of the prose, the layout, and the reference formatting would therefore be premature at this point. The prose looks pretty good, but most of the article's claims are unsupported.

  • My feeling about "citation needed" tags is that they are only useful in pointing out one or two specific claims that lack support from reliable sources. The problem in this article, as indicated by the big tag at the top of the page, is that many claims lack sources. My rule of thumb for sourcing is to support every paragraph, generally excepting the lead, with an inline citation to a reliable source. If an entire paragraph is supported by a single source, the inline citation should appear at the end of the last sentence in the paragraph. In addition to providing a source for each paragraph, I would also provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every claim that is unusual or apt to be questioned. It would be fair to say that most of this article lacks sources and therefore does not meet WP:V. I would suggest working to fix this sourcing problem before worrying too much about other problems; the article can't become GA until it is properly supported. If no support can be found for some of the claims, delete the claims.
  • I would not worry about expanding the "Education" section at this point. It lacks sources. As you examine source documents, you will naturally come upon information that strikes you as important. If you add those important things, whatever they turn out to be, the section will probably expand a bit in a natural way. What I would not even consider would be expanding by making the lists longer. Don't list all the elementary schools, for example. An outsider might like to know a bit more about the biggest university or perhaps about a school that is special in some other way (highest ranked, known for its teacher training, known for its medical school, or something like that). They might also like some statistics; e.g., number of elementary schools, high schools, colleges and universities, students of one sort or another.
  • In the "Crime" section this sentence appears: "The main reason for the upsurge of violence is due to president Felipe Calderón cracking down on drug cartels." - This is a good example of an unsourced claim that's sure to be questioned. Would Calderón agree?
  • It's often helpful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar topics. WP:FA#Geography and places includes quite a few links to FA articles about cities.
  • Here's another problem sentence, in the "Culture and contemporary life" section: "While still an entertaining town with an enjoyable atmosphere, locals and tourists alike would agree that it has lost its "anything goes" mentality which it had once acquired, a mindset that was dangerous to tourists, locals, and the tourism industry as a whole." This not only lacks a source, it reads suspiciously like something the Chamber of Commerce or a tourist bureau might have said. It expresses a particular point of view. Please make sure that the claims in the article meet the WP:NPOV guidelines.
  • Here's another problematic passage: "Graffiti in Tijuana may seem at first to consist largely of simplistic tags and thus not as technically evolved, colorful, or accepted in the mainstream as the "pieces" of graffiti scenes of the United States, Europe, or Japan, but large, colorful graffiti murals adorn walls from both native Tijuanan artists as well as visiting graffiti writers, especially from California. The Tijuanan art pieces show as much prowess and skill as those made by their more renowned U.S. counterparts, although illicit graffiti is strongly discouraged by the Tijuana government, as in other major metropolitan areas." - This set of claims makes an argument rather stating supportable facts. To whom does the Tijuana graffiti seem simplistic at first? Who thinks it is not "technically evolved"? Who says Tijuana art is inferior to U.S. art? Be careful not to use the article to present a case for or against aspects of Tijuana. It is sometimes OK to quote others who are making a case, but if you do that, you should try to include counterclaims as well if the controversy is notable enough to mention at all.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find four links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets, and at least two dead URLs in the citations.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


Michael Sheen[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been trying to get it to Featured Article status. Please let me know which areas need more work before I apply.

Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I know and like this actor from films - thanks for an interesting article on him. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.n

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs on actors that may be useful models - see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies
  • The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which disrupt the narrative flow. Where possible these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded. As one example, the first paragraph of the lead is only one sentence.
Have now combined most of these paragraphs. Popeye191 (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The lead is pretty short and I am not sure that it summarizes the whole article per WP:LEAD.
Have added more information to the lead section Popeye191 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there seems to be no mention of the radio work, public life or personal life sections in the lead.
  • There are also places in the article that do not have refs and need them. For example, the whole Radio career section has no refs.
References now added for all such sentences Popeye191 (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. If a sentence follows a ref and has no ref of its own, it needs a ref. This would be a real problem at FAC. Examples follow:
    • Also in 1993, he appeared in the world premiere of Harold Pinter's Moonlight at the Almeida Theatre.
    • The film opened the 2011 Cannes Film Festival and has become Woody Allen's highest-ever grossing film.[92] Also in 2011, he starred in Beautiful Boy, an independent drama focusing on the aftermath of a school shooting, and voiced a character in a Doctor Who episode written by Neil Gaiman.
    • In other 2010 film work, he provided the voices for characters in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland and Disney's Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue and appeared as a terrorist in Unthinkable.
    • Also that year, he had a supporting role in Kingdom of Heaven, made a cameo appearance in The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse and starred in a short film, The Open Doors.
    • He starred in two other BBC television productions in 2006, playing H.G. Wells in HG Wells: War with the World and Nero in Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. He also had a supporting role in Blood Diamond as an unscrupulous diamond dealer.
  • There are also organizational issues with the article. In general it is best to organize the material so it is easiest to follow. In many cases this is in chronological order (and the Theater and Movie sections are basically in chronolgical order). However the Personal life section is in (as near as I can tell) reverse chronlogical order - so we start in the present day in LA with his daughter, but at this point the reader doesn't know about his daughter yet. The section goes back in time until we learn that his daughter is from his relationship with Kate Beckinsale - I think I would start with this and go forward in time instead.
I have now tried to rectify this problem Popeye191 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not sure about the split between discussing his screen career and then his stage career. This is a place where it is your call, but it may help to look at model FAs and see how they organize the career sections. I know of some FAs that split career with very different jobs (so Jackie Chan talks about his movie and music careers separately. I tend to think of stage and screen and radio work as all acting, so I am not sure this should be two sections. In any case, to me I would put his stage work first since it comes first chronlogically.
Stage work is now first; I think I am too familiar with the article as it is now to combine stage and screen work - it's definitely an option for later on though, thanks Popeye191 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I would also make sure to provide context to the reader per WP:PCR. For example when did he start school / college / university? Or when did he move to LA?
Have tried to clarify these points Popeye191 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not think of narrating audio books as radio work and would change that header.
Noted Popeye191 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The list of roles might be better split into its own sub article - there are mutiple FLs like this.
Will leave for the moment but you're right - I've had a look at some FLs and the filmographies of Woody Allen and Christopher Walken are good examples Popeye191 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Spell out abbreviations after first use of the full name, so Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA)
Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Watch out for WP:OVERLINKing - Royal Academy of Dramatic Art is linked twice in two paragraphs
Second link removed Popeye191 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Note that I based the following on the 05:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC) version. I have not followed any recent updates.

I believe if this article is submitted to FAC, a lot of its sources are going to come under fire. Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and prepare to prove the reliability of the source used (if they are truly reliable).

  • What makes talktalk.co.uk a reliable source
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes Film School Rejects reliable?
Third-party publications from reliable sources support the site as a self-published source - for example, Fox Searchlight.Popeye191 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes Hitfix a reliable source?
Third-party publications from reliable sources support the site as a self-published source - for example, Variety Popeye191 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes TV Fanatic a reliable source?
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes iofilm a reliable source?
Paul Fischer is a member of the press with a reputation for reliability, having worked for DarkHorizons.com for ten years. DH's About Us page claims to be "one of the most fair, balanced and objective sites in the field, one that avoids the hyperbole of over editorialising. It also delivers the news with a voice of authority and experience thanks to its editor Garth Franklin who has blazed the trail in the online publishing field since the Internet's early days back in the mid-1990's." Popeye191 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes this fansite posting from rachelmonline via heartmichaelsheen a reliable source? (might even be LINKVIO)
New ref with a more reliable source Popeye191 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
No longer linked to Popeye191 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes www.high50.com/ a reliable source?
Michael Prodger is a member of the press with a reputation for reliability. He is a former Booker judge and former literary editor of The Sunday Telegraph.Popeye191 (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes Buddy TV a reliable source?
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • IMDb is an unreliable source. Why is it used?
Can't find any mention of IMDb - must have been removed since the version you reviewed Popeye191 (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes Collider.com a reliable source?
This is a primary source so I would rather not remove it. Collider's About Us page states that they offer "a mix of up-to-the-second links to major stories and bracing original content provided by heavily connected industry insiders". Reliable third party publications such as MTV support collider.com as a reliable, self-published source.Popeye191 (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes TheaterMania.com a reliable source?
Removed. Popeye191 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes The Big Issue in Scotland a reliable source?
Again,this is a primary source so I would rather not remove it. The Big Issue's About Us page notes that they are are monitored by the International Network of Street Papers and that they are a "limited company which produces and distributes" the magazine. Reliable third party publications such as The Guardian support the Big Issue as a reliable, self-published source. Popeye191 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Beckinsale confirmed the story in a broadsheet interview. I've now added this reference Popeye191 (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes Contactmusic.com a reliable source?
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes The National Ledger a reliable source?
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Unable to access www.menshikov.ru
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, please be careful over linking to sites that host transcripts of copyrighted material (per WP:LINKVIO). Unless they received permission to do so (or are put up by the copyright holders themselves), they are not to be linked. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, it's appreciated Popeye191 (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

1972 World Series of Poker[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because albeit it's quite short, I'm hoping to make it a good article.

Thanks, Rymatz (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article - thanks for your work on it so far. I think it needs some more work before it would pass easily at WP:GAN, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD, which says that the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is not really anything on the Aftermath in the current lead.
  • 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. The current lead is a sort of intro / background section and has a lot of information on the previous WSOPs and how this one differed from those which is not found anywhere else.
  • I would add a paragraph or two on background, perhaps as its own section. This could include both a brief history of the WSOP itself (why it was started, how, where it was played) and also the information on the previous tournament and how this one differed from that.
  • The lead image is currently a copyvio - if you go to the website it was taken from it says "Unless noted, all images are the copyrighted property of Binion's Horseshoe and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and may not be reused without express written permission." That trumps any assertions of emails that allow use of photos on Wikipedia.
  • I do not doubt that "Permission was given by David Schwartz, coordinator of the Gaming Studies Research Center, to use any materials from this site in accordance with the GFDL." but either the website has to say this (modify the statement above) or Mr. Schwartz has to send a permissions email to OTRS - see WP:OTRS. If this is not resolved in a week, I will ask that the image be deleted on Commons as a copyvio.
  • The article uses a lot of technical poker terms, some of which are linked. Articles should be written in such a way as to be accessible to the general reader, so I would try to add brief explanatory text to the linked terms (so that a reader does not have to click the link to get a general idea what is meant). For example, when the freezeout structure is mentioned, a clause explaining that in this kind of tournament one player winds up with all the chips would help. See WP:PCR
  • Also watch out for WP:OVERLINKing - for example flop (poker) is linked twice in the body of the article
  • The language is OK, but in places really needs some polish. A few examples follow, I would try to get a copyedit or read the article out loud slowly after not looking at it for several days.
    • Wathc out for unneeded repetition The preliminary event featured five-card stud poker and was won by Bill Boyd, the same man who won the 1971 five-card stud preliminary event. could just be The preliminary event featured five-card stud poker and was won by Bill Boyd, who won the same event in the 1971 WSOP. (avoids repeating five-card stud and preliminary event twice in the same sentence)
    • Or here look at repeats of "appear(ed)" Twelve people were slated to appear at the main event, but due to reportedly attractive side cash games only eight of them appeared at the tables on May 11, the date the event was scheduled to run.[5][6] the last phrase "the date the event was scheduled to run" is not needed - unless the tournament had to be postponed the reader assumes it occurred on the date(s) scheduled.
    • missing word and non-encylcopedic tone The winner of [the] previous two WSOP main events, Johnny Moss, took an early lead in the tournament, but soon ended up [was] eliminated.
    • "would be" does not mean the same thing as "eventual" (what is really meant here). Presumably everyone who entered was a "would be champion" (they wanted to win), but only Amarillo Slim was the eventual winner. With four players left on the second day of the tournament, Amarillo Slim, the would-be champion, was very short-stacked with less than 2,000 chips. (I like how short stacked is explined breifly here)
  • The article contradicts itself in places - the table says Slim won $80,000 but note b says it was only $60,000. The article makes it clear that the real amount may never be known and that at least 2nd and 3rd place did pretty well too.
  • Are the tables really useful - only two players in the first tourament, but one is anonymous. Or the identities of the 8 players in the WSOP is not clear and the amounts won are in dispute - how useful are the tables in this case and how accurate are they?
  • Make sure the sourcesw used meet WP:RS - I have no idea if poker articles use these as RS but would check.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded the article and I would like to know what else needs to be done.

Thanks in advance, DonEd (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I do not think there is anymore you can add to this article at the moment. Founded only this year (and not more than a month ago), unless it was particularly controversial, the academy would not have much activities and impact on the film industry. One possible thing you could add would be the funding of the organization if reliable sources on this exist: how the academy obtains its funding (membership, government allocations, private donations, etc.) and its expenses. The article seems well written (fairly clear) but I would not submit this for FA and would hesitate for GA. You can try asking the project groups to concur if the article can be assessed as a B-class, but I think that is about it. Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


International Street (Canada's Wonderland)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Section of a theme park. New article, and I've pretty much exhausted every published source on the area. Thanks, Zanimum (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Dom497

First of all, its great to see someone actual willing to create a page like this to further improve the coverage of Canada's Wonderland on Wikipedia. Anyway, I think that the article has everything it needs. The only thing I would suggest to add is what has changed from the time it was first built to today. Just one example is that (in one of the pictures on the article) there is no safety fence around the pool. Today there is in fact a safety fence around the entire pool.--Dom497 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I was a little hesitant to actually summarize the changes, simply for fear of running into WP:SYNTH. I don't know how far one can go with obvious now and then comparisons, without running smack head first into this. As for the safety fence, literally from day-to-day during the drowning coverage, the Star article seemed to contradict themselves. I'm leaning somewhat to them considering the "rocks" as barricades originally, in the story that contradicts the rest. Are you familiar with the park enough to know that indeed there weren't fences? (FYI: All the Star article are available through Pages of the Past, accessible through your local library card in most GTA municipalities.) -- Zanimum (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if you look at one of the photos on the article there is no fence. Today, (obviously) there are fences... that are about a foot or two high.--Dom497 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Jappalang

The following are a sample of the issues that bothered me; they are not exhaustive.

Features

  • "... they are greeted by a large Canadian flag flowerbed."
    A flowerbed "cannot" greet people; it does not have sentience. Avoid anthromorphisizing them.
    Restructured the sentence.
  • "... during the autumn.)"
    Where is the opening parentheses?
    That's remnant of when there was only a sentence fragment for that point.
  • "The bed uses approximately 11,000 begonias, ..."
    The bed does not "use"; it would be more appropriate to say that the begonias are planted in the bed.
    Changed.
  • "... its 504 504 red, white, and turquoise lights."
    What is with "504 504"?
    Typo.
  • "They [the stones] make walking cooler and more attractive than asphalt, ..."
    This sentence has several issues: there is ambiguity and confusion with the first part (so it makes walking a "cool" activity that every would want to emulate? So one only feels they are "cool" because they are walking on the stones? What about standing?) and the second part is rendered as "They make walking ... more attractive than asphalt"...
    They didn't mean cool as in "dude, this is cool", but cool in the temperature sense. I've been poking around, and apparently this is thanks to solar reflectance: I've linked cool to Albedo, the relevant Wikipedia article. The second part simply deals with the fact a continuous surface of concrete blacktop isn't pretty looking, compared to shaped stones.
  • "Upon entry, crowds during first year would all tend to go to the right side of International Street."
    There is a question of "first year" of what? Furthermore, what is the context/intent behind this sentence? What significance does this have?
    Reworded. It refers to the first season that the park was open. Like most of the Disney theme parks, Wonderland is designed in a spoke pattern, to shape traffic flow around a central point. Thing is, I can't find any articles further discussing this concept. I saw one once, but I don't remember where or in what form it was. The lop-sided traffic issue reflects some sort of flaw in the traffic distribution of the park. (Now, it's mostly to the left, to the major roller coasters, but there's no source to talk about that either.)
  • A self-drawn map of International Street, coupled with descriptive text of the buildings' locations on the street would be of help to the readers.
    Can it only have features mentioned in the article labelled? For example, I can reference the location of the Maple Room, an exclusive event location right near front gate, that is mentioned on the CW website, but no website says "Maple Room is on International Street". Or even the outdoor eating areas.
  • "... but the Toronto Star deemed the machine-stretched dough was "perhaps too cookie-like," but noted ample cheese and spicy sauce. The grape sherbet included both grape juice and real Italian wine."
    I really question the significance of this information to International Street.

Buildings

  • "The Toronto Star recounted a "forlorn looking person" stopping a security guard outside a set of washroom, asking 'Am I a Damas or Caballeros?'"
    Unsourced and what does this have to do with Buildings?
    I can find the source at some point, but it'll take hunting, as the newspaper search is bad for that era. It's to talk about the extent of the theming, that it was done to the point where foreign languages were used, and the public got confused.
  • The current horizontal dual image layout is bad (see the whitespace) in my opinion. Stack the images vertically instead.

Shows

  • ... and only equipt with 6 metres (20 feet) of rope, ..."
    What is "equipt"?
    Wiktionary is calling equipt "archaic", so I'm changing it.

Images

  • File:Wonderlandlogo.png: The use of this non-free image in this article violates WP:NFCC #8. There is no critical commentary in the article about this logo that requires its illustration to understand it.

I think the article fails in its coverage somewhat. My idea of what an article about International Street would have is as follow:

  • History (how the section came about, how much it cost, who was involved in its proposal and construction, etc.)
  • Features (maps, buildings, shows: notable ones that have ceased to exist and that are active)
  • Business (what are its trades/stores? Turnover? Significance to the park)
  • Reception (how do visitors feel about it? What is the park's attitude to it? Any international recognition?)

Right now, the article has a somewhat jumbled/scattered Features, with little history and no reception at all. The language needs to be brushed up but that would be better done after some restructuring and location of new material are done. Jappalang (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Very little of this sort of information is available. Other than a few documents (all of which are scarce beyond belief, one publication only found in Ottawa and no where else anymore, one publication only found at a university in Toronto and no where else anymore...) I've completely extinguished my sources. Newspapers generally ignored International Street after the first three years, and guidebooks are generally inaccurate.
I can cite maps for stores, but only some have been digitized and posted online. I personally own pamphlets from the first year and some recent seasons, nothing else. But even if I could find the 20-some seasons in the middle, the GA reviewer who previously looked at this dismissed such primary sources. Primary resources are the beginning and the end of sources for shows, as well.
As for the park's attitude, the current owners dislike theming, and don't find it cost effective. But there's only article that talk about that view in relation to the entire Cedar Fair chain, not specific to Wonderland, let alone International Street. If I were to cite articles about their general view, that would likely run amok with WP:SYNTH. Since this was one of the first areas in the park, there's no numbers specific to that section only about cost. As for its inception, the Kings Island/Kings Dominion reference at the top is the only thing I can get. For construction companies, I can find sources about the entire park, but not section-by-section. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Williamson County, Texas[edit]

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

  • (1) Re the chart of Presidential election going back to 1960. Wouldn't this be better in a narrative form? Do other county pages have such election charts? It seems to me the chart takes up a substantial amount of room compared to the overall article length, far exceeding it's importance compared to the rest of the article. Is each yearly result all that important...or is the importance the change from Democratic to Republican voters over time as the county has grown? What about citing the influence of Sun City voters in the county? Etc. In short: Can it just be deleted?


  • (2) The timeline of history contains numerous references to early exploration of Texas and statehood unrelated specifically to Williamson County. Should it be deleted in its entirety (I am too tired to re-write it for someone into a narrative, but someone probably should). I've already deleted an entire seperate timeline on slavery twice (pasted above). Should the timeline stay in or be delted? (PS - we are moving quickly into the Three Revert Rule on the adding or deleting of the slavery timeline.)

Thanks, AustexTalk 18:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • The chart of presidential elections should go. If there's a trend or an important takeaway it can be identified in the prose. If it has to stay, there are more efficient ways of representing all that information. I don't know why each election needs an entire table when you're just presenting three pieces of information (year, D %, R %) for each one.
I agree that the timeline should be in a narrative form. And the information about Texas in general is out-of-scope for the article. (There can always be a See also: History of Texas or something.) But I don't think it should be deleted if it includes things that aren't written elsewhere. —Designate (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, but I did not want to delete them without another opinion. I'll do so now but make note of it in the edit section so someone can revert if needed. And I guess I'll get started on writing the history narrative. (what an undertaking). The non-county dates in history are well documented in other articles. This article so far has taken a great deal of time to clean up, and I fee like I'm only half way there. AustexTalk 19:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Atlantis: The Lost Empire[edit]

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

I have put forth a tremendous amount of work and effort taking it from a stub to a GA and would like to get it close to FAC eventually. I need fresh sets of eyes on it, to catch anything that needs fixing and/or improvement. I want honest opinions, be as harsh as you like, as long as it helps me make this article better one way or another. Thanks ahead of time for any prospective volunteers. :)

Thanks, DrNegative (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent job so far! Here are some thoughts:

  • The "Plot" section is slightly long for a linear film. The summary should be providing context to understand the content in the article body, not to go out of its way to detail the film in depth.
    • My greatest weakness is trimming plots, because normally when I do, IP's come in and add twice as much as I removed, thus making it worse than what I began with. However, I will try and trim it down some and make it more straightforward over the next few days. DrNegative (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I trimmed about 100 words off the plot and it is down to about 670 words now. DrNegative (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The "Cast" section makes it seem like these actors played the characters (which could be assumed in a post-Avatar world). Could it be clearer that they voice the characters? Also, the infobox's "Starring" field lists thirteen names, when it could be shorter. Editors usually use poster credits as guidance, but I see that Atlantis does not really have that. Maybe consider not having names listed? Some Featured Articles on Star Trek films do not list names.
    •  Done Removed names from info-box and replaced with wikilink pointing to cast list within article. Also noted that the actors "voiced" the characters in the actual cast list. DrNegative (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The "Soundtrack" section provides a track listing. There are some new guidelines about writing such sections here (and there is discussion on the related talk page), and one of the points is to avoid doing a listing when the tracks are generically named. The guidelines are preliminary, though, so if you disagree, that's fine. I think that a track listing is more beneficial when one is linking to various songs and/or artists. (The section follows the guidelines otherwise, though!)
    •  Done Removed track listing. DrNegative (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In the "Box office" section, the budget should not be shown with all these zeroes. It's an unnecessary level of precision (obviously the film did not cost exactly that much). Along similar lines of thinking, another box office-related approach you may want to consider is rounding the figures, writing $186 million instead of $186,053,725. MikeAllen and I have been doing that, though it's up to you.
    •  Done Converted numbers to millions. DrNegative (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In "Awards and nominations", you can remove the bolding. MOS:BOLD limits where it can be used. It may also be better to reference awards' actual websites instead of IMDb, which is not well-looked upon other than being used as a starting point for research and referencing.
    •  Done Removed bolding. DrNegative (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Will continue searching for better sources. DrNegative (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      •  Done All IMDB references removed and replaced with reliable sources and archives sources from the Wayback machine. DrNegative (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In the "References" section, for ref. #4 (DVD supplemental features), any way to be able to identify the approximate time for each reference? I've seen some editors argue for this like a page would be referenced in a book.
    • I agree, I will need to go back to my hand notes and reference all of these, their times and chapter locations on the disc. I will work on it over the next few days. DrNegative (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
      •  Done I went ahead and took reference #4 and formatted it the exact same way which the editor of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier did for the DVD special features in that article, using sub-chapter heading for each of the 5-10 minute segments that the info was based from. From there, I put the disc info in the "reference" section with the actual citations based on it in the "notes" section. I hope that would meet your approval. DrNegative (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I also finished adding the times for each reference. DrNegative (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I noticed that most of the sources are online. Have you had a chance to look for print sources? Not everything will be available in a Google web search. For example, I looked in Google Books Search and found this and this. In Google Scholar Search, I found this. It may help to do specialized searches and even search in subscription-only electronic databases found at public and university libraries. For example, I looked up this film at Film Index International, and two potentially useful sources are the August 2001 issue of Cinefantastique (which has multiple articles about the film) and the May 2001 issue of Creative Screenwriting, which has an interview with the screenwriter. I bring this up because a Featured Article needs to be comprehensive, since that's your goal. I can post the other references on the talk page.
    • Thanks Eric. I will take a look at these sources and try to implement them into the article. Several would be good for starting a "Themes" subsection too. DrNegative (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I will try to give the article a fuller reading this week. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


2009 World Series of Poker Europe[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to turn it into a featured list like 2007 WSOPE and 2008 WSOPE and ultimately make World Series of Poker Europe a featured topic.

Thanks, Rymatz (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I recently peer reviewed the 1973 WSOP, and found the contrast between the two articles quite interesting. I do not think this currently meets FLC requirements, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I often start a peer review by saying a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. You have already done that with the FLs for the two previous WSOP events, but I have to say that I think the model is flawed and that this does not meet the MOS and FLC requirements.
  • I think the lead does not follow WP:LEAD. For example the first sentence says nothing about this specific 2009 tournament (it would be a fine first sentence for a general article on the WSOPE). WP:LEAD says in part (about the first sentence): The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. This does not do that.
  • In fact the current lead does not even mention the 2009 WSOPE until the fourth paragraph. Now I know that FLs often have larger leads than WP:LEAD would recommend, but I think the lead should focus on the subject of the article (2009 WSOPE) and not wait until the last paragraph to toss in a few facts about the topic. There was much more textual information on the 1973 WSOP in its short article than there is here on the 2009 WSOPE.
  • The current fourth paragraph is a poor summary of the tables of information which make up the body of the article. Let's look at one sentence, on the first of four events: The first event saw J.P. Kelly emerge as the winner of a less-than-an-hour long heads up battle, overcoming a 3-to-1 chip deficit against Fabien Dunlop and earning his second World Series of Poker bracelet of the year. WHen I read this I thought the first event was one game (not sure of what kind of poker) that lasted less than an hour. When I read the table below it tells me it was £1,000 No Limit Hold'em, that there were 608 buy-ins and that the event lasted four calendar days. I think all of this could be in the lead.
  • Similar comparisons can be made for each of the other three events - I would specify the length in days, the number of buy-ins (I assume this is the same as the number of players??)(If not, this needs to be clarified), and the type of poker played.
  • I did an experiment and pasted the first three paragraphs of 2008 World Series of Poker Europe in the place of the first three paragraphs here (without the picture). There was only one change (colon to ndash) between the two. Following a model is a good idea, but copying and pasting that model is not.
  • That said, I would look carefully at the information in the current lead that is not specifically about the 2009 WSOPE and see if it merits inclusion. For example what does this have to do with the 2009 WSOPE? Furthermore, as the laws that govern the age of gambling differ in England than the U.S., the WSOPE admits younger players. In 2007, one of these younger players, 18-year-old Annette "Annette_15" Obrestad became the youngest player to win a WSOP bracelet event.[5] Were there younger players in 2009 who did well? If so, talk about them, not about what happened two years ago. Similarly, did any of the finalists get there via the online gaming partner? If not, why is such prominence given to the company? Look at each statement and ask yourself how is this relevant to 2009 WSOPE. If it is, keep it somewhere. If not, get rid of it.
  • I would start the lead with the details of the 2009 tournament. Perhaps some overall stats (days long, number of players, total money in buyins and in prizes, total number of events). I then would devote a few sentences to each of the four events. Then and only then would I go into the history and background of the tournament (though I think it would be fine to have a first sentence that mentioned that this was the third year of the WSOPE).
  • If you raise the argument that the 2008 WSOPE FL does not do this, I would say that I think it needs serious work to remain a FL.
  • I also think that the tables could use a few sentences of introduction each. Perhaps briefly explain the games of poker involved. For example did any of the previous WSOPE winners repeat?
  • Sources depend fairly havily on the WSOPE site - are there other, more independent sources available?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


Community Impact Newspaper[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to see if it is in danger of being an WP:ADVERT Advertisement. I've started independent third-party editing on it recently to make it less of an advertisement than it was originally. Appreciate an opinion. Thanks. AustexTalk 21:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, AustexTalk 21:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. What is here is interetsing, but it needs a lot of work to better follow the Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several Featured Articles on newspapers that may be useful models - see Sunderland Echo, Street newspaper, and The Philadelphia Inquirer
  • This article needs to follow WP:LEAD - currently it has no lead section.
  • 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 article needs many more references and should use refs from independent third-party reliable sources as much as possible. See WP:RS
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Convert all external links in the article to inline references.
  • Article needs more references, for example the Management section and first paragraph of History have zero refs and need some.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The Management section seems to me to fail WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a Directory, again look at the model articles to see how they handle the staff)
  • Similarly I do not think that FAcebook and Twitter links are normally included in articles - since they are on the paper's webpage and that is linked here, I think this violates WP:EL
  • The article does not follow WP:ITALIC in its use of bold fonts
  • Headers do not follow WP:HEAD - don't use /
  • The Publications / trade areas section seems to contradict itself (or at least is not clear). It says eight editions in Austin area, then the next paragraph lists way more than eight in Austin metro Austin metro: Central Austin | Northwest Austin | Southwest Austin | Buda | Cedar Park | Georgetown | Hutto | Kyle | Leander | Pflugerville | Round Rock | San Marcos | Taylor | Westlake |
  • Make sure to provide context for the reader - need to say that this is in Texas in the first sentence.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Jared Leto[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring this article to Featured status. In about two months, I've greatly expanded the article, which had seven references. It's been totally restructured, a great deal of information added and now has 170 references.

Thanks, Earthh (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they break up the narrative flow of the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There is much sourced material (critical reception, current projects, awards and other accolades, relationships) deleted without a reason. The material is significant in the context of the subject's overall life and career. Every source used meet WP:SOURCES. I can't understand what is wrong with this version. An user have emptied some sections (as In the media or Relationships) and now some content makes no sense because parts of it was pruned.--Earthh (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I apologize that this review has taken so long. I have now compared the versions before the recent major changes and what is currently there diff. I think that some of the changes are improvements, while others did remove material I would think should be kept in the article. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. I note that Jackie Chan is an FA and has separate sections on his movie, tv, and music careers. The FA Preity Zinta also separates her acting career from other things she has done.
  • I think that the edits improved the article where they made the text more neutral / encyclopedic in tone. For example in the lead the sentence He rose to prominence for playing brooding heartthrob Jordan Catalano in the cult hit teenage drama My So-Called Life (1994), becoming a teen idol. has been changed to He rose to prominence for playing Jordan Catalano in the teenage drama My So-Called Life (1994). Since the lead is a summary of the article, nothing should be in the lead that is not repeated in the body of the article. Let's look at the three changes in this sentence
    • I searched the first version, and although "heartthrob" is used once in the body of the article, it is used in general about him in 2010, not about his character on My So-Called Life. I think cutting it from the lead is good.
    • Similarly "cult hit" appears only in the lead, although the word "cult" is used twice in the My So-Called Life section. While there is more reason to keep cult hit in the lead than heartthrob, I am OK with cutting it - how does keeping it help the reader's understanding? The focus of the article should be on Leto, not this show.
  • Teen idol is in the body of the article, and is cited to an article in People magazine called Teen Idols of the 90s. If I were going to keep one of the three things cut from this sentence, it would be this. Still it might be better to attribute this (People magazine called him one of the "Teen Idols of the 90s") in the body of the article - not sure if needs to be in the lead.
  • The lawsuit with his record label was also cut from the lead - I think this should be kept in in some way, as my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • I can't go through the article and look at every change like this, but I think where multiple reliable sources back something up, it should be in, and where the language has been improved those changes should stay for the most part.
  • I think the personal relationship stuff that was cut should be in the article for the most part (again assuming it is backed up by refs). Here a model article is useful for comparisons - there are many FAs on actors and musicians, and they almost always have a personal life section.
  • I especially think that if he was involved romantically with some who is notable, that that is more notable and worthy of inclusion here than if he were photographed on a date with someone no one has ever heard of. So longer / deeper relationships stay (even if it is with an unknown person) and those with notable people probably should stay too (if more than a date or two).
  • I see Leto as an actor and musician. I see almost nothing in the Television work section that is inconsistent with his being an actor (except perhaps filming some footage for the Bush Pilots show). Is there any reason why the material here can't be included in the Acting career section somehow?
  • Similarly I see most of the Philanthropy material as stuff that could go into Personal life - could the section be its own subsection of Personal life? Personal life could then have sections on Relationships (restoring much of the material that was cut), politics, and philanthropy. To be honest there is some overlap between philanthropy and political convictions - attending benefits for causes is both political and philanthropic.
  • There are also things that seem trivial (not sure why they are in the article). Having been told he supported Obama's candidacy in the 2008 election, what does it add to the reader's understanding that he and his bandmates wore Obama T-shirts at one concert?
  • Nobody ever know where to stick the kind of things that are now in the "In the media" section, but they are usually in Personal life. Again the sexiest vegetarian award seems like it would fit better in the section where his veg. lifestyle is discussed.
  • The most difficult criteria at FAC for most articles to meet is 1a, professional level of English. I think many of the edits you do not like improved the prose by making it more encyclopedic. There are still rough spots though, like the repeated word in He supports the The Art of Elysium, which encourages working actors, artists and musicians to voluntarily dedicate their time and talent to children who are battling serious medical conditions.
  • A stable article is another FA criterion, so the editing dispute needs to be resolved.
  • MOS Says to give metric units too - so add km after 200 miles - the {{convert}} template does this well.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. If anything, the article needs to be improved, and removing sourced material improves nothing.--Earthh (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Gotten back from my little "break" from Wikipedia to begin preparing FiM to it's long awaited FA. Obviously, it's nowhere near to that status, but doesn't mean it can't get a little closer. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  • There's a citation needed tag in the Origin section that needs to be addressed
  • "Twilight becomes close friends with five other ponies;(list of ponies)" isn't it supposed to be a colon instead of a semi-colon? because you're listing ponies
  • I guess the Premise section references itself, but could you possibly find more sources for some sentences?
  • The references have to be consistent with the publishing and retrivel dates: either have it formatted "YY-MM-DD" or "[Month] [Date], [Year]"; choose one format or the other for all the sources
  • Ref#28 is apparently an unreliable source; replace it with a reliable one
  • The images in the Internet following subsection seems to be sandwiching text between the two; I suggest moving the attendee image a little higher
  • "This season is scheduled to premiere on September 17, 2011." source?

This should get you started-SCB '92 (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

I had a quick run-through and have a few comments per below.

Origin

  • "The latest television show prior to Friendship is Magic was produced in 1992, titled My Little Pony Tales, featuring the pony designs of the first generation, or G1. It was followed by various direct-to-video releases since, which featured G3 and later designs."
    So what ever happened with G2?
  • "During her pitch to Lisa Licht of Hasbro Studios, Licht pulled one of their recent My Little Pony animated works, "completely on the fly" according to Faust, with Licht considering that Faust's style was well suited to that line and offered her the opportunity to be the creative developer of the Generation 4 series."
  • This ia a clunky sentence and I am not certain what "Licht pulled one of their recent My Little Pony animated works" means (in production lingo, "pull" would mean removing a show from its schedule).
  • "To do this, she incorporated many elements into the design of the characters and the show which contradicted idealized stereotypes of girls, ..."
    The way the sentence is structured, one might assume that the the show "contradicts idealized stereotypes" and be left wondering what are the "many elements".
  • "... and the idea that girls should not limited by what others say they can or can't do."
    Contractions (unless part of a quote) have no place in an encylopaedia article.

Production

  • "Notable staff members working on the series alongside Faust are story editor Rob Renzetti, directors Jayson Thiessen and James Wootton, producer Sarah Wall and writers Amy Keating Rogers, Cindy Morrow, Meghan McCarthy, Chris Savino, Charlotte Fullerton, M. A. Larson and Dave Polsky."
    I find it pointless to list everyone (a few would have been okay). They are not really "notable"; they are not even mentioned again.
  • "... for example, the ponies' hair and tails are generally fixed shapes, animated by bending and stretching them in curves in three dimensions and giving them a sense of movement without the expensive cost of animated individual hairs."
    Quite clunky in my opinon: "for example, the ponies' hair and tails are generally drawn as fixed shapes and animated by bending and stretching the shapes. This saves the team from resorting to the more expensive process of animating individual strands of hair."

Characters

  • Almost entirely unsourced, subjective characteristics such as "dependable and hard-working", "brave and bold", "proud", etc. should have secondary sources that vouch for them.

Images

References

  • Capitalize the titles of the sources properly (Composition style).
  • What makes BoingBoing.net, Cartoon Brew, Raving Toy Maniac, reliable sources?
  • Mane6's hosting of a scan of Gameland is a copyright violation: please do not link to such materials (I have removed it).
    • Please respect copyrights. I have again removed several linkvios from this article. Jappalang (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of good content there, although the above (language issues, unsourced information, NFCC, unreliable sources, etc.) do need fixing. A copy-edit should spruce the fixed article enough to try for GA. Jappalang (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I just noticed this article had been assessed as GA. Frankly, I am a bit surprised that it was passed with these amount of issues, especially sources of questionable reliability and amount of linkvios (apparently the linkvios were introduced after passing GA). Jappalang (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


Otis Redding[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need advices from you how to improve this article to GA-status or even FA-status. Thanks.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 08:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've started a cursory review of the article. Don't take this the wrong way GreatOrangePumpkin, but there's a considerable amount of text that isn't proper English - which should not be surprising given you're en-2 listing. I'd be happy to work through these with you, but it's going to be an intensive process with lots of back-n-forth. If you're willing to find references and such I think we could get this to FA pretty quickly.
As an example of what I'm talking about, let's work through this paragraph:
At the city's airport, Redding's pilot Dick Fraser contacted a mechanic to control Redding's plane for possible issues. James Alexander of the Bar-Kays was on a commercial plane, since there were eight members in Redding's party and the plane could only hold seven. Four miles from the airport Fraser radioed in to get permission to land. There were downfall and fog at this time. Ben Cauley, one of the Bar-Kays, heard a jolt and the falling of the plane. According to him, the plane tipped to the left and the pilot tried to overturn it to the right, but without success. The plane crashed into the Lake Monona. Cauley was the only person aboard the plane to survive the crash.[26] He reported that he had been asleep until seconds before impact, and recalled that upon waking he saw bandmate Phalon Jones look out of a window and say, "Oh, no!" Cauley said the last thing he remembered before the crash was unbuckling his seatbelt. He then found himself in the frigid waters of the lake, grasping a seat cushion to keep afloat.[27]
OK, so did Fraser contact a mechanic before leaving Cleveland? It's not clear. The statement "contacted a mechanic to control Redding's plane for possible issues" does not make sense. Do you mean "to check Redding's plane"? "Four miles from the airport"… which airport? Cleveland? "There were downfall and fog", downfall does not make sense in English. Do you mean rain was falling? "heard a jolt and the falling of the plane" does not make sense… "and the falling"… do you mean "and felt the plane falling"? " pilot tried to overturn it to the right", overturn it can't be right, that means he's trying to flip it upside down, which I doubt. The rest is fine. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok I think it's a lot better now. I'd still like to flesh out the crash section a bit, I'm a pilot so I'll read the NTSB report and see if there's anything interesting. Other than that, I think it's ready for a run at GA. 15:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well the NTSB report is a bust, but I found a book that went into some detail. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for your peer review and your edits, and I agree it looks better now. You said you couldn't find anything about the mechanic, but here is the source that mentions him: [2]. Also I try to find the location of their first flight (I thought the Truax airport was the starting point); maybe you can help. Thanks again!--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 17:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That definitely mentions it, but I'm not sure what to make of it. It sounds very routine, I'm not sure it's trying to imply that Fraser was looking for anything. I also notice that Cauley's story is different in different sources. In a recent newspaper article he says that he was trying to get to Redding but couldn't, but I don't know if that's something we should mention either. Maybe as a quote? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it sounds routine, but it provides an ironical impression. That he tried to get to Redding is already mentioned on several books. I don't think this is necessary to include it here.
Comments from Jappalang

General

  • Several paragraphs (several of which have statistics, opinions, and information that potentially might be challenged) are missing citations. For FA, the recommendation is at least one citation per paragraph.

Singing style

  • This seems a bit skimpy, especially with sources such as this and this among others. At the FA level, the exclusion of those sources and parcity of information here would be questioned.

Legacy

  • This seems a little bit proseline and could be tweaked a bit: separate the paragraphs into themes or such.

In popular culture

  • There is frankly no point for this section (which in bullet form also tends to lower the "professional" standard of the article). The first point can be integrated into the Legacy section. There is no context to the second point (so what if he was "adapted" in a television story?). The last is even more trivial.

Sources and references

  • "Freeman, p. 77": Who is Freeman?
  • "Stewart, p. 8": Who is Stewart?

Images

  • File:Otis Redding.jpg, File:RSObit.jpg, File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg: For dead subjects without "free" images, we tend to allow a non-free image for illustration of the subject (an exception for WP:NFCC #1). That said, it seems excessive for 3 non-free images here and it can be said that the orbituary could serve as the lead image. There is no critical commentary about the statue that would require illustration for further understanding. As such, I would consider the use all three a violation of NFCC #3a. I recommend just using the orbituary and excluding the other two images.

Overall, I think the content is there but work needs to be done. Jappalang (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your peer review! 1)I don't think references are missing in paragraphs. For example the information of the section "First single and first album" can be found on Gulla's book Icons of R&B and Soul: An Encyclopedia of the Artists Who Revolutionized Rhythm, Volume 1, which is the last references. 2)Thank you for these books; will see if they give more information. 3)Will see what I can do. 4)I think the last two points are informative for readers and doesn't contain trivial information. The first one is to trivial and unimportant, so I removed it. The last two are important in my opinion, because being featured/mentioned in television series or books are examples of how he influenced people not only in music, so I merged them into the Legacy section. 5)Will try to replace songfacts and collecting-celebrity-autographs with more reliable sources. Fixed Freeman source; couldn't fix the Stewart source, as book not found. Maybe it's "Otis! The Otis Redding Story", but as I don't own this book, I can not say if this is true. 6)I think all three show encyclopedic value and illustrate the subject. Yes, the last two pictures are the weakest one, but I am still of the opinion that they are important. They support the sections "Legacy" ""(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay" and death" in many respects, such as reinforcing the several statements. --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 07:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
"I don't think references are missing in paragraphs.": Please check again; first paragraph of Early life has no citations at all. So too, first paragraph of Early career, and last two sentences of second paragraph of "Try a Little Tenderness". Please go through the article thoroughly.
"Being featured/mentioned in television series or books are examples of how he influenced people not only in music": No, I do not agree. Unless Stephen King specifically state "I made Redding the sheriff because he reminds of .... which puts him into a position of power that undoubtedly reflects his standing in the music industry, blah blah blah; not many can equal Redding in this aspect" or such, the simple inclusion does not show an "influence". There are many nuclear age story books about war, but that does not mean nuclear weapons of the modern military equipment (M1, T-80 tanks, F-15, Su-27) have "influence". They are simply reflections of the time or representative of the theme. In King's case, his television story has the theme of dead music stars and Redding is merely one little component of the mass of such zombies (there is no reason behind his inclusion other than he was dead and was a star). The same goes for the songs in that movie; unless commentary backs the reason that they were included more because they were Redding songs rather than simple licensing issues or themes, they do not belong in this article (if its due to its theme, the song article would be the more appropriate place for it; licensing issues would be more relevant in the film article).
For the non-free images, I disagree (#8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."): the statue does not need to be seen to understand that someone has commemorated Redding with one; the obituary and the first image serve equally well as the lede (identifying) image, only one of them is needed to identify Redding and the obituary can serve as both identifying image and a show of the impact of his death (via the headline and publication), which satisfies #3a ("Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."). Jappalang (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Everything is cited as far as I can see, except the last two sentences of "Posthumous releases"; I will add the references if necessary. In the "Early Life" section, reference 9 is the source for the complete section; the second last is cited because the book doesn't mention that he won 15 weeks in a row. The same goes to the "Early career" section; reference 10 is the source for the both paragraphs. In the "Try a little tenderness" section, the text from "To search" until "Al Bell" is avalailable in the Gulla book. Removed pop culture. I don't understand NFCC and why it exists, so you might give me an advice how to "convert" it to "free media", because the pictures are really important here.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 18:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
As stated earlier, if you are attempting for FA, almost everything (at the least, each paragraph) has to be cited. If you are going to attempt for that, then those have to have citations (even if the next paragraph is cited to the same source). Stringent GA reviewers might also demand more citations than what the article has now. "Free media" either has expired copyrights (more importantly, US copyrights), or its copyright holders has agreed to allow anyone to use the media for any purpose (to sell, to modify, to re-publish, etc.). None of those three photographs right now would qualify as "free" (the first is of unknown copyright status, the obituary is very likely still copyrighted by Rolling Stone, the statue is erected in 2002 and copyrighted until 70 years beyond the sculptor's passing; furthermore the US has no freedom of panorama for works of art installed in public places). Jappalang (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Pathlight School[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present for peer review, this article about a Singaporean special school for autistic children! The goal is to make this Wikipedia's first special-education-related GA. Please support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by pointing out any and all issues that prevent the article from meeting the GA criteria. I hope you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article as much as I enjoyed writing it (despite the scarcity of referenced information on Singaporean topics)! J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Review from Cunard

Lead

  • With more than 500 pupils enrolled, Pathlight School provides one half of Singapore's educational provision for autistic children with the other half provided by Eden School, which offers vocational training for the lower-functioning, and is noted for its achievements in special education in Singapore. – this sentence is a bit on the long side. The part about Eden School probably doesn't belong in the lead since an article's lead should serve as a "summary of its most important aspects". I recommend that you move the relative clause to the body of the article.
  • The lead should probably be longer. A good rule of thumb is that it should touch upon the major point(s) in every section of the article.
Partially done, clarification needed I have removed mention of Eden School from the lead section and restructure the sentences. If the lead section is too short, what information should be added? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The lead should adequately summarize the article. If you included the most pertinent points from each section, then nothing more needs to be added. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I feel that the lead section is currently complete and am marking this done, but would nevertheless prefer a second opinion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Because the article is short, the lead is probably okay at four sentences. If you'd like more suggestions about this article, I suggest you ask Jappalang (talk · contribs) who is more experienced than I and can give you more feedback about the article. Cunard (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

History

  • The ARC collaborated with the Rainbow Centre over a period of five months, with the help of volunteers, to renovate the temporary campus, recruit school staff, decide on the school values and develop the school programmes.
    1. Perhaps "with the help of volunteers" could be moved to the beginning of the article? It sounds smoother that way.
    2. the link to campus is overlinking.
Done Link removed. The mention of volunteers was also removed. Before the copyedit, the sentence was "Under the direction of a team of key staff and volunteers, the ARC..." but in the current sentence, the mention of volunteers adds nothing. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Campus

  • cost S$34 million to build
Not done Firstly, the conversion template does not support currencies. Secondly, inflation and changes in exchange rates over time would render such a conversion useless. Thirdly, which "more familiar currency" would be used and would this exacerbate systemic bias? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You can use the euro, for example, and/or the US dollar. I don't think this would exacerbate systemic bias. Because people are more familiar with the euro and the dollar, they would be able to comprehend more easily the costs of building the school. Instead of exacerbating systemic bias, a conversion would counteract it by making the article accessible to more readers. You could find the conversion using a website like http://coinmill.com/SGD_USD.html. It would demonstrate the conversion at the time the school was built, so inflation and changes in exchange rates do not matter. It is your decision, though, so feel free not to include it if you disagree. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, so marking not done. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Will consider My concerns regarding currencies do not apply here, but I must figure out how to use the template. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I've included the conversion template in the article. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Marking already done then. Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Its facilities include 45 classrooms, 4 computer labs, 3 courtyards – per WP:MOSNUM, numbers from one to nine should be spelled out.
Done Numbers spelled out. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • while the taps in the canteen are slightly different from each other, to help students learn to adopt less rigid routines – I don't think the comma after "other" is needed.
Done Comma removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Programmes

  • Unlike most special schools in Singapore, which place little emphasis on academics, Pathlight School uses the same academic curriculum as mainstream primary and secondary schools, except that mother tongue lessons are replaced with classes covering social and life skills.
    • This sentence is a bit too long. Perhaps you can break into two?
Done Split the sentence into two. The sentences certainly could be further improved. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I've copyedited it a little. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Students

  • caters to autistic Singaporeans aged 6 to 18 – per WP:MOSNUM, this should be "... aged six to 18".
"Done Numbers spelled out. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Management

"See my reply above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

References

  • Newspapers and journals should be italicized.
Done Tedious but thankfully not time-consuming. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • While not necessary, would you include internal links for each of the notable publications?
Done Look at the alliteration above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
What wonderful work! Cunard (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Instead of placing commas after the title, periods should be used.
Clarification needed Which part of the style guidelines says that? I was taught differently, but I may have misunderstood or things may have changed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The style guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources and the example at Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style doesn't explicitly recommend commas. However, the given examples all contain periods which is why I am under the impression that periods should be used. If you would like to use commas instead, feel free to use them. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Marking not done then. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  • When including authors' names, the format should be "Last Name, First Name", instead of "First Name, Last Name".
Clarification needed Chinese and Malay names are quite different from Western names. In Chinese names, the surname comes first, while Malay names use patronymics instead of surnames and calling a Malay by their patronymic would be inappropriate. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I looked at featured article Kampung Boy (TV series)#Bibliography and see some references formatted in the same style, so I think you're correct. I've asked Jappalang (talk · contribs), the writer, to shed some light on this. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
J.L.W.S. is correct that Chinese and Malay names would be handled differently (it is the case among modern scholarly text as well). In this case, however, I note that the use of a single "author" field for the Western-style names instead of two fields ("last" and "first") could be bringing up this confusion. In my article, I use the two-field ("first" and "last") reference for Western-style names and the single "author" field for Malay names. That could work for this article, although another editor asked for a inline comment ("<!--This is an ethnic Malay author; Malay second names are patronyms, and Malays are usually referred by their first name.-->") to help clarify the issue to new editors. Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Are there any Malay or Tamil language sources that can be used? A review of the references section indicates that most—if not all—of the sources are English-language ones. Have any Malay or Tamil newspapers written about Pathlight School?
Clarification As far as I can tell, sources in languages other than English are not prohibited, but are nevertheless discouraged. Since there is sufficient information available in English-language sources, I have not used any of the Chinese-language sources that I found. My command of the Malay language is decent but not sufficient to read newspaper articles, while I am not aware of any articles about Pathlight School in Tamil Murasu, the only Tamil-language newspaper in Singapore. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:NOENG, English-language sources are preferred; however, I believe this is mostly for articles on general topics such as wind, science, and bird. When the articles are about non-general, non-English topics, non-English sources are acceptable and sometimes expected. Such sources may add new perspectives about the subject—unique from English ones. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Marking not done since I did not find any unique perspectives or significant information from the several Chinese-language newspaper articles that I read. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for writing this enjoyable read and for your hard work in combating systemic bias. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Writing this article was a pleasure and I am glad that you found it an "enjoyable read". Perhaps you could help combat systemic bias too, by writing a GA about an underrepresented topic or location! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I might write such an article one day if I find a topic that deeply interest me. But I have to finish working on several literature articles, many of which are in poor condition. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add on something about references from a quick glance through. The newspaper articles should note the journalist (or the news agency if the news was supplied by them). Page numbers should be supplied if these are print sources as well. Since Channel NewsAsia is primarily a television news program, was "$335,000 raised for Pathlight School" read on the news channel or is it an article on their website (if the latter, the link should be supplied). Using Dr Ng Eng Hen's speech as a source runs into problems with Wikipedia:Verifiability (i.e. how would one be able to verify his speech content?). A secondary source (or a transcript of his speech on his or the school site) should be supplied. Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Done Added journalist names and links, where available. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Squeeze (The X-Files)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after passing its GAN, I would like to take it to FAC in the future. I know it's not ready for that yet, so I would like to run it through a peer review for two reasons. One, I would like to identify which parts of the article need additional work; and two, I would like to see if anything seems to be missing or incomplete, so that I know what material I should be trying to research. I haven't requested a copy-edit for the article yet as I'm not sure if there'll be major changes to the article based on this review, and if there will be then a copy-edit makes more sense afterwards. Thanks in advance to anyone who participates. GRAPPLE X 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I like this article. I remember watching this episode the night it was aired. Creepy! Here are some things to consider:
  • When referring to a person, you only need to give their full name once, and then afterwards use their last name. Avoid being redundant with the names and titles. For example, in the Production section here, Chris Carter is twice referred to as "series creator Chris Carter" in the same paragraph. Just say it once, and then use "Carter" from then on.
  • Be sure that the article conforms to the MOS:TV episode structure. This article only has a few sections, but it may make sense to add more.
  • The article is kind of light on references, but that may be because this is for a tv episode. I have some experience finding articles about tv for this year (1993), and it's not easy! However, a good journal/periodical database search can unearth some good sources, such as reviews in Entertainment Weekly, Variety, etc. Harder to get online, but very likely to have print material about the X-files is the magazine Starlog. You might need interlibrary loan for that one.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
  • I recommend finding a TV episode article that has FA status and use that as a model. For example, The Stolen Earth or A Streetcar Named Marge.
I'm sure there's much more, and hopefully other editors will chime in. Good luck with the article!Astrocog (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers. I fixed the redundant naming (not sure how I missed that one, since it was probably me who added it both times); and I'm going to have another read through what print sources I have to see what information might be in there that's not already mentioned. Would you recommend re-organising the "Production" section into subsections the way the example articles you've linked? There's probably enough there for a pre-production, production and post-production breakdown to still seem balanced. I'm starting back at uni soon enough so I can check the library system there for Starlog or anything similar. I think Cinefantastique did a spread on the season but it's unavailable online. GRAPPLE X 04:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Have made these changes so far. GRAPPLE X 05:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • As long as you've got the sources to give reliable details for those sections, go for it. The suggested sections in MOS:TV are general guidelines, with the understanding that not all shows or episodes will have that information. Some articles won't have all the suggested sections, because reliable sources haven't documented information pertaining to them. But X-files is a long-running series with plenty of coverage, so I would put in a good effort to get as many of those sections as possible if you're aiming for FAC in the future.AstroCog (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • This statement:"The episode earned a Nielsen household rating of 7.2, with a 13 share—meaning that in the US, 7.2 percent of television-equipped households, and 13 percent of all households actively watching television, were watching the program." --does not make sense to me. It says 7.2% of television-equipped housholds watched the show. Then 13% of all households watched the show. What is this "13%" coming from, if only 7.2% of those that watched it had televisions? I don't understand the math behind this, because the second figure insinuates that 4.8% more people watched it without a television. This is one reason why I've always avoided these "sharing" figures because they often are confusing and require extra explanation just include them in the article. Could you better explain this to at least me? Maybe it's just written wrong or something.
  • Additionally, are there any other negative reviews? It seems like the reception section is padded with praise for the episode, and one lone guy basically saying the plot was unbelievable. I just hope the page isn't getting undue weight placed on the positive reviews, because we like to stay as neutral as possible and I'm sure more than just one person didn't like the episode and probably for more reasons than just a ludicrous plot. I don't know 100%, but I would have to imagine they are out there. Whether you have access to them or not, I don't know and that often times is an inhibitor for all editors. You said you were going back to school soon, so maybe the library database will have more?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I can take another look for reviews, but the majority of what I've turned up for the series as a whole is mixed at worst I guess. I'll see if there's anything I can turn up from individual newspapers if I search for the different broadcast dates rather than just searching the episode specifically. As for the Nielson thing, that's the wording I copied directly from the article on the ratings themselves - I took it to mean that 7.2% of households which own a television watched the program, whilst the 13% is the number of households who actually had the tv turned on at the time of the broadcast. The 5.8% difference weren't watching tv when the show was on so the two statistics work together so figures aren't skewed by, saw, popular events or blackouts or anything else which would turn off a lot of tv sets. Should the wording be explained better to reflect that? GRAPPLE X 19:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If that is what that means, and I don't know for sure and that's why I always just use total viewers, then it should probably read more like: "Of the 13% of households that had their televisions turned on during the (fill in episode air time), 7.2% of them were watching 'Squeeze'". Or something to that extent. The way it reads now, it sounds like more people were watching the show than actually had televisions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I've explained this a bit wrong, sorry. It's that the number of people viewing the episode (roughly 6.8 million) made up 7.2% of the total number of TV-owning households; but the same 6.8 million was actually 13% of the number of households who watched TV at that time - not that 13% of the population was watching TV, but 13% of those who were watching TV were watching this episode. Neilson_ratings#Ratings.2Fshare_and_total_viewers explains that the first number (the "rating" is a raw percentage of all TV-owning households; the second number is the "share", and is the viewing numbers rated as a percentage of the TVs actually turned on at the time. The wording used in the article is almost verbatim from that Nielson article, though maybe it should be spelt out better since thhe Nielson article is aimed more at statistics-minded readers rather than fans of a particular TV show. How would the following work as a substitute?
"The episode's initial broadcast was viewed by approximately 6.8 million people; which earned it a Nielsen household rating of 7.2, with a 13 share. Roughly 13% of the households which were viewing television at the time were tuned in to the episode; this audience represented 7.2% of all television-owning households in the United States."
I think that approach also gives the air of not assuming that the ratings are automatically understood as percentages (I didn't know it at all until I started this project, and I doubt I'm the only one). GRAPPLE X 22:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you see how confusing all of that is? It's so easy to misrepresent the data, or for the data not to make sense. Total viewers cannot be misread. To me, the only thing that makes sense is the first part that says the approximate number of total viewers. When you follow it up with "Niselsen rating of 7.2, with a 13 share", it just becomes overly confusing. The average reader does not understand these "shares" and "points". It's more detail than they will be able to figure out and when you have to either send them to another page, or overly explain it on your page then you're doing a disservice to the reader. You've basically distracted them from the article because you had to explain what your information even meant and it's still confusing as it is now. I really think you're wanting to put in statistical data that the average reader will neither care about, or even understand when they are reading the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Perhaps it could be phrased so as to avoid seeming too heavy on the statistics? "The episode's initial broadcast was viewed by approximately 6.8 million people, which represented 13% of the viewing audience during that time". That way the raw viewing numbers still have some context (6.8 million could be high or low figures, but 13% is much easier to evaluate), but there's no complex system of points and ratings. GRAPPLE X 12:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That certainly makes a lot more sense than trying to interpret the ratings number.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to that wording. I've also had no luck finding any other reviews for the episode, I've hunted through newspaper archives online but a lot of papers don't even allow a full search without paid membership, let alone reading anything. :( GRAPPLE X 20:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
That's cool. I would send a message to Hunter Kahn, because I think that he has a subscription to LexisNexis, which has newspapers scanned online. I know he uses it when he's editing and usually has a ton of newspaper sources in his episode articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. When I get back to uni I'll be able to check LexisNexis through the library there, but I have no clue how to get at it without actually being there. GRAPPLE X 22:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Many public libraries have subscriptions to databases. Some universities have library computers which are open to the public as well. As long as you access the databases from a local terminal in the library, those subscriptions should work. I'll do a quick search on my own database service and see what pops up.AstroCog (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Earliest mention of this ep in the press, that I can find, is from a November 5, 1993 USA Today. It's quite a brief note, though, saying "One episode, about a hibernating serial killer who could squeeze through tiny apertures to get its prey, had almost a Clive Barker quality of eeriness." USA Today writer Matt Roush seems to have been a fan. I used to have an excellent book by Phil Farrand, Nitpicker's Guide to X-Files, which had detailed episode analysis. Don't know where the book is now, though. You might try to find it.AstroCog (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Standing Liberty quarter[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it at FAC in due course. This is the seventh in a nine article series on the Great Recoinage of 1907-1921, when all ten denominations of US coins were redesigned in 14 years (the Indian Head half eagle and quarter eagle will be a single article, currently in sandbox). As usual, the Mint and the designer get into all sort of difficulties.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Niagara

  • $3,250, $20 → Seeing as how the article already dollars and cents written out for denominations, perhaps these should be as well.
  • There a couple instance where horizontal images use the "upright" tag.
  • "...aged 75..., "...age 88", "...aged 92" → Are the ages relevant?
Less sexist than saying how old they were in 1916, perhaps. And in Barber's case, I think it is important to establish his character, and part of that is his age.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Some times a single letter is in quotes, like " 'L' for 'Liberty' ", but not for the others like "U in 'Trust' ".

Intro

  • Not a fan of the multiple coin designs in the infobox. Reasons include making the infobox really long, it doesn't indicate what the changes in the design were and I've understood infoboxes to have general info and not be extensive. Those are personal opinions so they be can be ignored if you so choose ;-)
I think we have to show both sides of both major varieties. We are handicapped enough by the dolphin design being copyrighted until 2018. The infobox lets us do it in an organized fashion.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason why it shouldn't be mentioned that the Standing Liberty quarter is a quarter dollar, rather than just its value in cents?
  • "...by the United States Mint issued from 1916 to 1930." → "...by the United States Mint and was issued from 1916 to 1930."
  • "...in 1916, the Mint moved to replace the Barber coinage, including the quarter dollar." → "...the Mint moved to replace the Barber coinage, including the quarter dollar, in 1916."
  • The first instance of the goddess Liberty in the lead isn't linked, rather the second instance at the end of the second paragraph is.
  • "The coin suffered repeated delays, and MacNeil submitted a revised version, including dolphins to represent the oceans" → "Production of the coin suffered repeated delays, which prompted MacNeil to submit a revised version that included dolphins to represent the oceans."
  • "When he objected, the Mint allowed him to redesign the coin, obtaining special legislation for the purpose." → "When MacNeil object, the Mint obtained special legislation to allow him to the redesign the coin.
Literally true, but as the legislation followed several months and one Mint Director later, I think there would be an implication of simultaneity there.
  • "One change made..." → "One alteration made..."; Also was this change done by the Mint or MacNeil.

Design

  • "...the December 2003 The Numismatist," → "...the December 2003 edition of The Numismatist,"

Preparation

  • the quote "...duplicated design versions already rejected by MacNeil... ...and flagrantly bastardized artistic creativity" should be an inline quote as it doesn't take up four lines.
I think given the importance of what Burdette is saying here, it needs to be highlighted. Otherwise it could easily be lost.
  • "...to pay for his journey, and he did not come." → "...to pay for MacNeil's journey, who opted not to come."

Revision

  • "...five dollar money order..." → "5five-dollar money order"
I'm not sure that helps. Perhaps $5 money order?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
That could work, if you decide not to write out "dollars" (first item I mentioned), though I suspect I may have meant "five-dollar" and was only indicating the need for a hypen. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sorry to have been so slow to act on your comments, but I have not gotten much work done here the last two week, I'm afraid. I'll finish up by the end of today.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "he wrote again...", "he pointed out..." → actions by MacNeil, right?
  • "MacNeal visited..." → should be MacNeil?
  • Is the "(Democrat-Ohio)" needed?
I feel it is expected. I don't have strong views on the subject, but I fear if I took it out someone would ask for their return.

Production and collecting

  • "(it catalogs for $3,250 even in worn Good-4 condition, the 1921 and the 1923 struck at San Francisco (1923-S) are also expensive, with costs in the hundreds of dollars even for a circulated specimen." → Open parentheses (if a closing parentheses is added then (1923-S) should have square brackets instead), "Good-4 condition" should probably be linked to coin grading.

Another one of your well-done, numismatic articles; it's always interesting to read them. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks for the review. I am glad people enjoy them. I have left some comments, or perhaps explanation, and will work through the others in the next few days FAC seems pretty jammed up right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that's everything either changed or commented on. Thank you. I sometimes altered the suggested wording. If I have missed anything or you have additional issues (or would like to discuss things further), let me know please. I will not rush to close this PR as I am not in a hurry to list this at FAC with things so slow there.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Webster's Brewery[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done significant work on it since it was last reviewed in May, and I'd eventually like to get the article up to Good Article status. Please bear in mind that information is significantly scarce, and I am waiting until I can get access to the brewing archives before I update it any further, but some indications as to where the article is lacking would be very helpful.

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I found this enjoyable to read despite the problems noted below. It's not nearly ready for GAN, but it has potential. Best of luck with it.

Lead

  • WP:LEAD suggests that leads be no more than four paragraphs. This article is fairly short. I'd be inclined to merge the first two paragraphs and the last two, making a total of three.
  • "as well as the de prioritisation of the Webster's brand after... " - "De" is not a word in English. Maybe "as well as diminished emphasis of the Webster's brand after... "?
  • I'd add a brief mention of the sponsorships too since the lead is to be a summary of the whole article.
  • One-sentence paragraphs give the article a choppy look in places. It's generally better to expand them or to merge them with another paragraph. The last four sections end with one-sentence orphans.

Victorian success story

  • "Within 10 years of being started... " - Tighten by deleting "of being started"?
  • "Initially only supplying the free trade... ". - The concept of "free trade" should be briefly explained for foreign readers who won't know what it means. They might at first think it means "not regulated".
  • "In 1873, increasing demand saw significant extensions and redevelopment made to the brewery." - Awkward. Perhaps "In 1873, increasing demand led the company to remodel and expand the brewery"?
  • "In 1900 the Maltings building was built, allowing Webster's to produce its own malt for brewing." - Two repetitions here make this awkward: "building was built" and "Maltings ... malt".
  • I'll stop here with the line-by-line critique, but it would probably be a good idea to look for the help of a copyeditor to find and fix little problems similar to those noted above. WP:GOCE#REQ is worth checking out.

20th-century consolidation

  • Did anything significant happen to the company between 1932 and 1961?
  • "Following the takeover, Webster's continued as the Yorkshire subsidiary of their brewing empire." - Better make clear that "their" means Watney Mann, if indeed it does.
  • "Watney Mann was motivated by an increase to their pub estate." - Should "pub estate" be briefly explained?
  • "In 1977, reflecting the trend across the country, just 30 of Webster's 285 tied houses sold cask ale." - Why was that significant?
  • "Throughout the 1980s, Webster's claimed around 7% of the Yorkshire beer market by volume.[24](subscription required)" - Oops. The "subscription required" belongs in the citation rather than the text.

Main

  • Why did brands start in 1963? Wasn't Webster's a brand for more than a century before that?
  • I love the quotation from the Good Beer Guide. Please add italics to the book title.
  • "brewed to OG 1031.0" - OG needs to be spelled out, abbreviated, and linked here.
  • "reduced from 3.8% ABV" - Spell out and abbreviate on first use: "3.8 per cent alcohol by volume (ABV)." Use per cent rather than % for internal consistency.

Advertising

  • Was the beer not advertised in any way before the 1970s?
  • Are five sources really needed to support the claims in one sentence?

References

  • Quite a few citations are incomplete. See citation 53, for example. Citations to web sites generally should include author, title, publisher, url, date of publication, and date of most recent access if all those are known or can be found.
  • The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent. This is an example of a format that would be fine for a U.K. article: 14 March 1990.
  • Dates do not normally include the name of the day of the week or the time of day. Citation 1 is very strange in this way. Check for others like this.
  • Newspaper names like Halifax Courier and Financial Times take italics.
  • Be careful to use reliable sources per WP:RS to support the claims in the article. For example, is Freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com reliable? Is http://www.cam.net.uk/camra/ale/211/yorkie.html reliable? Simple publication on the Internet is not enough to make a piece of writing reliable.
  • In most cases, strings like GOOD BEER GUIDE IS ENTHUSIASTIC, PUNCHY, SOMETIMES ACID (citation 48) should be changed to Wikipedia house style even if it appears as all caps in the source. This one should be rendered as Good Beer Guide Is Enthusiastic, Punchy, Sometimes Acid.
  • The punctuation needs to be fixed in citations like 31. Article titles are set off in quotation marks; newspapers appear in italics.

Further reading

  • If these two items are important, it might be better to use them to support something in the article. In addition, the first item lacks the details needed for a reader to find it. The second needs a place of publication, and the book title should appear in italics.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


1689 Boston revolt[edit]

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

I'd like to see this article advance from Good Article class to at least A-Class. For the last two days, I have been working on some (mostly minor) edits to it. I think it would be best to get feedback from other editors regarding the article and its quality. I created it; it was greatly expanded by another user.

Thanks, DCI2026 15:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria
  • Per WP:ENGVAR, be consistent in whether you use American or British spelling - for example, you've got both "organized" and "organised"
  • The lead seems to be focused on the background of the event, and given the length of the article is a bit on the long and dense side
  • WP:OVERLINK - don't link very common terms, and don't link the same term multiple times, particularly in close proximity
  • You might include a couple more sentences about Leisler's Rebellion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I changed the intro. I use American English - which do you think would be appropriate? I have not yet checked on overlinking, as I am in a bit of a hurry here. I will be free to revise later today. DCI2026 20:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009:

  • As ever, very keen to see more early-modern articles! :)
  • The picture used in the infobox is a 19th century depiction, and is from a (relatively) biased source. I think its a good one to use, but the caption might capture that it is a 19th century, Boston authored depiction of the event (have a close look at the governor's face and you'll see what I mean!).
  • The use of the word "mob" is often controversial; it might be worth double-checking what the latest scholarship uses (fashions shift a bit between "mob" and "crowd").
  • "unpopular laws that turned some New England merchant trading practices into smuggling" - felt a clumsy phrase, might be worth revisiting.
  • "The royal troops stationed in Boston, most of whose officers were either Anglican or Catholic, were also disliked. " - if we're saying that few of them were non-Conformist, I'd say it explicitly, otherwise you'll throw some of the readers.
  • "nearly bloodless revolution " - you correctly don't use the phrase "bloodless", but recent work has emphasised the amount of bloodshed involved in the revolution, particularly in Ireland.
  • "The religious leaders of Massachusetts" - would be worth saying what the religious beliefs were in the region (Catholic, Anglican , non-Conform etc.)
  • "pastors" - worth linking?
  • " (Mather was arrested, tried, and exonerated on one charge, but Randolph made a second arrest warrant with new charges)," - a fairly big bit to bracket.
  • "Sometime before noon an orange flag was raised on Beacon Hill, signaling another 1,500 militiamen to enter the city." - worth explaining why orange was important?
  • "they must & would have the Government in their own hands" - you can safely expand "&" to "and" here.

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


Anachronox[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I will copyedit your article if you review this one. Limit one per Wikipedian. All help is totally appreciated; writing this article has been very rewarding and we can't wait to get it to FA. It hasn't received any thorough copyediting review by another editor, however; so let's do a mutual trade. If you review Anachronox, I'll review an article of yours gladly and do a hard copy copyedit! We'll call it quits after about 5 solid reviews.

Thanks for your interest, ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 05:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the delayed response. I'll have time to go over things thoroughly tonight, but some quick impressions to start:
    • File:Anachronoxcover.jpg can be reduced further in size, and the rationale could use some beefing up.
    • " When a player nears a character or item that can be interacted with, the LifeCursor appears, allowing the player to click on the person or item." Que es esto "LifeCursor"? Is it just a regular type of mouse cursor? If so, why mention this?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

      • Reduced image, added to the rationale, and better clarified the LifeCursor. They tried to reduce fourth-wall breakage by having the mouse be an actual electronic cursor-shaped device in the game, lore-friendly. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am very sorry it has taken so long to review this. Here are some suggestions for improvement, made as I read the article.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many computer game FAs that may be good models. See Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Video_gaming
  • Is the explanation of the name needed in the first sentence? I can see it in the lead, but is it needed in the first sentence?
  • MOS says to spell out abbreviations on first use, so RPG in It offers gameplay in the style of console RPGs, such as Chrono Trigger and the Final Fantasy series.
  • The most difficult criterion for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. This is picky, but the in lead each paragraph begins the same way "Anachronox..."
  • Can a game really suffer? Anachronox suffered a long and difficult development; the game ends on a major cliffhanger, and so much content was removed during production that Tom Hall planned to create a sequel.
  • Also is there a WP Games style guide for verb tenses? The sentence quoted in the previous point has past and present tense
  • Link cut scenes?
  • Some things in the article make no senses to me (I am not much of a gamer). Are Ox and Bugaboo well known? Certain maps also have simple two-dimensional minigames, such as Ox and Bugaboo.[8] and who or what is Boots? A special feature of exploration is the use of Boots's camera, which can take and store several pictures for memories or minor quests.[8] See WP:JARGON
  • Why are some game terms like "MysTech" in quotes while others like Bouge are not?
  • The MysTech section is written in a very in-universe style and could use some perspective for those not familair with the game. See WP:IN-U
  • I am not really sure what this means Husks of futuristic cities shift on plates, connecting different parts of the planet.
  • The place to spell out the name MYsterium Technology is the MysTech section (not i nthe later Setting section).
  • Similarly although Boots is identified in the lead, I owuld remind the reader who he is on first mention in the body of the article (not third mention)
  • Where are these other planets - inside Sender One also? Other planets number Sunder, Hephaestus, Democratus, and Limbus.
  • The Story section seems to me to be overly detailed - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction and the plot summary section and links there.
  • There are three fair use images and a fair use sound file. Each will be scrutinized at FAC. The GroundPound battle skill is mentioned only in the caption - for better WP:FAIR USE justification, I would either discuss it in the article (so the image is not just an illustration, but increases the reader's understnading). See also WP:NFCC
  • Or with the image of the characters, if there could be some discussion of design and how they chose their looks near the image, that would help strengthen its fair use claim.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

    • Addressed most concerns and shrunk story section to 3 paragraphs; couple notes:
      • Ox and Bugaboo—thanks; those definitely are original, Anachronox-only games, so I've made those notations. Renoted that Boots is the protagonist in front of that usage.
      • Fair use—I'll expand the caption to draw attention to the Bouge/life bar/etc. and also mention Groundpound in the article. Thanks for the tips on this. Video game articles are tough in this respect, as non-free images are nearly impossible to come by. 3 images and a sound file seems to be the accepted FAC maximum right now as far as I've seen, but it's always a struggle.
    • Just 2 questions:
      • "Is the explanation of the name needed in the first sentence? I can see it in the lead, but is it needed in the first sentence?"—I'm not sure what else should start the article, if not a concise description of the article's subject.
        • OK, it is your call - just seemed a little odd to me coming to article cold, but reading it now I am not sure what the problem I saw with it was. I guess my general thought is that the first sentence is for the most improtant things in the article (the broad categories as it were, if you could only describe the game in 10 words, I am guessing all of them would be in the lead and hopefully all in the first sentence. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
      • "Why are some game terms like "MysTech" in quotes while others like Bouge are not?"—I've seen big arguments on this usage, so I'm not sure where Wikipedia's consensus is on it. Should it be safe to err on the side of quotation marks for the first time these terms are used? ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 01:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
        • I have no idea what to tell you here in terms of a definitive answer. I do have three suggestions. 1) Be consistent - so if there are quotes on "MysTech" on its first use, then it seems that other, in game terms like "Bouge" should also be in quotes on first use (or if no quotes, then none for all) 2) Look at what recent FAs on games like this do with such terms (assuming they have them) - then you can always say I am following the model of FA ______________ at FAC. 3) It might help to ask for advice from the Games WikiProject. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rehab (Rihanna song)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to make it a Featured Article and I want an experienced reviewer to give me tasks when it comes to grammar, prose and other FA things. I would be very greatful.

Thanks, Tomica1111 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Copying my reason much? CalvinNaNaNaC'mon! 12:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Happy?! Tomica1111 (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rehab (Rihanna song)/archive2.

Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the person who wrote it feels that it is of FA quality, and a peer review is a necessary step in that direction. Thanks,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 1, 2011; 18:31 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union/archive1.

James Inglis Hamilton[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like for this article to become a GA. I have expanded it from a stub to what I believe is a C-class article. I know that it is short, but I have had trouble finding a lot of information about the guy. I appreciate any comments!

Thanks, Michael Jester (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts:

  • I could see this getting to B grade very shortly.
  • "command multiple Regiments " - "commanded"
Fixed
  • "Lankarshire" - Lancashire?
Fixed
  • "various renovations towards Murdostounm" - "to Murdostounm"?
Fixed
Added picture
Added picture
  • Check the capitalisation in places - "Great Uncle"
Fixed
  • I'd be disinclined to quote the tombstone myself - it didn't add much for me.
Okay. I removed it.
  • In the references, if a book doesn't have an ISBN number, consider giving it an OCLC number instead. The format is OCLC xxx, and you can look them up on line here.
I added them.
Hchc2009 (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments! What else do you think I would have to do to this article in order to bring it up to B-class?
Michael Jester (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

  • Title: it's generally better to disambiguate by reason for notability than by middle name, so I would suggest it should be moved to James Hamilton (British Army officer).
    • If I moved to James Hamilton (British Army officer), would the peer review still be accessible?
      • It would need to be moved to match the new title, but that's easy enough.
  • The end of the lead is a bit choppy, though given that the article's not very long, there might not be much we can do about that
    • I agree. Possibly, I could add a bit more. I'll try to.
  • Perhaps a stupid question, but what makes "Inglis.uk.com" a reliable source?
    • Im not entirely sure if it is or if it isnt. It's ran by one of his family members so I thought it was reliable. If it isn't, I will try to find a replacement.
      • It's probably acceptable in the article as it is, but I very much doubt you'd get the article through GAN or FAC with it there (unless it's only being used for a fairly trivial fact).
  • It's probably too short to get much further than B-class. It's unfortunate, because there probably isn't a whole lot written about him, but it would be nice to know what kind of participation he had in these various conflicts, something about his personality, and all the other little bits that make up a biography. If there is anything else available, it would be great if it could be added. I did look in Credo, but there's nothing on him (though his son has an impressive entry in Who Was Who at Waterloo, which I'll gladly email you if you want). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, HJ Mitchell!—
Michael Jester (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


Arctic policy of Russia[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is approaching GA quality, and want some guidance on how to get it there. I'm getting to that point where I can't add much more content, and would like some pointers on where the article could use continued work or expansion. --Slon02 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I find this interesting but a little disjointed. Here are a few suggestions for improvement:

  • Since the lead is to be a summary of the whole article, it needs to say something about exploration.
  • The lead shouldn't include anything important that is not covered in the main text sections. I'd think about adding a "Geography" section just below the lead and including the material there about the Russian land mass, Arctic holdings, and shrinking eastern population. The names of the other countries with borders on the Arctic Ocean could go in the Geography section, and it would be nice if you could include the lengths of those borders. Also helpful would be a map showing the relationship of these countries to one another as well as the locations of places like the Kuril Islands, the Aleutian Islands, the Yamal Peninsula, and so on. Most readers will have no idea where most of the places mentioned in the article are.
  • The lead image shows the Russian seabed claims but lacks labels. I don't think you can assume that all readers will recognize Greenland and Russia and Alaska by their shapes, for example. The key is unclear. For example, "2500-m isobath" will mean nothing to most readers, and EEZ and ECS are unexplained.
  • The first sentence of the Exploration section gives credit to Uleb for the first recorded voyage to the Arctic. What about Viking voyages to Greenland and Iceland? See this list.
  • The first sentence of the "Territorial claims" section says "Russian territorial claims to the Arctic officially date back to April 15, 1926... ". Since Russia sold Alaska to the United States in 1867, how can this claim be true?

Territorial claims

  • "The first maritime boundary, from the Varangerfjord, between the two countries was signed in 1957... ". - Which two countries? You need to make clear that it's Norway.
  • "wanted the boundary to be a line running straight north from the mainland, 67,000 square miles (170,000 km2) more than what it had... " - It's not clear what this means. A straight line running north from where to where? Even if we know where this line is, it does not by itself enclose an area. What other boundaries enclose the area you mean?

Economy

  • "Travel along Northern Sea Route takes only one third the distance needed to go through the Suez Canal, without as high a risk of pirates." - One third of the distance from where to where? This claim would not be true for every possible sea journey between a Russian port and a port elsewhere.
  • "This agreement includes a $3.2 billion hydrocarbon exploration of the Kara and Black seas... " - Better make clear that the Black Sea is not in the Arctic.

References

  • Some of the citations are incomplete. Citation to web sites, for example, should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access if all of those are known or can be found.
  • Newspaper names like The New York Times should appear in italics.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


James Cook[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It has improved considerably since it was last reviewed (in 2006) and I would like to know how best to move it towards the Good Article criteria, particularly in the area of completeness.

Thanks, Harkey (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty good coverage in my opinion. There are still several spots where referencing is missing, for example a couple of paragraphs in the "Start of Royal Navy career" (and a few more throughout the article). There are some prose issues, like double punctuation and where you've used quotes. I personally am not good at perfecting that sort of thing myself; if you're like me you might need the Guild. I'd also play around with the structure a bit, merging early and family life, separating the career into a level 2 heading with subheadings, and splitting the legacy section somehow (perhaps contributions to maritime services and then other stuff named after him) and the third voyage and death into two (Third voyage, death - although I do realise the latter was during the former). I wonder what others think about these changes. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A much improved article! I was surprised though not to find anything on the political controversy that later surrounded Cook, particularly in the late 20th century, 1990s in particular, and the arguments over his post-colonial heritage. Also, you cite the Obeyesekere-Sahlins argument over the interpretation of Cook's arrival in the region, but draw on Obeyesekere's intermediary volume - it would be worth citing Sahlin's 1994 reply as well ("How Natives Think" I think it was). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both, very much.--Harkey (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I've now made the changes, as advised. Thank you.--Harkey (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think my proposed changes have done as I hoped they might. I think the article stands a realistic chance at GAN now; probably with some small things but it's not far off. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Consistency review of sources
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Be consistent in whether you put years of publications inside brackets in the shortened footnotes
  • Be consistent in whether you say "page" or "p."
  • Be consistent in whether you invert (last, first) authornames
  • Be consistent in whether you use templates for the citations

Eisfbnore talk 14:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look at these matters.--Harkey (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Done.--Harkey (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. This is a great article, and a fantastic topic for an FA. I don't know enough about the subject to consider whether the article is comprehensive, but what comments I have from reading through, I'll post below. On another note, it's unfortunate that this PR has been fairly quiet so far, but you might like to bring it to MilHist's A-class review, where you might get more feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Is the "RN" postnom not a little redundant given that the sentence ends with "rising to the rank of Captain in the Royal Navy"?
  • Is the blockquote for "farther than any man has been before me, but as far as I think it is possible for a man to go" really necessary?
  • (22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)) First paragraph under Third voyage (1776–79) needs a ref (you'll normally need at least one reference per paragrpah to get an article through any formal review process)
  • Ditto the penultimate paragraph of the "Death" section.
  • Similar issues with the last and penultimate paragraphs
  • Done.--Harkey (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Good copyediting, very constructive. The blockquote "farther than......" is THE quote: it is in all the biographies of Cook that I have read (and I have read a few, just lately in the interests of Wikipedia!!). I think it reveals his ambitious nature in a biography where there are few sources for his personality and motivation.--Harkey (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've been through it all now, and aside from a few referencing issues, it looks like an excellent article. It's easily GA standard, but it might be quicker to bypass GAN and go to MilHist A-class then possibly FAC—he's certainly a great topic for an FA, and it would be great to see him on the Main Page at some point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again. I'll address the issues you have mentioned then proceed as you have advised.--Harkey (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.--Harkey (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the article from MilHist A-class. I investigated the article's sources much more thoroughly last night and realised that some of the books cited were less than scholarly. Also, the whole topic of James Cook, his voyages and legacy, on Wikipedia needs more consideration.--Harkey (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Relief of General Douglas MacArthur[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… Hard to get this article together. Cover a number of hard-to-explain subjects.

Thanks, Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  • The intelligence/counter-intelligence war between Chinese and UN forces during the Chinese intervention and the role in which MacArthur and US government played is not mentioned at all. The main reason why the US Eight Army was defeated at Chongchon River was not because Chinese suddenly crossed the Yalu River in late November without UN air force to intercept them, it is because the Chinese hid their main strength in Korea from mid-October to later November via aggressive deception/counter-intelligence campaign. Although the air strikes on Yalu River bridges worsen the relations between Truman and MacArthur, given that the entire Chinese 13th Army Group (60% of all Chinese forces in Korea) crossed the Yalu River before the Yalu River bridges were bombed, while the Chinese 9th Army Group (40%) crossed the Yalu River by using platoon bridges carrying only light equipment in order to avoid bombing tend to make the discussion of air strike much less significant to the outcome of Chinese intervention. IMO it would be more accurate to either decouple the discussion on outcome of Chinese intervention from the personal conflict between Truman and MacArthur over Yalu River bombing, or expand the conducts of MacAuthur and US government during the intelligence war between Chinese and UN forces. Jim101 (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe you can recommend a good source on intelligence in the Korean War. The mateerr is very technical, but there were at least two major failures: (1) to anticipate the North Korean invasion; and (2) to anticipate the Chinese intervention. In both cases, FEC produced much better estimates than Washington, but not good enough. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

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

  • I am not an expert on military history. I assume that what Jim101 describes above is accurate - if so, it should be incorporated into the article somehow.
    • In this particular article, I was not necessarily looking for military history reviewers, as the article straddles the boundary with politics. So I was hoping for some input from editors with acquaintance with the US politics and the US constitution. What Jim101 says is quite right. The matter of intelligence is rather technical and complex. The question is how much discussion is appropriate to the article. I was hoping that putting them in separate paragraphs would decouple the discussion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Lots of dab links that need to be fixed here
  • I found this to be well-written for the most part, which is good if you want to take this to GAN or FAC. I will try to point out places that need work on prose. *One thing I think should be made clearer is the word "relief" - when I first read the title at PR (and had not yet read the article) I thought it might refer to MacArthur's relief/rescue during WWII (when he was rescued from Corregidor in the Phillipines). I think the first sentence should be something like On 11 April 1951, US President Harry S. Truman relieved General of the Army Douglas MacArthur of his command, ... I also know in popular parlance Truman is often said to have "fired" MacArthur ...
    • We have not figured this part out yet. One editor commented that the "relief of MacArthur" sounds like a sculpture. It is just that "dismissed" and "fired" are not technically accurate.
  • WP:LEAD says the lead should have four paragraphs at most
    • Reduced to two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This quotation needs to be put into context (who said it (Truman) and when) This was a most extraordinary statement for a military commander of the United Nations to issue on his own responsibility. ...
  • I assume Martin read the letter out loud on the floor of the House (read it into the records of the House) - if so this should be made clearer than jsut "read" But on 5 April House Minority Leader Joseph William Martin, Jr. read the text of a letter he had received from MacArthur, dated 20 March, criticizing the Truman administration's priorities.
  • I presume Martin reading the letter was the sraw that broke the camel's back for Truman - if so, the article should say so
    • Probably, but that would be explicitly contradicting Truman's own version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Cultural problem: At the time, people believed that the president always told them the truth. A reader of the article will soon realise Truman did not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I find it odd that the Relief section makes no mention of public opinion - it is all Truman and his advisors - what were members of Congress or the press saying about MacArthur's disagreements with Truman?
    • Will look into this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Policy differences could do a better job of telling us Truman's official policy (even if it is one sentence summary)
    • This would be a lot easier if there was one. Part of the problem was that Truman did not set a clear policy for his administration to follow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
      • A major problem historians have with Truman is the way he prided himself on his ability to make snap decisions without having to go into all the details (ie poorly thought out, hasty decisions). This has frustrated historians of many issues of the period, as there is no decision-making paper trail. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that a summary sentence or two on the reasons for relief would help at the start of the Reasons for relief section - show the reader the forest before looking at the individual trees.
  • Confusing sentence - too many years and Truman's age: In a 3 December 1973, article in Time Magazine, Truman was quoted as saying in the early 1960s at age 77:... Perhaps active voice would be clearer A 3 December 1973 Time Magazine article quoted [a 77-year old?] Truman, who had said in the early 1960s:... (not sure the age part is needed - the exact year would allow the reader to calcualte his age if interested)
    • Done. The quote is very famous, and has been in the article from the beginning. Some editors had a hard time tracking it down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • How is violating a directive not insubordination? Needs to be clarified He had violated the President's 6 December directive, relayed to him by the JCS, but this did not constitute violation of a JCS order."[91]
    • In Truman's mind, the president can issue an order to any general or mess boy; but he cannot. It has to come down through the chain of command. What he had actually done was issue a policy directive, and the JCS did not pass it on to MacArthur or Eisenhower as a formal order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The is some doubt about whether such an order, if issued, would have been a legal order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Who were these many people? A bit of a weasel word formulation... Many people believed that MacArthur was removed due to foreign pressure, particularly from the United Kingdom.[101]
  • When did Truman write If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian control of the military...?
    • In his memoirs. Added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how In 2005, General Kevin P. Byrnes was relieved for an adulterous relationship with a civilian woman.[160] is a legacy of this - isn't adultery still techniucally illegal under the UCMJ?
    • Yes, but he was not tried for it, and the punishment was unusually severe under the circumstances. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Some suggestions by Dank:

  • The title is ambiguous, as has been mentioned.
  • "full–scale": full-scale
  • "civil-military relations": civil–military relations, per DASH
  • "concluded that "The removal ...": Lowercase, per WP:MOSQUOTE and Chicago
  • "the relief of the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Louis Denfeld, and his replacement by Admiral Forrest Sherman.": Would this be inaccurate? "the replacement of Admiral Louis Denfeld as Chief of Naval Operations by Admiral Forrest Sherman." - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • We haven't come up with a good replacement for the name
  • Done
  • Done
    • AArgh no can do. Bot changes it back to Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Done
  • It would not be inaccurate, but I wanted it phrased that way to draw parallels with this article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If there are no further comments, can this review can be wrapped up now? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Footprints in the Sand (song)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the last time I decided to not continue with its GAN process because I had not antivirus and I didn't want to take risks. Now, I'd like to have it at GAN again, but maybe I still needing some help with it before I add a GAN. Thanks, Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Background

  • "'Footprints in the Sand' was written by Simon Cowell, David Kreuger, Per Magnusson and Richard Page, and produced by Steve Mac in 2007 at Rokstone Studios, London, England."
    By grouping the two activities (writing and producing) in a single sentence like this, it is asserted that they wrote and produced the song at Rokstone, which contradicts the idea (in the lede and later) that the song was written in Page's home.
     Done Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "'Footprints in the Sand' was composed using common time in the key of A♭ major with a larghetto tempo of sixty beats per minute, with Lewis' vocals spanning from the low note of E♭3 to the high note of G♯5."
    I would suggest eliminating the "with ... gerund", as in "'Footprints in the Sand' was composed using common time in the key of A♭ major with a larghetto tempo of sixty beats per minute; Lewis' vocals spanned from the low note of E♭3 to the high note of G♯5."
     Done Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "The song follows a basic sequence of A♭5–A♭5/B♭–Fm7–E♭ in the verses and A♭–B♭–B♭m–Fm–G♭–D♭ in the chorus as its chord progression."
    I am not too certain if this sentence and its predecessor goes too deeply into the technical area for the general reader. My fear is that they might read these sentences at asuch an early point in the article and assume the rest of the article is of the same, thus abandoning further reading. Can the article be restructured to move these sentences into a later part (exchanging the production details of the second paragraph with them could be an improvement in my view)?
     Done Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Release and promotion

  • "Lewis sings the song on stage in front of the people who assisted to the Sports Relief event."
    I do not quite fathom the entire sentence. Lewis sings the song to the Sports Relief event (would she not be singing at the event instead of to?) in front of people who assisted (assisted what?).
     Done Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "She was assisted by musicians that played violas, violins, and a piano, ..."
    I am not too certain their role should be categorised as "assisted". The musicians are as much a part of the entire performance as Lewis and the Tuff Session Singers.
     Done Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "While she sang, images of sadness and desperation were shown to the public."
    Might as well state what sort of images rather than vaguely describing them as "of sadness and desperation" unless that is what the source is saying (in which case, quotation marks please).
     Done Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "... became picures of happiness."
    Typo ("picures"); also see above about images of emotions.
    Fixed Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "Lewis performed the song live ... , with a special ice dance routine performed by Torvill and Dean."
    This does not right to me (makes it sound as if she is also in the dance routine)... "Lewis performed the song live ...; her song accompanied Torvill and Dean's ice dance routine."
     Done Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "It was filmed in Johannesburg, South Africa, and was directed in London by British director Sophie Muller back-to-back with the video for "Better in Time"."
    This does not make sense to me; the video was filmed without its director at the scene (South Africa)?
    Fixed, it was taken from BiT article Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "... the video begins to show images about happiness and hope."
    I understand about the inherent assumption of the media as the source for a summary, but "happiness and hope" are subjective and would need a secondary source (similar again to the images of emotion concern as raised above). Alternatively, just state plainly examples of what those images are.
     Done Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "Welsh singer Lucie Jones sang "Footprints in the Sand" on the British singing competition programme The X Factor. She performed it on the first show of its sixth edition (2009)."
    Did she really perform it to promote this song? Was she tasked to promote it? If not, it would seem a trivial point and should not be here. Alternatively, did she choose to sing it because it had some special significance (in that case, a marginal reasoning could be had to include it somewhere in Reception).
    Temporarely removed, at its previous GAN it was noted that its own section is not enough. Also, that is all the information I could find of that performance. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Critical response

  • Looks like a quote farm. Is there anything of substance in the comments the reviewers made about the song? Why it was good or bad and such?
    ???? I've seen articles with more quote farms than this. There are not many quotes as I'm reading. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Chart performance

  • "Footprints in the Sand" had an average performance on European countries, reaching position seventy-three on the European Hot 100 Singles.
    Does 73rd really qualifies as average? That would be one's judgment and it certainly is not stated as such by the source.
     Done Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "After selling 40,476 copies, and being beaten to the number one spot by Duffy's song "Mercy", it soared to its peak position at number two on 22 March 2008, the same week "Footprints in the Sand" debuted in the top forty."
    This sentence somehow sounds awkward to me. "Beaten to number one, it soared to its peak position at number two"? If it was "beaten to number one", then the obvious conclusion is that it was "number two". I think it unnecessary to bring in "Footprints in the Sand"'s own chart position here (should it not be in the earlier paragraph if it is of import)? I also think it needless to mention Duffy's song here; the article is after all about Lewis's rendition. Furthermore, "soared" carries a promotional tone, veering towards biasness. I would suggest rephrasing it as "The record sold 40,476 copies. Its chart position peaked at number two on 22 March 2008."
     Done Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "With this it became the third single by Lewis to reach the top five in the UK."
    Sounds stilted to me. Suggest, "It was Lewis's third single to reach the top five in the UK."
     Done Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

  • As far as I understand it, About.com is not a reliable site; some of its writers are, however, well-respected experts by the industry on the topics. So what makes Bill Lamb such an expert (About.com's own claims are to be disregarded).
    Removed. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes iafrica.com a reliable source per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches?
    according to their site (that's why I added it) they are "South Africa's most established portal and one of the biggest web brands with one of the largest, loyal user bases in the country". We may not see it as "reliable", but you have to be in an African perspective. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Images

 Done I didn't work on it. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

-- Jappalang (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Sanders11
  • I think you need to work out a different structure for the article. The release and promotion section contains release info, a live performance, more release info, a different live performance, music video and then a cover. I would move the release info to the end of Background, maybe make a seperate Composition section (with audio file?), Crit response, Chart perform, Music vid and then a Live performance section with the cover version in that. I know that gives a lot of small sections but I moved it about and previewed it and thought it looked fine.
  • I believe it charted in Switzerland following a performance on a tv talent show, would be good to add that if you can find a source (presuming I'm not talking rubbish!).
I found information about Julia, so I've added it (I'll try to find what you said). Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Was it definitely released as a double A side in Germany? I looked at the sources and am struggling to see where that info came from. Surely the German certification would be for BIT/FITS like the UK one is, rather than just for BIT?
BIT/FITS was released as a double A-side, but BiT was also released alone, that's why BiT was certified and not FitS. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The way the certification is just now could be interpreted as FITS alone being silver when it is not, you need to make it clear in the table that it is BIT/FITS that is certified silver.
    Fixed Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to get an image of Leona that is more related to the topic? I would assume there's no free image of a FITS performance since she only performed it a couple of times, but maybe one of her in Africa or doing some kind of Sport Relief activity? Or even a picture of her performing BIT, just so it is a little bit more related rather than being purely decorative.
I don't know which section you are reffering to, but I'll comment in general. Lewis, as you said, almost never performed the song live, so it would be practically impossible to have one. Also, as far as I remember, there are no images from BiT at Commons. About the music video, it fails WP:NFCC#8, and as today there are not free images from South Africa with Lewis on them. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "It remained on the Irish Singles Chart for one week, debuting and peaking at number fifty,[38] while on the Swiss Singles Chart, it made the same on 15 November 2009, but at thirty-five and staying there three weeks" - made the same? This needs clarified; I would split the sentence since they happened a year and a half apart.
Clarified. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "The single debuted in the German charts on 16 June 2008 at number five. Although it fell out the top ten the following week, it managed to reach the top five in the week ending 27 July 2010, and reached its peak position at number two in subsequent days" - a bit confusing. I would remove the return to the top five part and just get straight to the peak position, and date the peak position rather than saying subsequent days.
Clarified. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I would name the subsection "Charts" "Weekly charts" or something similar so the section isn't immediately followed by a subsection with the same name.
    Fixed Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • There's a mistake in the release table, Switzerland's release format is in the label column.
    Fixed Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

- Sanders11 (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


David O. Selznick filmography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because David O. Selznick is one of the all-time great filmmakers so he really warrants a great filmography. So let's get started in making this a featured list. Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


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

  • I usually suggest a model article for ideas and examples to follow, but I am guessing the filmography FLs are mostly from you anyway, so you know what to do. ;-)
  • The lead is WP:OVERLINKed - I know it is OK to link something multiple times in sortable tables, but GWTW is linked four times in just the lead and twice in the last paragraph.
    • Corrected; film titles are linked only once in the intro except for GWTW, which is linked twice).
  • I made a few copyedits as I read along - please revert if I made a mistake or made things worse
    • No, your edits are fine; thanks
  • I like the quotations from Selznick himself at the start of each section, but I think that their use of italics for direct quotations does not follow WP:ITALIC and WP:MOSQUOTE
  • If the quotes need to be set off somehow, one possibility I thought of would be to use quote boxes for each Selznick quote - the template is adjustable in terms of width, so the box could be the width of the page.
    • Valid suggestions, but I think it's okay the way it is right now. I believe the use of italics emphasizes that they are quotes and not plagiarism. (Besides, WP:MOSQUOTE is under discussion.)
  • I might also mention the quotes from Selznick in the intro - just as the book sources are mentioned.
  • I might spell out the titles of the books in The release dates, titles, and names of the directors for Selznick's films are derived from the filmographies presented in the Behlmer and Haver books.[18][19]
    • Changed. The titles of the books are spelled out and so are the full names of the two authors. The quotes are also noted as coming from Mr. Behlmer's book.
  • There is a free photo of Selznick and Jones in the Jones article - might be useful here.
    • Another valid suggestion, but I think I will stick with the head shot of Mr. Selznick.
  • Did not see any other real problems of issues - thanks!
    • No, thank you!
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
    • Thanks again. I am confident that I'm okay here. The text is my own except for the obvious quotes.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

    • The comments helped a great deal. Thanks once again. I've done some peer reviews in the past. I will look over a few that are current. Jimknut (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

PS The Behlmer book is dated 1972, but the refs use 1972, 1973 amd 1974 as years. This needs to be fixed. I am also not sure that the year needs to be given at all - there is only one ref by Behlmer, so why give the year? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

  • The years have now been removed.

Jean Baptiste Point du Sable[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I developed this article to GA last year. I'm uncertain what else it needs before taking it to FAC.

Thanks, Jeremy (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

I think it is a pretty good article thus far. I do have the following quibbles.

Lede

  • "... is widely regarded as the first permanent resident of Chicago, Illinois."
    This would be the summary of "He is therefore widely regarded as the first permanent resident of Chicago" in the Founder of Chicago section. The sentence is sourced to Pacyga 2009, p. 12, and The City of Chicago Official Website, both of which only (i.e. the source themselves) recognizes him as the first permanent resident, but which did not state "wide" recognition. Seeing how (from the article) that the status might be recent (how much opposition is there?), it might be more precise (and avoid any calls of bias) to say that "... is regarded by the city of Chicago, Illinois, as its first permanent resident."?
  • "In 1779, he was living on the site of present-day Michigan City, Indiana, when he was arrested by the British military on suspicion of being an American sympathizer."
    To help readers less familiar with US history, an insertion about the state of affairs in the continent at that time should be inserted, ala "In 1779, the British colonists in North America were revolting against their overseas king and government. Point du Sable was arreseted ..."

I think this has a good chance at FAC, provided his status is not one that has a controversy not covered here. Jappalang (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I like your suggestions. —Jeremy (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
On looking at this, we have a few more citations in the 'Founder of Chicago' paragraph that place Point du Sable as the first permanent resident and/or founder of Chicago (Quaife 1933, Baumann 2005, Graham 1953). So I didn't want the lead to focus on one specific source—instead I just removed the word 'widely'. Although the article discusses people who visited the Chicago area before Point du Sable, I don't think that any of the cited sources (or any others that I have seen) dispute the first permanent resident status of Point du Sable, so I think that the amended version should be OK. To add context to the arrest as you suggested I thought that a link to the American Revolutionary War article might work, so I added that. Thanks—Jeremy (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Your changes work. Good luck! Jappalang (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ron Hextall[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because having had the article promoted to good article status, I am looking to take it onto featured. I have lsted below some outstanding comments from User:Sarastro1, who also suggested another peer review to clean up any remaining issues before taking it to FAC. Comments are particularly invited on the amount of jargon and the playing style section.

Thanks, Harrias talk 11:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding comments from User:Sarastro1 copied from talk page
Lead
  • "Despite the Flyers' loss to the Edmonton Oilers in seven games...": My ignorance of North American sport rears its ugly head here, but does this mean they lost seven games or was it a seven game "series" (for want of a better word!)?
  • It was a best of seven series: so first to four wins. Presumably this needs clarifying: would a note suffice, or should I try and write it inline (so to speak)? Harrias talk 18:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I always prefer a good note! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Junior hockey
  • It may be useful to give a brief suggestion as to the level of the leagues he played in; i.e. how many rungs down the ladder?
  • Things don't tend to be quite so clear cut in this regard; I'll see if I can find anything quantifying them, but it might be difficult.
  • "Flyer's scout Jerry Melnyk said he could understand why many teams did not rate Hextall: "There were teams who thought he was loony."" I'm not sure this adds much and may be better cut.
  • "Hextall set a record for the most penalty minutes accumulated by a goaltender, being assessed for 117 minutes during the regular season.": Jargony? I'm not sure of the significance here and it should be spelt out.
First three seasons
  • "...Hextall was invited to the Flyers' training camp as a long-shot...": I don't like this too much as it is a little too sporting-journalese, but I don't know a better way to put it without sounding too pompous.
  • "conceded a goal from the first shot he faced in the game, but allowed no further shots past him": Repetition of shots; again my hockey-knowledge does not suggest a better word.
  • Would "no further goals past him" work do you think? I'm not sure if it really means the same thing. Harrias talk 18:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Any retribution (official or otherwise) from swinging his stick?
  • "Speaking on behalf of the NHL, Brian O'Neill said that: "There is no justification for any player to swing his stick in retaliation and this is especially the case for a goaltender whose stick, because of its weight, can cause serious injury."": Again, I'm not sure this is necessary as the point is already made.
Quebec Nordiques
  • "During the ten days between the trades being made and the arbitrator's ruling, there was a lot of speculation about which Flyers' and Rangers' players were involved in the potential trades.": Is this necessary as it disrupts the flow slightly. Possibly modify the next sentence to say :"Hextall was unhappy to be among players suggested as a potential trade."
New York Islanders
  • "Steve Thomas suggested that Hextall was "one of the best goalies in the league, easily in the top five or 10," while coach Al Arbour dismissed dropping Hextall, saying that "We're not playing well in front of the goaltender and he can only be as good as the guys in front of him."": Again, a little too much in my view, but not a big deal if it stays.
Return to Philadelphia
  • "We Want Hex-tall": Why is it hyphenated?
  • Presumably to show the manner in which it was chanted: I was a bit dubious about the inclusion of this quote at all to be honest. Harrias talk 21:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Playing style
  • This section is slightly messy and I would suggest a little reorganisation; what about a paragraph on his goaltending (there is not much about he actual ability to stop shots) and unusual style, then about his aggression, then the judgements that he was a bit of a psycho. Some overall career judgements would be quite good too, placing him somewhere in the grand scheme of things, and maybe something on his legacy if it exists.
  • Ouch. First paragraph is a bit of a mess. There are a few typos, but more to the point it is quite ponderous. It is hard to follow the descriptions of play which are rather laboured and do not really make it clear what is going on. I would imagine that a rough paraphrase of this paragraph would be: "Other goaltenders could not play the puck well technically and possessed a crude technique. Hextall, in contrast, played more like a defenseman and was technically skilled with the stick. Consequently, opposing teams could not pursue their usual methods of hitting the puck into their offensive zone as Hextall was able to return possession to his team." Maybe something like this, with the examples and descriptions removed would be more effective?
  • "...continued to move the puck" Is there a better way of saying this? Pass? There must be a technical term that sounds more elegant!
  • I've reworked the "soft goals" part, but I'm not sure it still reflects the source as I've said the tendency lasted through his career.
  • "Martin Brodeur modelled his own play on that of Hextall, saying "I love the fact that he was playing the puck. He was one of the first goalies that came out and played the puck. He was a little rough for my liking, but it was entertaining. The playing of the puck was the big thing."": Is this necessary? I think the point is already made.
  • "when killing a penalty they would frequently pass the puck back to him, relieving some of the pressure on his team": jargon. What is killing a penalty? And could it be expanded how this relieved pressure? Again, I imagine a paraphrase would be: "the team were able to use him as an outlet as defencemen could relieve pressure by passing the puck back to him".
Post-retirement
  • "In addition, Hextall also serves..." WP:DATED.
  • Could this section be combined with personal life to bulk them out a little.
  • Is the records section a little too much like trivia? I would suggest incorporating it in the main text.

Comments from PKT[edit]

I can't give the article a thorough read-through, but I will point out the following:

  • in the section "Junior Hockey": "His team was regarded as a poor one at the time by critics," is an opinion that needs a citation, otherwise it shouldn't be there.
  • in the section "Professional Hockey": "Hextall was now playing at a higher level than at WHL and made his debut in professional hockey." - sentence doesn't quite flow.
  • in the "First three seasons" subsection: "Against the Penguins in the Patrick Division Final, Hextall's performances were mixed.." - I would prefer switching the phrases; meaning start with "Hextall" and not with "Against" (I hope this makes sense!).

That's all I've got for the moment. PKT(alk) 23:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


Ragnar Nurkse's Balanced Growth Theory[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to tweak the article in accordance with Wiki guidelines.

Thanks, Abhilasha369 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang
  • Why is there an Infobox for Ragnar Nurkse here? This is not a biography (that exists in the article about him). There is no need for such an Infobox for an article about his theory for Balanced growth.
  • Section headers should use "sentence case", not "title case" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. Furthermore, several of the header names ("Does not consider competitive sectors", "Supply does not create its own demand", etc) do not comply with MOS:HEAD.
  • Why are there bold letterings throughout the article? The usage here does not comply with MOS:BOLD.
  • There are several statements in the article that are not cited to sources, failing Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  • About "See also": Why is Nurkse's article linked here? It is already linked earlier in the text. Why is Virtuous circle and vicious circle listed here when it can be linked in Export pessimism? See WP:SEEALSO.
  • About "External links": Way too many. Why are there links to sites that purports to be Nurkse's biography and obituary? Again, this is not an article about the man. It is supposed to be about one of his theories. Seriously prune this section and leave only links to worthy sites that provide information about the Balanced Growth Theory not found in this article. See Wikipedia:External links.
  • File:Ragnar Nurkse.gif does not have proof that it is licensed as claimed; File:Ragnar Nurkse.jpg is a derivative of a copyrighted work and is unlikely to qualify for fair use here; File:GDP PPP Per Capita IMF 2008.svg's source, File:GDP nominal per capita world map IMF 2008.png, does not state what is its base map.
  • The abbreviation "pp. " is used for multiple pages or range of pages, "p. " is for single pages. Right now, the References is wrongly using them.

The above are mostly stylistic issues, but they are distracting and should be resolved before seeking comments about content. Jappalang (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


Hello.

  • I have made changes to the Bold text according to the guidelines link you mentioned. Thanks.
  • About the pp abbreviation, I have made references to the book in general, not to a particular page number. So the use of pp indicates the total number of pages in the book.
  • I have written about the picture having CC 3.0 license on your talk page. Sorry, I saw that first.
  • About the External Links, I will revise this section according to what you have said. I know it seems weird to put in his biography/obituary but it does contain some important stuff about the theory itself. But still, I'll go through it thoroughly and revise this section.
  • Regarding sentence case, do you want me to change only the section headers or even the article name? Because I am unsure of how to do the latter.
  • I put in the infobox mainly because there was too much text and it was looking boring... We can try removing it but I was just afraid of the article looking too boring.
  • Will cite more. Every sentence. :)
  • See also: will make the necessary changes.

Thanks, you've been so helpful! :) Regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article for you; in the future, you can do this (moving articles) yourself through the instructions at Wikipedia:Moving a page. As already stated, the Infobox is inappropriate for this article; this is not Nurkse's biography. There are still several links in See also that are already in the article. "Historically inaccurate" is not an appropriate section header as well; furthermore, consider cutting back these headers. They are breaking up the prose too much; too many short sections. An effective section has a substantial amount of content around the theme. Lastly, I have replied to the image issue at its FFD, but it bears to mind to remind you to read the link offered. That photographer's permission is not enough in this case. Jappalang (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • I have changed certain header names. I tweaked them as much as I could without letting them lose their meaning. Please suggest what else I can do. I was also considering cutting back these headers... But I am confused. If I put them into paragraphs won't it look less readable? Right now, if nothing else, the headers are making the article easy to read in the sense that it can be understood quickly by glancing at the headers.
  • About citations, I have sourced more sentences. Quite a few more in fact. But to determine whether or not I've sourced every source worthy sentence, I'll need your feedback please.
  • I have made significant changes to "see also". Ragnar Nurkse has been removed. Virtuous circles has been removed and put under export pessimism. The only see also's that remain are other theories similar to (or opposing) Ragnar Nurkse's BGT. Basically the work of his contemporaries. Is this alright?
  • About external links. Have cut them down! I removed the ones that were solely about Nurkse or his life. I have left the ones which talk even remotely about his theory though. Is that wrong?
  • About File:Ragnar Nurkse.gif... Since I got this from the Estonian wikipedia, shouldn't it be deleted from there too if it is deleted on English Wikipedia? I read and reread the links you mentioned and I understood. These are some of the statements I need clarifications about - "Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted, even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you did not take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain)." On the other hand... "it is permitted, without the authorisation of the author and without payment of remuneration, to reproduce works of architecture, works of visual art, works of applied art or photographic works which are permanently located in places open to the public by any means except for mechanical contact copying, and to communicate such reproductions of works to the public except if the work is the main subject of the reproduction and it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes." is from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Estonia. Being a derivative work as a photo, I understand, but what category does a memorial stone come under?

Thanks and regards - Abhilasha369 (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

  • You do not need a header for each paragraph, especially if the paragraph is scanty in substance. Furthermore, "Criticism" is an ill-advised header per WP:NPOV; articles are supposed to strive for a neutral treatment of the subject ("Reactions" or "Analysis" might be better). See Wikipedia:Criticism for a nuanced essay on why Criticism sections are discouraged on the account of NPOV. Are there no proponents of Nurkse's theory (if it is such a heavy influence on balanced growth as the article claims, surely there would be some)? Shorter paragraphs/sections are not necessarily conducive to reading; it creates a jerky read.
  • Every fact/statistic has to be cited. Every opinion/analysis about Nurske's theorem or any economic theory has to be cited.
  • It is fine to link to opposing theorems in See also if they are not mentioned/linked in the main text. That said, "Dual economy" is already linked in the main text.
  • I fear you still do not understand the issue at hand regarding the image.
    • "Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted, even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you did not take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain)."
      The statement is clear here (The memorial is copyrighted, it is not in the public domain: you need the permission of the object's copyright holder). The second statement is referring to the photograph, not the object; hence it is not relevant to the issue of the "three-dimensional object"'s copyright.
    • "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Estonia"
      Estonia's freedom of panorama ruling allows photographs of permanently installed artworks in public places for non-commercial purposes only. "Free" images on Wikipedia are for all uses, including commercial purposes. As such, the photograph is not a "free" image by Wikipedia (and Commons) standards.
    • "what category does a memorial stone come under?"
      I do not what answer you are seeking with this question. The memorial is a 3D work of art; the photograph is a derivative work of this 3D work of art.
  • What the Estonian Wikipedia does is none of my (or this project's) business (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to other projects and non-project stuff as well). If the other Wikipedia choose to indulge in possible illegal activities or condone such violations, that is their business to correct. Jappalang (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


  • Infobox is gone. :)
  • Virtuous circle and vicious circle, Ragnar Nurkse and other such links have been de linked everywhere but their first references.
  • header names have been removed and changed, according to the need.
  • more citations have been made
  • about File:Ragnar Nurkse.gif, the uploader has made some more information available about the picture. It seems that the picture was taken from Bank of Estonia's publishing, which is a central bank and its possible that its publications are in public domain.
  • I want to delete File:Ragnar Nurkse.jpg. You are right, it is a copyvio. What is the procedure? I clicked delete but apparently only an ADMIN has the right to delete it.
  • about File:GDP PPP Per Capita IMF 2008.svg, this file is the picture for the Economics toolbar template. I am not sure about its license but it is used in hundreds of economics articles. What should be done about this? I am not the uploader, just an Economics toolbar user.
  • about the pp abbreviation... i have made citations in general. Not to specific pages. So the pp. you see in my references is a reference to the total number of pages in the publication. Not anything else. I believe this is the automatic syntax which gets created once you click the citation tool... I simply filled in the blanks of the citation box.

I hope I have sorted out all the uncyclopedic features of this article! Thanks and regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


Middlesex (novel)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive some final feedback before I nominate it at WP:FAC.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Middlesex (novel)/archive2.

Blackford County, Indiana[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added (as has a second individual) substantially to its content, and hope to upgrade this article to a featured article.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. It looks pretty good but will need considerable polishing to have a chance at FAC. Here are some suggestions:

  • I'd be inclined to rearrange the sections in this order: Geography, History, Demographics, Climate, and then the others. The first four are more basic, it seems to me, than the other categories. I think putting Geography first is especially important since many references in the other sections are to places within the county, which most readers will be unfamiliar with until they read about the geography and look at the maps.
  • The existing article is a bit too list-y. I'd recommend turning the lists in the Education and Notable people sections into straight prose paragraphs without bullet points.
  • I'd suggest tightening the lead a bit so that it's only four paragraphs long instead of five, as recommended by WP:LEAD#Length.
  • The lead image is good except for the red light on the left, which looks odd hanging in mid-air. I believe this could be fixed with a cloning tool in Photoshop or a similar program. If this is not something you want to undertake, I'd be glad to attempt it. Just ping me on my talk page if you want me to do that.

Lead

  • "The county was supposed to be organized on April 2, 1838, after a February 15, 1838, act by the Indiana General Assembly that took territory from Jay County.[3] County officials were not elected until 1839 after a second legislative act." - I think these details could be omitted from the lead, which only needs to summarize the essence of the main text sections.
  • "who was the first Speaker of the Indiana General Assembly and a long-time Chief Justice" - Lowercase "speaker" and "chief justice".
  • "and is also the site of over ten unincorporated communities" - Generally numbers bigger than nine are rendered as digits in Wikipedia articles. Here the number should be 10.
  • "Before the arrival of non-indigenous settlers during the 1830s...". - There's a complication here and in the History section that's related to the three sets of people who lived here sequentially. The Miami were not indigenous but, as you say below, were the first settlers. Indigenous describes the first set. Perhaps "European-Americans" would do for the third set.
  • "The original non-indigenous settlers were mostly farmers... " - Same problem with "non-indigenous".
  • I see overlinking in the lead and elsewhere in the article. I would not link common terms like "farmers", "swampland", "drainage", "manufacturing", or "agriculture", for example, since most readers of English already know that they mean. WP:OVERLINK has details.

History

  • "The boom period lasted about fifteen years... " - 15
  • "are credited as being the first-recorded permanent settlers" - Tighten to "were the first-recorded permanent settlers"?
  • "Benjamin Reasoner was the first non-native... " - Perhaps "Benjamin Reasoner was the first outsider, other than the Miami,... ".
  • "on the other side of the county" - Maybe say which side instead of "other side"?
  • I'm not sure you need quite so much detail about the formation of the county. I'd consider summarizing the legal maneuvering more tersely, without the direct quotations.
  • "The land that would become Blackford County was the western part of Jay County." - No need to link Jay County here since it's linked earlier in this section. Generally one or two links (a maximum of one in the lead and one in the main text) is sufficient for terms that need a link. Ditto for "Indiana" and "Muncie", for example.
  • I'd be inclined to make the county-seat part of the legislative debate into a separate paragraph.
  • "Over the next twenty-five years... " - 25
  • "to connect the Indiana cities of Fort Wayne and Muncie — running north-south through the Blackford County" - Em dashes should be unspaced. North–south takes an en dash rather than a hyphen. Ditto for similar constructions elsewhere in the article.
  • "(see railroad map)" - I'd omit all asides like this one. Since "you" is understood, they are imperatives, which rarely appear in Wikipedia articles. The standard "See also" head is a notable exception. Readers will be able to suss out which images illustrate which parts of the text without help except what they read in the captions.
  • "Most of the "Louisville" part of the name can be seen on the railroad map herein." - Ditto for this aside and others like it.

Gas boom

  • "The Gas Boom transformed the region... " - Lowercase "gas boom" except when it is part of a formal name; e.g. Indiana Gas Boom.
  • The two largest employers were glass factories:" - What attracted glass manufacturers to the county?
  • "Since these inspections were in Hartford City and Montpelier only, additional manufacturing employees from Mollie, Trenton, Millgrove, and possibly other communities in the county could be added to the count of 1,346." - Needs a source.
  • "and a 1904 directory lists ten of them" - 10

Post-gas boom

  • "the method originally used for producing window glass became obsolete," - What was that method? What changed?
  • "meant that the local Post Office" - Lowercase "post office" when used generically.
  • "and roads competed with the interurban]] lines... " - Oops! Typo. Not sure what you want here.
  • "In 2011, the plastics plant closed" - Was that the same as the 3M plant? Better make this clear.

Government

  • "The current president of Blackford County's board of commissioners (as of June 15, 2011) is Fred Walker." - It's often useful to omit words like "now", "current", "today", and the like and to find substitutes with a more specific meaning. Here I'd just say, "Fred Walker was named president of Blackford County's board of commissioners in June 2011." Or something like that.

Extinct communities

  • "Blackford County also has at least ten communities" - 10

Economy

  • "Emhart Gripco is Montpelier's leading employer, with over people working at its facility." - Something missing.
  • "although farm workers account for only about 5% of the county's workers" - "percent" rather than %.
  • I'll stop here with the line-by-line commentary. I don't think I caught everything, but I hope this helps. I'll try to return and add a few more comments later if real life allows.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A few more comments by Finetooth:

Climate

  • "Blackford County has endured a few tornados, including a category 4 (maximum speeds 207 to 260 mph) on Palm Sunday (April 11) in 1965 that crossed Blackford County 7 miles (11 km) from the center of Hartford City." - The wind speeds should be converted too. To avoid nested parentheses that the conversion would create, perhaps recasting like this would do: "Blackford County has endured a few tornados, including a category 4 storm with maximum speeds of 207 to 260 miles per hour (333 to 418 km/h). It crossed Blackford County 7 miles (11 km) from the center of Hartford City on April 11, 1965, Palm Sunday."
  • Did the category 4 storm cause significant damage?

Demographics

  • "38.9 percent of the family households had children under the age of 18 living in them." - Sentences in Wikipedia articles don't start with digits but use words instead. However, it would probably work better in this case to recast the sentence rather than writing the number rather awkwardly as words.
  • "Because the 2010 Census was completed recently (by Census standards), not all data are ready (August 2011) for public consumption. Therefore, the following statistics are based upon the 2000 United States Census." - Rather than explaining this, I think you'd be better off simply starting this paragraph with "As of the 2000 Census... ". The numbers can be updated when they become available.

Education and health care

  • "Blackford County has at least four universities located in adjacent counties less than 25 miles (40 km) from Hartford City." - This is a bit awkward. Maybe "Four universities, although in counties outside of Blackford, are less than 25 miles (40 km) from Hartford City."
  • If the county has a health department that offers any medical services such as vaccinations, that would be worth mentioning.

Notable people

  • One of Johnson's more notable inventions is the first "electric operator for sectional upward-acting doors". - It's best to avoid linking anything inside a direct quotation since the link was not part of the original.
  • As a parent and community leader, McKee may have organized the first "after-prom". - I assume this means locally. If so, I don't think it's significant enough to include. If, on the other hand, McKee invented something that had never been tried anywhere, this should be made clear. The word "may" is a separate problem. It's a "weasel word" that will not survive scrutiny. Did he or didn't he?

Other

  • ISBNs should include the hyphens. A handy conversion tool lives here. Finetooth (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Before he became king of a nation,

he was terminating foes deftly with his sword,
crushing them, driving them before him, and hearing the lamentations of their women.

Before he married a princess,

he dallied with an Amazon,
pacifying gremlins with her hand in hand.

Before he achieved all of this,

he was Conan the Barbarian!

Disclaimer: Not all links above are directly relevant to the subject of review...

This article was a project that took more than one year (with breaks due to burnout and real-life issues) in the making. I am planning to take the article to FAC and would appreciate comments to improve it further. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1.

Svetlana Kuznetsova[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what else could be done to promote this article to GA-status. Thanks--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 10:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

My interpretation of the GA requirements is that the article broadly covers the subject (less than comprehensive, more than a one-sided portrayal), clearly written (few or no ambiguous statements, or confusing/conflicting information), mostly compliant with the MoS, and abides the central policies of citing to verifiable reliable sources and respect for the goal of "free" content.

That said, the article so far is failing on the broad coverage front. 99% of the article is dealing with sports statistics; little is revealed about what kind of a person Kuznetsova is.

I find it pointless and undue to cover in so much detail (with scores) every year of her playing career (if this was done for Martina Hingis or Martina Navratilova, I fear what sort of article we would be getting). As far as I understand, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means having to summarize items into something manageable for the readers, not deluging them with information that would appeal only to fans of Kuznetsova's playing career. A more pertinent shape of a playing career section would be to gather data on the significant matches, events that shaped her career, etc., and not set up as a list of matches.

A notable sports figure should have coverage in newspapers about her life in some aspects and her status in the sports world; these articles offer a critical outlook of Kuznetsova's years in the tennis arena (performance and impact). Those should be the main sources used for the article. The mass of match reports from the WTA itself is a discouraging sign in the aspects of displaying the notability and the quality of the article.

What is the point of those flags? There are several violations here with MOS:FLAGS in regards to their use here: reason for emphasis (why should Doubles where players of any nationality can pair together be flagged?), failure to state country names on first use, etc.

What makes rightpundits.com and realclearsports, both blogs without evidence of editorial oversight per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches? Jappalang (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! The inclusion of those flag icons is a standard procedure on articles about tennis players, but I will think about it.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 18:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as my experiences (in Football/soccer articles) have shown me, flagrant flag usage is not a "standard procedure" but a practice in violation of the MoS because the implementers want to see "pretty pictures" instead of making the article accessible to everybody as much as possible. Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
GOP is correct though, it is standard procedure in tennis articles to show flags, even in infoboxes. Using them is not against MOSFLAG as tennis is a very international sport with Davis Cup, Fed Cup, Olympics and even the Grand Slam tournament websites (from which much source material is taken) containing the nationality of players with flags. It never is for citizenship or residence per say... just for nationality with regards to these international tournaments. It is a very visual world these days for our readers. That aside, in most tennis articles MOSFLAG is being blatantly ignored with regards to flag names on first use. I've tried changing a few tables and added names on first use as other reviews have told us, but editors usually change it back for conformity. I think it's a losing battle. As for the coverage, you said you feared what would happen if Navratilova had a year by year... take a look at Serena Williams and you'll be shocked. Navratilova has a separate page for stats and wikipedia has determined that each slam winner in history can be given separate pages for each year. So we have "2011 Roger Federer", "2010 Roger Federer", "2009 Roger Federer", "Roger Federer the junior years", etc... Svetlana has much smaller year by year info so like many players it is included on her main page until such time as it grows too large and needs to be moved to a separate page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Note that I said "flagrant flag usage" (and I acknowledge the "losing battle" part); as pointed out above, my grouse, aside from the violation of naming on first use, is with their use in Mixed doubles (a match category that does not concern nationality at all). As for what other tennis articles are doing, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST pretty much explains the sentiment; if one is aiming to make a quality article (on par with FA levels or would gain ready support at WT:GAN if its promotion was questioned), then one should ignore the other low quality stuff and forge the article along the guidelines and policies. My idea of a quality sports biography would be one that presents to the reader (who may or may not be interested in tennis) an idea of who Kuznetsova is (her education, her personal life and beliefs, her family and friends, etc.) and her achievements as a whole (not year by year but by what impact she had on the sports and the community). Details are used to flesh those ideas, but they should never overwhelm the reader (which I believe is the case here and would be worse in the articles brought up above). Jappalang (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Gottlieb Burckhardt[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm not sure how to develop it at this stage. There's no more available information on the subject's biography but considerable detail could be added about the topectomies (surgical removal of parts of the cerebral cortex) which he performed in the late 1880s.

For the early section and career is there too much or too little detail? Should there be further sub-headings? Does it read ok?

For the surgery section - is there enough detail about the actual operations and the patients? Should the part here dealing with theory be more detailed?

Is the writing style generally ok?

Thanks, FiachraByrne (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

  • The lead is too short and does not really follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the material on Moniz is only in the lead and notes - if it is this important, it should be included in the body of the article (perhaps in a legacy section?)
    • Done(ish) - still need to expand the lead
  • To expand the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Another way to think of the lead is to imagine someone could read only the lead - what is vital for that person to know?
  • Per WP:LEAD and WP:ITALIC I think his full name whould be in the lead, and the full name at the start of the Early life section should not be bolded.
  • There is a lot of detail on his family in the Early life section, but not much on the subject - is it known where he was in birth order of the 7 children? Given his parents wedding date and biology, I am guessing he was one of the first three children...
    • A lot of this information is taken from a simple genealogy of his family tree. I've added in his birth order but there's not much more to elaborate on, unfortunately.
  • Is it known what languages he spoke? From his publications in German and French, I assume he spoke both (and assume he learned French from his mother)
    • Well he published in both but there's no source which outlines his language proficiency.
  • I would probably combine the Early life and Education sections into one "Early life and education" section - each is only one paragraph now and could be combined.
    • Done
  • The average reader will not understand the Habilitation system - perhaps explain that this allowed him to teach at universities (especially since he becomes a Privatdozent a few sentences later).
    • Done
  • The links in the article need to be cleaned up. Some need to follow WP:OVERLINK better - the rule of thumb is to link once in the lead and once in the body, each at first mention. Redirects count. So in the lead, there do not need to be links for both lecotomy and lobotomy (as the first link is a redirect to the latter).
    • Done
  • Similarly alienist and psychiatirst are the same link
    • Done
  • Also avoid links that the average reader already knows / understands - for example in In December 1888 Burckhardt, who had little experience of surgery, made one of the first forays into the field of psychosurgery when he operated on six patients, two women and four men aged between 26 and 51, in a private psychiatric hospital in Switzerland. are links to surgery and Switzerland really necessary?
    • Done
  • At the same time, there are terms that should be linked or need to be linked on first occurrence. So in the lead, Neuchâtel should be linked, and Pyrennees should probably also be linked (was he in France or Spain then?)
    • Done. It's not clear from the source what country he was in.
  • Or link trephination in the caption
    • Done
  • Electrotherapy is linked twice in one paragraph in the Career section (only one link is needed) and it is not clear here what the the new therapy / therapies were. Provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
    • Overlinking has been corrected. The context is not clear from the source. Hard to contextualise without synthesis of sources.
  • The last two sections of Career duplicate the last two sections - perhaps if the Career section were "Career (1860-1887)" on his career up to the surgeries, then the next section could be on the surgeries and career after (1888-1891), and the last section could be on last years, death and legacy?
  • As it is the current Death section is very short (two sentences) - try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as they impede the narrative flow. The end of Career also mentions his death, which is needless duplication.
  • I do not understand the 50% "success rate" figure - two patients died, two improved, two became "quieter" but none were cured.
  • The language is generally OK, but stilted in places. A copy edit might help or reading the article out loud after not looking at it for a few days. A few examples follow (not a complete list)
    • What are cerebral movements - how does the brain move?? In 1881 he published on the relationship between cerebral movements and oxygen consumption and posited a connection between cerebral oxygen deprivation, pathological brain circulation and mental illness.[20]
      • <de>Voluntary action (as in purposeful movement of the hand; as opposed to involuntary action). Truth is I don't know without looking at the source but, given he'd already published on cerebral vascular movements it probably relates to blood flow in the brain.
    • "town of Basel" is used three times in the article, probably only needs to be used once (after that the reader should know it is a town
      • Done
    • Was he no longer musically talented when his studies ended? ;-) He was a popular, outgoing and musically talented student.[9]
  • Make sure all sources meet WP:RS
    • Done
  • The lead image may be a problem - who owns the copyright?
    • I don't know. The uploader took the image from an open access article in the Journal of Neurosurgery [3] but that journal is obviously under copyright. That article attributes the image ("courtesy of") an article in the journal Neurosurgery [4]. That article attribute the image ownership to Academic Press, Inc. but gives no indication of the actual publication from which the image is derived. It's possible, of course, given the likely age of the image, that it is in the public domain but no evidence has been provided of this.
    • I've nominated the file for deletion
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
    • There are no copyright violations.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Excellent and detailed review.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll review an article before correcting. FiachraByrne (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Granada Television[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. Currently there are 114 references, most are from reliable sources. I'm just looking for feedback on what could be done to get the article to GA status.

I feel the article Granada Television is worthy of GA and FA because of its notability. It is arguably ITV's most successful franchisee and the only one which actually survived in its original form until 2004.

Thanks, Stevo1000 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

I am not going to comment much about prose because the following issues are more striking and would need resolution (the first several would be reasons for immediate opposes at FAC).

  • Despite 114 references, much of the content is still not cited to any sources;phrases such as "Prolific playwright" and "Gained national fame" do need citing, as well as the statistics and dates.
  • "Most are from reliable sources" would not cut it at FAC; all have to be reliable (though their quality can vary). Just as examples, what makes www.teletronic.co.uk and www.manchester2002-uk.com, both self-published sites, reliable sources per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches?
I will add citations from the The Rise and Fall of ITV and Persona Granada books for references that are questionable.
  • "Meet The People - Launch Night from 1956" at TVArk is a dead link (expired video); furthermore, I am concerned over the status of TVArk per WP:LINKVIO. It claims to be a museum for television footage, but as far as we can tell, they are hosting the clips without Granada's permission (nowhere do they state they have asked for permission; they only ask that if the copyright owner feels offended, they will take down the clip on request).[5] As a non-profit site, they might be excused for doing so, particularly if the courts agree with the site's claim that its actions are allowed under section 30 (1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988, but this has yet to be tested. It would have been a different matter if the clips are stored alongside material that discusses the contents or the company (thus fair use in exposition) but this does not seem so (the site is simply a host of clips).
  • Several violations of WP:NFCC regarding the use of non-free images such as File:Baron Bernstein.jpg, File:Granada1992.png, File:Granada ITV1.jpg, specifically criterion 8. The content of these images are not critically discussed in the text; i.e. the appearance of Bernstein, the designs of the logos. The reader does not require these images to understand the article.
  • File:Itvplc formation.png would require on its page the source to verify that the companies stated were indeed acquired as shown.
Better to omit the diagram in this case.
  • "Criticism and controversy" is not a good section header; for a long-running television broadcaster, it would have received accolades as well and a more neutral "Reception and reactions" section would be in line with WP:NPOV.
Much praise and accolade is given to Granada (backed up by solid refs) in the main body of the text i.e. it is the only one of the original four ITA franchisees from 1954 that survived as a franchise holder into the 21st century and is regarded as ITV's most successful franchise.[2][3][4][5] Granada is also the only ITV franchisee to have never lost a franchise round and is the last franchise to survive in its independent form prior to the formation of ITV plc in 2004.[6] Since 2004, the Granada license is now accredited to ITV Broadcasting Ltd. The criticism section offsets this praises and helps to create a balanced article rather than giving it a self-aggrandizing tone. I've changed the section to "Reception and criticism".
  • Per MOS:HEAD, use "sentence case", not "title case" (inherited from Article names). Why is there "Northern Style" and "On-Screen Identity"?
  • There are quite a few single- or two-sentence paragraphs; these are not aesthetic and could be choppy in readings. Try to gather sentences into thematic paragraphs.
Still need a bit of tidying up structurally I know.
  • The Noted staff section has a list of people. Their achievements (and hence why they are "noted"), however, are not stated, e.g. MacDonald and Harries. Formatting the list in a "Person — Incomplete sentence. Incomplete sentence." is just not done in my books. I would suggest rephrasing the entire bit to be complete sentences, e.g. "John Birt, Baron Birt, started his television career at Granada in 1966 as a researcher for World in Action before leaving in 1971. He was BBC's Director-General from 1992 to 2000." (Note that this entry in the article is unsourced).
I might break up that list and put its contents into words.

The structure of the article seems sound to me but the above should be taken care before looking to improve the prose. Jappalang (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


Space debris[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because an odd robot interaction auto-closed it last time.

Thanks, Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the reason the bot closed it before was because the article was still listed at FAC when the PR was opened. An article cannot be at both places at the same time, so the bot closes any PR that is also listed at FAC. The instructions at the top of the PR page ask nominators to wait 14 days after na unsuccessful FAC to bring something here (the thought being that issues raised in the FAC should be addressed first). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and important article marred by a fairly large number of small problems. I don't have time to comment line-by-line on the whole article, but I read closely and commented on everything from the lead through the end of the first paragraph of the "NORAD, Gabbard and Kessler" section. In addition, I added a few comments about the sourcing question and Manual of Style issues in the Notes section.

Lead

  • Spell out as well as abbreviated RORSAT on first use for readers who might be unfamiliar with the acronym.

Micrometeorites

  • "Instead, they would quickly decelerate and then fall to Earth unmelted." - I'd use straight past tense here; i.e., "Instead, they quickly decelerated and fell to Earth unmelted."
  • "or the various other objects made up from this material... " - Delete "the various" since it's redundant.
  • "If this were true, then the meteor flux in space was much higher than what the telescopes were seeing. Hence, meteors could present a very serious risk to missions deeper in space, specifically the high-orbiting Apollo capsules." - Instead of presenting this in the form of an argument, I'd suggest something like "This suggested that the meteor flux in space was much higher than the number based on telescope observations. Such a high flux presented a very serious risk to missions deeper in space, specifically the high-orbiting Apollo capsules."
  • "These showed that the flux is in line with the optical measures, being around 10,000 to 20,000 tons per year." - Slightly awkward. Perhaps "These showed that the flux was in line with the optical measures at around 10,000 to 20,000 tons per year."
  • "These showed that the flux is in line with the optical measures... " - It would be helpful, I think, to briefly define "flux" since you use it several times in the article.

Micrometeorite shielding

  • "When a micrometeorite struck the foil it would vaporize into a plasma that quickly spread out. By the time this plasma crossed the gap between the shield and the spacecraft, it would be so diffuse that it would be unable to penetrate the structural material below." - Present tense to match "consists"; i.e., "When a micrometeorite strikes the foil, it vaporizes into a plasma that quickly spreads. By the time this plasma crosses the gap between the shield and the spacecraft, it is so diffuse that it is unable to penetrate the structural material below."
  • "This allowed the spacecraft body to be built to just the thickness it needed for its own structural needs, while the foil would add little additional weight." - Suggestion: "The shield allows a spacecraft body to be built to just the thickness needed for structural integrity, while the foil adds little additional weight."

Kessler's asteroid study

  • "Into this void stepped Donald Kessler, who published a series of papers, starting in late 1968... " - This phrasing bumps at me. Maybe: "Starting in late 1968, Donald Kessler published a series of papers... ".
  • "estimating the density of asteroids" - Another bump. "Density of asteroids" is ambiguous. Is there a way to make clear that you mean the number of asteroids per unit volume rather than the density of individual asteroids?
  • "noting that their lifetime would be on the order of billions of years" - Perhaps "noting that their expected lifetime was on the order of billions of years".

NORAD, Gabbard, and Kessler

  • "NASA would send data-massaged versions of the database in the now common two-line element set format via mail,[18] and starting in the early 1980s, these were re-published on the CelesTrak BBS." - Past tense rather than conditional. Spell out as well as abbreviate BBS. Maybe "NASA sent data-massaged versions of the database in the now common two-line element set format via mail, and starting in the early 1980s, the CelesTrak Bulletin Board System (BBS) re-published them." Should data-massaged be explained or linked? It's vague.
  • "A number of papers explored this work further, introducing elliptical orbits for all of the objects and other refinements." - Delete "and other refinements" or say what they were. The sentence could be misread in a nonsensical way to mean that the other refinements had elliptical orbits.

Notes

  • Quite a few of the citations to web sites lack access dates. Some of the other citations are missing essential data. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found.
  • Drop the "Dr." from citation 19. Wikipedia generally avoids academic titles.
  • Be consistent in the way you arrange first names and last names. For example, Akahoshi, Y. in citation 79 is out of sync with most of the others.
  • Citation 127 is incomplete. The publisher's name should be spelled out rather than abbreviated. The date of publication is incorrect.

Other

  • Page ranges and date ranges take unspaced en dashes.
  • Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment do not take a terminal period.
  • I see that the question of sources for the tag ends of paragraphs was an issue during earlier reviews. I agree that the claims in these sentences cannot be assumed to be supported by a reliable source (RS) just because something else in the paragraph is supported by an RS. For example, the claim that "A few years later, the Pioneer and Voyager missions demonstrated this to be true by successfully transiting this region" needs support. It's not clear what "this" refers to. It might mean the mitigation of risk, or it might mean the maximum possible flux was about the same. Which did the source mean, and what is the source?
  • The link checker at the top of this review page finds a dead URL in one of the citations as well as three suspicious URLs that are probably inaccessible for one reason or another. These need to be fixed.
  • It would be a good idea to ask a copyeditor to work through the rest of the article line by line. You might find one at WP:GOCE.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


Loud (Rihanna album)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because…this article has gone through major reconstructing and has improved vastly, but failed at the first GAN. So we would really appreciate it if it could be Peer Reviewed again, by an experienced editor who is familiar with the GAN process and it's criteria.

Thanks, Tomica1111Question Existing? and CalvinNaNaNaC'mon! 20:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)