Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:REVIEW)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Current Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
This page is about editorial review of specific articles. For off-Wiki review of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External peer review. For pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewers.
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions.
"WP:Review" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:Reviewing.
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.

To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.



Man Down (song)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to take this article to FAC, but I'm aware that it is shorter than most nominations, so I need it to be watertight.

Thanks,  — ₳aron 08:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 May 2015, 08:15 UTC)----

Citizen Kane[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs some work to get it ready for FA status.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 2 May 2015, 15:10 UTC)----

Captain America: Civil War[edit]

Need a peer review to keep up with GT status of MCU films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 30 April 2015, 15:58 UTC)----

Capon Chapel[edit]

I've nominated this article for a peer review because I would like to receive necessary feedback that will allow me to further improve this article for submission to a Featured Article review. Any and all guidance would be greatly appreciated! -- Thanks, West Virginian (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 April 2015, 21:06 UTC)----

Chetro Ketl[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because after a successful GAN I would like to get more feedback on the article regarding its current quality in relation to the FAC criteria. I plan to leave this PR open until May 31, so if you plan to review or add comments here please do so several days prior to that date so that I will have enough time to adequately address concerns.

Thanks, Rationalobserver (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

First batch. More to come:

  • Etymology
    • Rightly or wrongly a convention – not, as far as I can see, backed by the MoS – has grown up that regardless of what has already been said in the lead a topic or person should be introduced in context at first mention in the main text. Thus "the 1849 Simpson expedition" would be better as something on the lines of "the first American expedition in 1849"
  • Background and discovery
    • "the Mexican–American War of 1846–1848" – I'm pretty certain the MoS asks for date ranges to be in the form "1846–48".
    • "especially well preserved room" – I get in tangle with hyphens, but I think you want one in "well-preserved" here. You might canvass other views on this point.
  • Excavation
    • "caused the Smithsonian to withdraw their support" – I don't at all object to the plural pronoun, but I understood that especially in AmEng corporate entities are usually referred to in the singular.
    • "Department of Archeology and Anthropology" – are you sure about the spelling here? The university's site appears to use the spelling "Archaeology"
    • "Gordon Vivian, father of R. Gwinn Vivian, Edwin Ferdon, Paul Reiter, and Florence Hawley" – I'd put "father of R. Gwinn Vivian" in brackets rather than just commas: at present it reads as though the old boy had rather a lot of children.
    • "charcoal found therein" – a bit fustian, except for lawyers; perhaps just "in it"?
    • "Archeologists theorize" – unanimously? If not, who?
    • "most-accurate" – hyphen definitely not wanted here, I think#
    • "1929–1933 group" – date range, as above
    • "no copper bells as expected" – ambiguous: was it the bells or their absence that was expected? And in either case, why would they or it have been expected?
    • "both of which are considered unique" – by whom?
  • Description
    • "archeologists believe" – all of them? If not, which?
    • "are still present there" – does "present" add anything here?
    • "which is located in" – here and immediately below, "located" is another word that seems to add nothing, and could be dispensed with.

More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 16:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim riley! I think I've adequately "processed" the first batch ([1]). I chose to avoid individual attribution wherever possible, as that is an issue that I've been bounced around a bit on lately, with some asking for more and others asking for less. If in-text attribution is needed in any particular spots I'll happily add them, but for the most part I am trying to learn to minimize them, or at least avoid all but the most necessary ones. I look forward to your next comments, but by no means should you feel rushed, as their is no need to hurry. Thanks for taking the time to help me with this! RO(talk) 16:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Second and concluding batch
  • Construction
    • An explosion fueled by rainfall is a strikingly mixed image
    • "The last significant construction" – what did it signify? It is a pity to use "significant", which has its own meaning, as a mere synonym of "major" or "important"
  • Agriculture
    • I didn’t quite get the hang of this: you start off with an unequivocal statement, without citation, and then say that some authorities dispute it. I’d be happier with something on the lines of A & B say x but C & D say y.
  • Abandonment
    • "de-population" – both the AmEng dictionaries I consulted (Mirriam-Webster and Collins) omit the hyphen
  • Footnotes
    • Note 6 – "buried below grade" puzzled me; if it is a technical term, a blue link or parenthetic explanation would be welcome.
  • General
    • One thing I found kept striking me throughout, becoming distractingly repetitive, was the continual use of the false title "archeologist Name Surname": in one paragraph we meet archeologist Robert Powers, archeologist David R. Wilcox, and archeologist Frances Joan Mathien. I quite see that you need to put these experts in context at first mention, but could some variety be introduced here and there by, e.g. writing "in a 2003 study of artifacts from Pueblo Bonito, Frances Joan Mathien writes…", or "in a 2015 symposium Stephen Plog comments…"?

That's all from me. I learned a lot from this article, and enjoyed reviewing it. Please ping me when you go to FAC. – Tim riley talk 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, Tim riley! I've addressed this last batch as best I could ([2]), and I'll continue to work on the last suggestion, as I agree that this can get repetitive. RO(talk) 18:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Simon Burchell[edit]


  • In the intro, you've missed a metric conversion for the 1540 ft circumference. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "exposure to the Sun" - better as "exposure to the sun". Simon Burchell (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that in this construction "Sun" is a proper noun that should be capped (see Sun). RO(talk) 16:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think sun is ever a proper noun. And it definitely isn't in this construction.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see MOS:CELESTIALBODIES at MOS:CAPS - outside of astronomy articles, no capital for sun. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
But our article on the topic is an FA, and it uses "Sun" throughout. RO(talk) 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Which article? Sun? It's an astronomy article, so uses caps as per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The CMOS suggests lower case expect in publications in the field of astronomy or science, where it is considered a proper noun, as the name of our star is "the Sun". RO(talk) 17:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That is exactly what Simon is saying and why the sun should not be capitalized here. You are not referring to the star but to sunlight on earth.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I was agreeing here, Maunus. This is not scientific article, so I agree that lower case is better. RO(talk) 17:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Location and position

  • "The Continental divide" - this should be "The continental divide". Simon Burchell (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Reading between the lines, I understand that the ruins are in the bottom of the canyon - it would be best to state this explicitly. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Added some clarification. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Led by the governor of Jemez Pueblo, Francisco Horta, Simpson and the brothers Richard and Edward Kern, an artist and cartographer, respectively, explored the canyon." - this sentence does not read very well and could do with rephrasing, perhaps along the lines of A group led by the governor of Jemez Pueblo explored the canyon; its members included Francisco Horta, Simpson, and the brothers Richard and Edward Kern, who were respectively an artist and a cartographer. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
How about this variation that makes it clear Horta was the governor of Jemez Pueblo ([3])? RO(talk) 18:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much better. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Background and discovery

  • Vizcarra's account is the first historical record of the Chacoan great houses that were, "of such antiquity - there is an out-of-place comma directly before the quote. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Removed. RO(talk) 18:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maunus[edit]

  • "sacred zone" is in quotes in the lead but not in the text. The quotes do not seem necessary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Removed. RO(talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A map of the site itself would be really useful.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
There are already maps in Description and Construction. RO(talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The Hawley maps are not very legible or clear, I realize it may not be feasible or eays, but getting some good graphics of the site outline relative to local topology would be a really useful addition. Maybe the people at the graphics lab can help.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
There are more detailed and higher quality maps in the external links. RO(talk) 18:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added a link to an interactive map as an external media ([4]). RO(talk) 19:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I also added a link to the interactive map of Chaco Canyon that includes topography ([5]). Does this satisfy the need for detailed maps? RO(talk) 20:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I couldnt find Chetro Ketl on that interactive map. What I am thinking of is more a map of the outline of the site relative to the canyons topography. Also remember that comments are suggestions, not requirements. Go back and look at the article to see if you agree with me that the map would improve it. Then consider whether the time spent on making a map or having someone make it would be well spent. Then make a decisions. You dont need me or others to approve everything you do.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It takes two clicks. 1. Click on Chaco Canyon, 2. "Downtown Chaco", and Chetro Ketl is one of those sites that correspond to the Chaco Park map also included in the Location section. Or I could just link right to here ([6]). Since I don't know how to make one of these nor do I know anyone who would likely do it for me this is an easy one to answer, but even if I was a cartographer I seriously doubt I could produce a more helpful or informative version than the Chaco Research Archive. I'll go with the external media links since my time is much better spent editing than learning to make topographic maps, which I've never done. I was only asking to see if you were willing to agree to an alternate method for providing this information. RO(talk) 20:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be unfamiliar with the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. They are good at producing useful maps, based on other online maps. While perhaps not better than official maps they have the additional virtue of being public domain.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
No. I don't know how that works, but what could they produce that would be superior to the Google satellite images and the NPS map File:NPS map of Chaco Culture National Historic Park.png? I guess I'm not comprehending what's missing. RO(talk) 20:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Imagine something like [7], but with the site outline set on a topographic map showing its relative position to the canyon, and with labels for the different structures. This is also nice: [8] ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, but it also sounds like lots of work. It would simple take too much time for me to learn the needed skills to do that, and I'm all out of favors. Who would be willing to make this? RO(talk) 21:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You didn't click on the link to the graphics lab? You make a section there describing what you need, with some links to the images you would like it to look like, and then one of the nice graphics people make it for you when they have time.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a look when I get the chance. RO(talk) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
But have you seen this ([9])? RO(talk) 01:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not crazy about the organization which has discovery and description before the history of construction.
How would you order them? RO(talk) 17:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
See below, I think a chronological order would be better: i.e. "Ancestral Puebloans/Background">"Construction">"Abandonment">"Discovery", and then the description of the site as it is now, and the ongoing deterioration etc.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
But then the deterioration would be out of chronology with the excavation, which led to much of the deterioration. How does the order look now? RO(talk) 18:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense regarding deterioration. The current structure looks better to me. I understand that it is complicated to disentangle the past from its interpretation by current archaeologists, and that how to do it exactly requires some thought and deliberation. The agriculture and roads sections are kind of orphaned. They might want to be integrated into the construction section. Or theymight want to be integrated into the "description" section. The etymology section is also out of place in the description section, generally etymology sections go in the general background information in the beginning - maye it is better yet interated into the rediscovery section, where it can be discussed together with the question of who actually was the first to name it Chetro Ketl.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
How does this look ([10])? Would you move anything else? RO(talk) 19:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It makes more sense. As your write you will probably want to read for coherence, and see if certain things presuppose that other things are already mentioned - that may motivate further exchange of material between sections to get the best flow of information.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the continuity has undoubtedly been disturbed, but I wouldn't spend any time yet fixing that until the order has been agreed upon, so do you think this order makes the most sense, or can you foresee future suggestions to further reorder? RO(talk) 19:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the excavation section is now cut off from the rediscovery section, and since most of the excavations took place in the first half of the 20th century, maybe it would be more chronological to have them before the description section. I think having the deterioration section apart is justifiable as this is a still ongoing process.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with having excavation before description; that's where I originally had it. RO(talk) 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would like more background about the Ancestral Puebloan culture and history, its place among other great kivas, how great kivas are thought to have been used, (what is a sacred zone?), was it inhabited, was it used for rituals? I would suggest adding a background section before the discovery section to provide this kind of historical cultural context. I would integrate the abandonment section into that. Possibly also the construction section could moved up ahead of the discovery section, to get a more chronological structure.
This article is not about the culture, for that we have Ancestral Puebloans, Kiva, and at Chaco Culture National Historical Park, an FA, we have lots of detail about the culture. This article is about the structure, not the culture. There are more than a dozen of these articles, and we need not repeat cultural points in 15 different places. RO(talk) 17:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The structure is meaningless without information about the culture that produced it and who lived in it and used it. And yes every article needs to provide the information necessary to understand the topic. In summary style, but it needs to be there.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If this goes to FA, it will almost certainly require a brief summary of the culture. I have seen various archaeological site articles get culture paragaraphs in order to make it through, and they are better articles for it. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'll write a section that summarizes the culture. RO(talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I would encourage looking at FAs like Quiriguá, Takalik_Abaj to see how cultural information can be integrated into articles about archeological sites.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'll do that. Thanks for the tip! RO(talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The one on Angkor Wat is of an older date and not of the same standard as the two Maya articles I mentioned, but it may also be worth looking at. I was surprised at how few FAs for archeological sites we have. This will be the first in North America!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Construction: This section could be expanded. Information about the sources of the timber (which apparently was transported some 75 kms to the site), and about the chronology of construction (archeological phases) would be useful. Some possible sources:[11][12][13]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll add some more about the tree harvesting, The Architecture and Dendrochronology of Chetro Ketl has all of that, but as for construction chronology, did you read the last two paragraphs in the section ([14])? RO(talk) 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes you give the names and ranges of periods, but do not describe which structures were built there. Lekson et al 2007 for example describes the changes to the Great Kiva over the different periods.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The Hawley sketches provide a visual representation of what was constructed during each phase. Yes. I could go into more detail about the construction, but summary style demands that some details are omitted for succinctness (if that's really a word). RO(talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • While the term Ancestral Puebloan is clearly preferable in general, I think many readers would benefit from at least mentioning the word Anasazi at some point, even if just in a parenthesis.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll work it into the not yet written background section. RO(talk) 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The possible Mesoamerican connection is intriguing. Lekson et al 2007, talk at some length about similarities with Tula, Hidalgo, especially in terms of the colonnade. Their conclusion, that it is a likely imitation of Tula style is inclusion worthy I think.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It's already mentioned in Description: Colonnade. RO(talk) 21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually it is not. It mentions Toltec and a suggestion that the colonnade has something to do with Quetzalcoatl. But it does not mention Tula - which is what ties the elements colonnade/Mesoamerica/Toltec/Quetzalcoatl together.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I just meant that the Mesoamerican connection is mentioned, but if you are specifically talking about a direct connection with Tula, I would say that Lekson, Windes, and Fournier, say in "The Changing Faces of Chetro Ketl" from The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, "we conclude that the Chetro Ketl colonnade is a local architectural interpretation of Mexican models". They think Mesoamerican influenced northern Mexico, and Northern Mexico influenced Chaco Canyon, which I have included as a quote. I can add more background detail about the theory, but the academic consensus is currently represented. RO(talk) 21:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This is what I have there now:

In Lekson, Windes, and Fournier's opinion, the Mesoamerica-Chaco connection "may have been the result of an interaction mechanism of indirect contact between nuclear Mesoamerica and Chaco though northwestern Mexico", but "the development and dispersion of traits such as the colonnaded halls cannot be attributed to the Toltecs."[90]

I see no need to go into detail about Tula when the academic consensus is that "the colonnaded halls cannot be attributed to the Toltecs". RO(talk) 21:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The only reason the question of "Toltecs" even comes up is because Tula, Hidalgo is the only other site with a similar colonnade. Not mentioning it but talking about Colonnades and Toltecs and Quetzalcoatl is very weird - and not very helpful to the reader. I've taken the liberty to add a sentence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Tula, Hidalgo is the only other site with a similar colonnade. I'm not sure that's accurate. According to Lekson et al, "Colonnaded halls ... predate Tula. Pilasters have been identified in residential compounds and palaces like ... Teotihuacán [and] Plazuelas".(2007, page 168) RO(talk) 21:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Then please explain why they spend three pages talking about Tula Hidalgo in a short paper on Chetro Ketl?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
But have you read those pages or are you going by a Google snippet view? Because Lekson et al are basically debunking the idea that there was a direct connection between Chaco and Tula. Tula influenced Northern Mexico, then Northern Mexico influenced Chaco, and that's what I included. I know you mean well, but the problem with tacking on a topic sentence like this one: ([15]), is that it's not supported by the following citation. RO(talk) 21:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I have access to the entire Lekson et al. 2007, yes. I have not looked at the Ferdon citation, but it is unimaginable that he is not mentioning Tula when he makes the arguments that he does. The only premise under which it makes sense to posit Toltec influence in Chaco Canyon is because of observed similarities with Tula. Yes, they end up refuting the argument but that does not mean that the argument has not been made. The section right now does not make sense at all, unless the reader surmises that those arguments about Toltecs were made because of the similarity with Tula's colonnade. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not cited to Ferdon, it's cited to Vivian and Hilpert. RO(talk) 21:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The claim is from Ferdon's 1955 paper on architectural similrities between Mexico and the US Southwest.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
How's this look ([16])? RO(talk) 21:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks backwards. Why would Ferdon suggest a Quetzalcoatl cult and Pochtecas out of the blue? Based on what observation? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to find a source that explicitly says Ferdon was connecting Tula and Chaco, but as I said, there are also colonnades at Teotihuacán and Plazuelas, and colonnades in the region predate Tula. RO(talk) 21:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
But neither of those places had any "Toltecs". I can't access Ferdon's 1955 paper, which should probably be cited directly instead of just second hand.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Lekson et al (page 166) seem to suggest that Ferdon's theory was vague, but later archeologists specifically mentioned Tula. Vivian and Hilpert are experts, and there is nothing wrong with using secondary sources like theirs to represent Ferdon's position. RO(talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Absent a citation that says Ferdon specifically referred to Tula, how does this look (be nice) ([17]). RO(talk) 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Toltec = Inhabitant of Tula. > "Detect a Toltec influence" = "Detect similarity with Tula".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 April 2015, 21:45 UTC)----

Rebel Heart (Madonna album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this as a GA and eventual FA, but I want feedback on the prose part of it and general structuring. Feel free to be as brutal as you can. Thanks, —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 April 2015, 07:15 UTC)----

Dump months[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it started strong when I created and developed it at the end of 2013, and has not needed too much more except updating as facts have changed and evolved. It is as comprehensive as it can get, and I think it could go places. But I'd like some outside eyes on it first.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 24 April 2015, 19:26 UTC)----

Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)[edit]

The critical consensus seems to be that "Last Gasp" is a not-so-great episode of a very impressive programme. I have my eye on FAC, and I would appreciate any advice which help me tip it over the line. All comments very much welcome. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

  • The three links in the first sentence create what's maybe not a sea of blue, but it looks a little odd to me. Maybe drop the link to anthology series.
  • I'm not a big fan of having so many parentheticals, but maybe you prefer this to working the actors names in to prose.
  • She was brilliant- she had maturity beyond her years
Check for dash spacing.
Changed. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pemberton noted that he and Shearsmith had been "dying" to work with Greig
I'd prefer to avoid that one-word quote for a paraphrase.
Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • was inspired by a person Pemberton had seen on children's programme
Unless there is a good reason that eludes me now, I'd swap out "person" for "someone".
Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There might be too much reliance on direct quotes in this section.
  • Why are there no citations in this section?
As is fairly standard in articles of this sort, the plot is just my retelling of the episode. Any citation would simply be to the episode itself, which isn't particularly useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Themes and analysis
  • In South African newspaper The Star
Seems odd to leave out the definite article here, but maybe that convention is acceptable.
I prefer the current phrasing- the addition of the "the" would change the tone slightly, even if (in this case) it wouldn't change the meaning significantly. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • the most cynical of series 1.
I think linking "cynical" might be a WP:OVERLINK.
Given that I'm identifying cynicism as a theme, I think the link is useful- if you feel strongly (or anyone else says the same), I will happily remove it. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • David Upton, writing for PopMatters, called it "easily the most acerbic and most overtly comic" episode of the first series.
Maybe this is a BrEng convention that I am not aware of, but in the US we say "the first season", and the "series" applies to all episodes in toto.
Yeah, that's British English- we don't really use "season" unless we're referring to US programmes. "Series" can be used to refer to the whole programme ("show" is something of an Americanism, by the way), but it generally refers to what you would call a season. See this page, for example. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The acting in the episode was praised by Michael Hogan and Rachel Ward
This seems backwards; I'd say: "Michael Hogan and Rachel Ward praised the episode's acting".
I've had a fiddle, but I'll have to adjust the rest of the sentence, too, so nothing worked out. I'll have a think... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • On the day it was shown, "Last Gasp" was selected as comedy "pick of the day" in the Daily Express,[23] but, the following day, an extremely critical review of the episode by Virginia Blackburn was published in the newspaper.
Do you feel this needs to be changed? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Viewing figures
  • I assume this is the preferred term to "ratings", which we would use in the US.
    • I've never come across "ratings" used in that way in British English- "viewing figures" does seem to be preferred. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Charity auction
  • The money from the auction was to be donated to Give It Up,
I think we can we omit "to be" here, as I assume this did in fact happen?
Funnily enough, I don't have a source saying that it did happen. I've rephrased, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a tight article that reads quite well overall. There might be too much reliance on direct quotes, particularly in the Themes and analysis and Reception sections, but most of the quoted stuff is pretty creative and maybe defies paraphrasing. Nice work! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review- I will get to your comments soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've dealt with some of the smaller issues; I will massage the prose a little to trim down the quotes. You're certainly not the first person to mention this to me! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 18 April 2015, 15:19 UTC)----

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be an FA before it turns 20 this year. I know the prose is not good yet, but it is sitting in the queue for a copy edit at GOCE. I want to see what other problems may exist, and what suggestions you may have. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

A few minor comments regarding the prose, which I believe you can resolve yourself.

  • "Raj asks his father if he can go on a train trip across Europe with his friends; he agrees" — can be rephrased as "One day, Raj asks his father if he can go on a train trip across Europe with his friends; his father agrees."
  • "Shah Rukh Khan was initially not interested because of the romantic nature of the role; he was having success playing villainous roles prior to that." — do you mean "prior to this film."?
  • Some of the lines have "Shah Rukh Khan", some have "Shah Rukh", some have "Khan". It's best if you standardise it to "Shah Rukh". Same case with Aditya Chopra. Some have "Aditya". Some have "Chopra". Best to call both Yash Chopra and Aditya Chopra by their first names.
That is tricky because we usually refer to people by their last names, but here there are some people with the same last names, so that is when I revert to their first names. I will try to do better, but perhaps the copy editor will also improve it.
@Bollyjeff: I have used the full names of SRK and the Chopras for you. If you wish to revert them, do so by all means. Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 05:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is correct. I am asking for help here. BollyJeff | talk 16:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Quick question — Is there a reason why Saif declined the role?
I don't think it is not known why.
@Bollyjeff: You can add a footnote about it using this source from DNA and from MTV, both of which state he declined the role for unknown reasons. If you want to add more facts in the legacy section, you can use this source from Bookmyshow. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Chopra asked for two assistants, his brother Uday Chopra, and his friend Karan Johar, who also acted a small part in the film. He got those, plus assistant director Sameer Sharma" — can be rephrased as "Aditya's brother Uday Chopra, Karan Johar and Sameer Sharma worked as assistant directors in the film. Karan Johar also played a small role in the film as Raj's friend."
  • "Sharmishta Roy was the art director.[30] Manish Malhotra was in charge of costume design, with help from Karan Johar and others. While he had many new ideas, Chopra wanted to keep the clothing style simple; he did not want it to distract from the story". Better to keep them in "Casting" section.
  • Can you wikilink "Indianness" to Indian Culture for those who might not know of the term?
  • It would be great if there was a quote in the legacy section like "Mother India" and "Chandralekha".
  • Do check with any WP:NBSP, WP:PUNC and MOS:LQ issues in the article, if any, to be on the safe side ("Saif ki side toh Kareena hota hain na?" lol).

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Sorry, been busy! Let me look at this tomorrow or Tuesday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • "Earning over INR1.06 billion (US$17 million) in India and INR160 million (US$2.5 million) overseas, it became the highest grossing Bollywood film of the year, and one of the biggest hits of all time in India. It won 10 Filmfare Awards, the most for a single film at that time, and won the National Film Award for Best Popular Film Providing Wholesome Entertainment. The film's soundtrack was one of the biggest sellers of the 1990s, and songs from it are still popular at weddings." -rep of biggest
  • "The success of Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge led to the targeting of non-resident Indian audiences by other film makers, which deemed lucrative for them." -makes little sense, reword
  • imitators -imitations?
  • I'd word it as "Non resident Indians and put (NRIs) in brackets.
  • The plot overall could do with polishing up to improve the quality of prose, it reads too much like a narrative in parts..
  • " After his mother Pamela agreed that the story was solid, he decided to make this his directorial debut.[9] Aditya Chopra's intent was to make a wholesome story that people could watch repeatedly. He wanted to show that unlike the typical story "- rep of "story"
  • Link British Film Institute
It is already linked twice elsewhere
  • Is there a link for Consulate General of Switzerland in Mumbai?

The article is stronger in the lower sections I feel. The prose throughout most as Sandy would say is rather "rambling". It reads too subjectively and just lacks the finesse of a higher end article. It needs several decent copyeditors going through it. That for me is its biggest concern right now, the general comprehension has improved though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The hard part seems to be getting "several decent copyeditors". At WP:GOCE you get one; and their skill is what it is. My plan is to do that first, and then ask some of your preferred copyeditors to take another pass at it. BollyJeff | talk 13:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Pinged, read one section, saw this: " ... causing Aditya Chopra to keep continue pursuing Khan" ... keep continue redundant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It was not ready for your keen eyes yet, Sandy. I hope you don't mind if I call you later, though. BollyJeff | talk 15:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup, still a fair way to go. I'll try to give it an initial copyedit later in the week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 16 April 2015, 02:30 UTC)----

Saturday Night Live (season 34)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to improve it to featured list status, and would like to be aware of what other (maybe even uninvolved) editors think of any article issues, and the article's writing.

Thanks! StewdioMACK Talk page 12:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

  • This season is notable for its take on the 2008 presidential election, which saw the show's ratings rapidly increase and a number of award nominations.
That needs a rework. I'd say, "This season is notable for its coverage of the 2008 presidential election, which led to a significant increase in the show's ratings and a number of award nominations."
  • This season consisted of 22 episodes rather than the usual 20
I think you ought to specify that "this season" means season 34. I know it's kinda self-evident, but the start of an article should introduce terms as though the lead is not there.
  • This made it the longest season since the show's second season. The season
Copyedit to avoid three "season"s in these two sentences.
  • which typically have started during the final weekend of September or in early October.
It's always good to include a citation at the end of each paragraph.
  • Mad TV ended in 2009 after its fourteenth season due to low ratings and a dip in quality brought on by budget constraints and mediocre writing.[2]
This strikes me as too POV to be presented in Wikipedia's voice. I watched Mad TV religiously, and that season was easily their best, IMO.
  • I see two citation needed tags here, and these should be dealt with asap.
  • Midway through the season ..."
This paragraph needs a source.
  • before the goodnights
This might be too informal.
  • Queen Latifah appeared as Gwen Ifill and Tina Fey returned as Sarah Palin in a parody of the Vice Presidential Debate
Missing comma/run-on. The article could use some double-checking of the punctuation in general.

It's not bad overall, but it needs a copyedit for prose and punctuation, and lots of unsourced material needs to be verified and cited. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 12 April 2015, 12:41 UTC)----

Epic theatre[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like feedback as to what exactly, a reader, would like to learn about Epic Theatre. I have deleted the sub header "Dialectical" Theatre because I thought it was redundant. And I have added more about why Epic Theatre came about. I would like to know where else I should add substance.

Thanks, Marisela Grajeda Gonzalez (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Marisela Grajeda Gonzalez

Hi Marisela. Here is my feedback:
  • Your lead section is a bit lengthy. I think you can turn some of the content into additional section, particularly the last paragraph on what Brecht was rupturing from.
  • As to organization, you might consider using sub-headings under Techniques, so that your readers might better navigate to certain techniques of interest.
  • Your use of notes and sources confuses me a bit. I'm not sure that how you cited is standard for Wikipedia or not. You may want to consult Amy. I just use the reference maker and it gives me the numbers like your notes section has.
  • To answer your question about content, you cover the basics well. I think you could add information on the epic theatre practices of others you list in the lead, particularly Piscator. Did his theatre differ from Brecht's? If so, how? I also think gestus needs to be explored at least a bit in your techniques section, even though you list it in the lead and direct to its own page.
  • Your readability is is excellent. It was very easy to understand what you were discussing and you incorporated quotes nicely.

Keep up the good work! Jcbjaw12 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marisela:
  • I agree with Jcbjaw12's comment that the lead section could become separate sections. I would suggest at least creating a specific Brecht section since he was the most popular user of the form.
  • Three things I'd find interesting to add to this article if you thought it appropriate: expanding on Verfremdungseffekt and it's use in epic theater, any specific actors associated with Epic Theater, and what popular theater was like before and during the emergence of Epic Theater.
  • You have a great number of books cited and quotes noted, are there any relevant websites or journal articles online that people reading the wiki article can reference immediately?
  • As it is this is a very informative and well written article.

Croussos (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MJ94[edit]

  • The lede serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects; for that reason, I think that the current lede could be broken into separate sections.
  • Complacent doesn't need to be bolded.
  • Epic theatre does not need to be bolded.
  • "The term epic theater comes from Erwin Piscator who coined it during his first year as Director of Berlin's Volksbühne (1924-1927)." The phrase "epic theater" should be surrounded by quotations.
  • Please see Wikipedia:Quotations on how to incorporate quotations into articles.
  • "One of the most important techniques Brecht developed to perform epic theater is the Verfremdungseffekt, or the "alienation" effect." Be careful with puffery.
  • Again, epic theatre does not need to be bolded.
  • The first paragraph reads like a large chunk of text. Can you split it up a bit?
  • This section definitely needs more citations; I don't see any.
  • Subheadings may be useful here.

I am concerned about grammar and style in this article; while it is clear that you have put a lot of effort into research, I think it could benefit from a copyedit and additional sourcing. I also notice that you use "theater" and "theatre" interchangeably throughout the article. Can you pick one and use it consistently? Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. MJ94 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 April 2015, 18:31 UTC)----

Impossible Princess[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because since this article is listed as GA, I would like help in making at FA. I have done extensive research like a maniac on the album (and all featuring songs) and I've listed it as a FA but was not promoted. After months of research and correcting, I think it would be helpful if I have some advice from other Wikipedians to improve this from GA to FA.

Thanks, GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 03:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Rationalobserver[edit]

  • Minogue collaborated with new record producers and composers for the album, including Dave Ball, Ingo Vauk, Brothers in Rhythm, Manic Street Preachers and Rob Dougan.
I think I know what you mean, but maybe rework this to avoid calling them "new".
  • focusing on dance music and infuses strong elements of trip-hop, rock and drum and bass.
infuses → infusing
  • This became Minogue's first musical effort to contributed on all the lyrics and composition of the album.[2]
to → that she
  • and was certified Platinum
Not sure platinum should be capped here.
  • Minogue promoted the album by releasing a series of tracks
Where these singles? If so, maybe mention it.
  • The album has been recognized as one of Minogue's greatest triumphs and a big step forward in terms of musical composition.
Is the "big step forward" also Minogue's, or the industry?
  • calling it one of the most underrated albums in pop history.
That's a pretty big claim to leave out the source/in-line attribution.
  • accused the staff of PWL for creating "cheap" and "dated" music
the staff of PWL → their staff; for creating → of creating
  • It achieve critical acclaim
achieve → achieved
  • Minogue began a personal relationship with French photographer Stéphane Sednaoui.[10] Together they embarked on a series of trips across the United States and South East Asia.
Combine these to flow better; e.g., "In XXXX, Minogue had began a personal relationship with French photographer Stéphane Sednaoui, and together they embarked on a series of trips across the United States and South East Asia."
Recording and production
  • Each morning, Minogue would present lyrics to Seaman from the night before.
You haven't yet introduced Seaman, so the reader will not know who they are.
  • Bradfield contacted Minogue's A&R Pete Hadfield
Same as above
  • "[...] It's been the most exciting time to be able to write my own lyrics, my own songs and watch these songs grow and morph into this and that and in what I'm really pleased with".[20]
There is no need for the brackets or the introductory ellipses.
  • how to produce, composed and "change and distort" songs
composed → compose
  • It combines trip-hop,
it → Impossible Princess
  • composed the bridge section of the track by using a synthesizer.
by using a synthesizer → on a synthesizer
  • The fourth track "Did It Again" used a similar approach
"Did It Again" is in apposition, so should be set off with commas.
Lyrical depiction
  • Why not just "lyrics"?
  • Minogue is credited as the co-writer to all the songs on the album
Earlier you say, "Minogue participated in co-producing and co-composing certain tracks off Impossible Princess", which seems to contradict this statement.
  • "Too Far" wrote the song at a local cafe she regularly visited.[35]
Do you mean it was written?
  • She commented the she wanted Sednaoui to "take all off her" and "not some of her."[41]
Check for typos and/or mis-transcribed words. I'm seeing a lot of them here.
  • Minogue is telling herself off
Not encyclopedic
Packaging and title
  • projected by color lighting
Do you mean "colored lighting"?
  • The photo shoot ran for a week
ran for → lasted
  • Some unreleased photos were featured in Minogue's books but most remain unpublished.
How could they be unreleased if they were included in a publishes book?
  • "I've told not to be frustrated"
Missing words?
  • Minogue contemplated in using one of her magazine appearances
Remove in

I'd go through more sections, but I see lots and lots of little errors that need to be corrected before any major work is undertaken. It's not too bad right now, but I do get the sense that a language barrier might be showing in some of the prose. I'd ask for some help with the copyediting before taking this back to FAC, as right now there are too numerous glitches that would prevent its passing. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 April 2015, 03:38 UTC)----

Arthur Miller[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Arthur Miller is an integral figure in the scope of American Playwrights. I am specifically looking for questions that you would like to see answered on this page.

Thanks, Andreabee12 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by User: Deliirving

Overall, the article looks really great! You've found a lot of good information, and I learned quite a bit.

  • The lead section is very clear. It is detailed, and the second paragraph in particular gives a great introduction. Is there a citation for the claim of his "most popular plays"? It sounds more like an opinion than fact, though I'm sure many scholars have used that statement. Giving it a citation would up its credibility.
  • The body of the article really tells a story. His early life and later life surrounding the HUAC controversy is very strong, and the legacy section is a great way to end it. I don't think you need to add any more sections.
  • Your in text and external links are all really good.
  • You have some really great images that help to tell the story. They are well placed. Were you able to find any early images of him, maybe as a child or a young man? It might be nice to see him before he hit the big time.
  • Your historical development is really good, but I do have a few questions and comments on the text. In "early career," you say "first play provided." I don't really know what that means. Do you mean first play produced? Then, in "critical years," I'm not sure if you need to repeat Daniel's name twice in the last sentence. You can just end it "...reunite with his adult son." Finally, in "HUAC controversy," you can add a comma between testimony and Miller: "...his testimony, Miller traveled..." Just a few little things for me to nit pick at. Really, the article tells a great story that is well written and easy to follow.
  • The article is very comprehensive. The information flows really well.
  • The information is well documented. There are a lot of good citations, and the places where there are multiple citations for one point further its accuracy.
  • The information is also really clear. I appreciate how you include opposing views from critics and Miller himself.
  • It's great there are no templates on the top of the page. The only one I would consider adding (or, really, have in mind as you continue to work on it) is "Unbalanced." There are a few points in the article when the language suggests leading the reader to certain viewpoints, like that he was "brilliant" or "popular." Unless those words are direct quotes, I'd refrain from using them.

I feel like I didn't give you much constructive criticism, but the article looks really good! Happy writing! Deliirving (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by User: Decafespresso

Wow, this is a very comprehensive article.

The lead section provides a clear overview of the article. “Most popular” and “most noted” would probably need citations. Also, is it possible to generalize his works in terms of genre or frequent themes? It would be helpful for those who’ve never read or seen his plays.

The sections are very well organized and easy to navigate. A few suggestions: I didn't really understand why 1956-1966 are "the critical years,” especially because he'd already won Tony and Pulitzer. Is it because of HUAC? The article might flow better if you put the Literary and Public Criticism section before the Arthur Miller Foundation section. If it’s just a list, I think the "Biographies and critical studies” section should be renamed “Further reading” and moved after the “See also” section. Is there a reason why the Characters section is a subsection of the Themes section? I thought they might be on the same level.

You have great in-text links as well as external links!

If you could find some, photos of Miller’s stage productions might be helpful.

The biography is very interesting and comprehensive. A few questions: Were Jane and Robert Miller twins? I’m confused about the beginning of HUAC controversy. Why was Eliza Kazan’s appearance significant to Miller? “In 1964 Miller’s next play was produced”; was After the Fall Miller’s first play after The Crucible? The chronology isn’t as clear because of the HUAC subsection. Regarding After the Fall, did Miller explain why he wrote the play in response to the criticism or did some critics support the play? Brustein’s quote is very strong opinion and it may put this section off balance. If After the Fall was that much of a disaster, why was Miller able to become the president of PEN only a year later?

The reference #1 (Obituary: Arthur Miller) is missing the name of the author of the article, Michael Ratcliffe.

Overall, the information is very comprehensive, clearly written, and well cited. I’ve learned a lot about Arthur Miller! Decafespresso (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 9 April 2015, 17:00 UTC)----

Casey Abrams (album)[edit]

I mostly stick to writing articles about film and television, so on the rare occasions that I've decided to branch out and write an album article, I haven't fully understood how to best go about it. Could someone familiar with this topic take a look and let me know if it still needs some work? Ideally I'd like to nominate it for GA, but I have no idea whether that would be within reach or not.

Thanks, Jpcase (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

At quick glance, I would say that the lead section could be shortened. Ideally four paras are used for really long articles. Otherwise, it looks fine as a GA. If you want someone good at music-related articles to review it further, why not invite an editor from the volunteers list. They're listed according to what subjects they review normally, and drop a neutral invitation saying that this is in the backlog. Good day, Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

This looks like some above average prose (nice work!), but I found a couple of minor nit-picks, which I'll list below.

  • City sounds can be heard in the background of some tracks.
"City sounds" was the first clicker that got my attention. I'm not sure what would be better, but maybe something like "ambient noises from the city", which I realize is wordier, but it's a start I think.
Your suggestion sounds good to me! I've gone ahead and changed it. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wal-Mart released a deluxe version of the album
Was this on a Wal-mart label, because if not I'd avoid the free plug.
If by "label" you mean "music label", then no - I don't think Walmart even has a music label. Walmart should certainly still be mentioned by name in the Promotion section, since it was the only store that carried this version of the album, but I've rewritten the sentence in the lead to simply say that this version "received a limited release". --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • were released as dual singles
I'm not sure what this means.
What I meant to get across is that the two songs were released as singles simultaneously, which isn't a very common occurrence. The one other time that I'm familiar with in which this happened was with the album David Cook. That article uses similar phrasing - see the second paragraph of the "Singles" section. Do you think that this is okay? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No.
I've never written a music article, so I don't know all the conventions, but I couldn't help but think that "No. 4" should be "number four".
As mentioned above, music isn't my specialty either, but I feel like "No." is the way that I've seen it written most often. While I agree that "number" would be more formal, Billboard itself - see this article [18] - uses "No." --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In January 2012, it was reported that Abrams had signed with Concord Records, the jazz label that Esperanza Spalding - one of Abram's musical inspirations - is a part of.
This is a really nice sentence except the last clause. I wish I had a ready idea as an alternative, but I don't right now. I'll write back if I think of one.
While I'm not much of a grammar expert, these three articles [19] [20] [21] (as well as several others that can be found through Google) indicate that the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition is actually a widely held misconception. All the same, if you think it would be better, perhaps I could say "[T]he jazz label to which Esperanza Spalding - one of Abrams' musical inspirations - is signed. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Writing and recording
  • first time that Abrams had ever co-written with someone
Mention the co-writer here.
As the article goes on to detail, Abrams had quite a number of co-writers on this album. It would be unwieldy to mention them all in this one sentence. Would it better if I said "anyone" instead of "someone" or if I ended the sentence after the word "co-written"? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Another location that had influence on the album was London.
Most of the prose here is pretty decent, but stuff like this jumps out at me as not great.
Ah, okay. I was trying to find a good way to transition from the previous paragraph (about the hills of Idyllwild) into the information about London, while emphasizing that the city had an influence on the writing and recording process. I thought that it would make the article flow a bit better, but I can see how it might sound informal. Would you suggest just cutting this out then? Or should I rewrite it? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • can't be sung about...every rock should be turned
Check your ellipses spacing per the MoS.
Thanks for pointing it out! I've seen people change the formatting on these before, without ever fully understanding what they were doing. I'll look into it soon. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • He felt that recording in London "captured the wonder" and the "wanderlust" that he felt about the city.[15]
I'd paraphrase this so that it says he basically liked London. It's goofy to quote this. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright. I'll see what I can come up with. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • However, he has also hinted that conflict
Be careful you aren't using "however" in a lazy way.
Could you elaborate? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Work Sales & chart performance into the prose and eliminated the double headers: "Reception" and "Critical reception".
I thought that what I did here was standard formatting for a Music album. Was I mistaken then? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a nice piece overall, but there are lots of quotes that might not be adding all that much. Most of the prose is solid, but it's not the best it could be with a copyedit. It's passable, don't get me wrong but in places it feels mechanical and rigid, maybe cause of the loads of quotes, especially in the reception parts. I don't know that mush about FAC, but I think you will get hammered on unless you reduce the amount of quoted material. Good piece overall, though. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: @Rationalobserver: Thank you both for your comments! I hear what you're saying about the lead, Ugog. The paragraph count is just a guideline, but I'd be willing to cut things down if I knew what to remove. I feel like a certain amount of information from each section of the article should be discussed in the lead, but am not really sure which points are covered in more depth than is necessary. Let me know if either of you have any ideas on how to go about restructuring this. :)
I really appreciate your kind words about the prose, Rationalobserver. And your comment about certain parts coming across as "mechanical and rigid" doesn't surprise me. You're right; I tend to rely on quotes more than I should. GA is the goal for now; FA hadn't really even crossed my mind. But I'll definitely ask for a copyedit if you think that would help. If there are any specific quotes (in addition to the one you already mentioned above) that you think I should cut out, then I'll gladly work on them. Just let me know!
I've left some followup comments on specific points above. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I still feel it can be shortened. I think I may get at least some ideas (not necessarily good ones) for your lead section, I'll do that later. Here are some comments pertaining to the quotation problem. Otherwise, I don't see anything apparent stopping this at a GAR. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Ugog Nizdast

Consider these areas where I think, the quotations can be replaced with normal paraphrasing. I feel these quotations don't add any extra value compared to plain normal paraphrasing.

  • "The tight schedule for releasing an album that is imposed on the winner would have placed more pressure on him than he would have liked.", maybe add "He felt that"? (even though "he would have liked" is present, doesn't it still state it in the pedia's voice?)
  • "..the "most musically talented contestant...", you can just say she praised him or called him the most talented.
  • "Instead, Abrams was able to spend as much time as he felt necessary to find "the right label and the right music". are the quotation marks necessary here? maybe "felt necessary to find the correct label and music".
  • "Abrams valued the "collaborative process" of working with other writers and feels that this is crucial to making music "fun"." This can certainly be paraphrased.
  • " He found this to be a unique experience, as the room was "totally open" and had windows." Again.
  • "advised to "reverse the chords of the chorus"" Again.
  • ""Get Out" is Abrams' "heartbreak song", that he described as having "a very simple 'I hate you, but I love you' kind of vibe"." maybe paraphrased into "..he described it as having love-hate relationship _" or something? can't think of anything at the moment, how about you?
  • ""He's got a stub instead of a tail", explained Abrams. "I think [that] is probably the coolest part...[it] is so funny because whenever someone comes home, if I come home or my mom or dad walks in, he gets really excited and starts shaking his little stub."" I very unfamiliar with the subject (forget this subject, I've rarely dealt with music-related articles) but this sounds like something that can be omitted. I don't know whether it is widely covered in the sources.
  • ""I basically went there, having nothing but a will to play some music", he said." and ""I did have to fight for a couple things", Abrams said." Again, I think these two can be removed entirely but I could be wrong.
  • "Describing the album's genre as "organic focal", he placed heavy emphasis on melodies and harmonies - the "focal point" - while relying primarily on organic instruments, such as acoustic guitar,upright piano, and double bass." I didn't understand this sentence the first time. Could you reword? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 April 2015, 15:07 UTC)----

I Could Fall in Love[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because...I would like to bring this article to WP:FAC in the coming month.

Thanks, jona(talk) 01:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Per our Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, the bot closes this due to inactivity after 14 days and a second time after a month. This has clearly passed a month, so I'm compelled to close it. Have you tried the PR instructions "Waiting for a review"? volunteer's list, or quid pro quo? If still there's no response, I say you better take it for FAR. There is no sense in waiting any longer. I'm willing to give it five more days. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
So because a review has not been made you want to archive it? So what's the PR project about then, just archiving articles and not giving comments? (at that rate, only 2-5 out of 100 articles at PR would actually have its goal of at least a comment) I don't want to WP:SPAM editors who may or may not be actively involved in the PR process. I don't mind patiently waiting for someone who can provide helpful comments to improve this article. I don't want to take the article to FAC, especially if I am positive that it may result in a speedy oppose because it has happened before. Best, jona(talk) 21:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I want this to get reviewed as much as every other ones I see get closed without any comments. So, rather than keeping this open hoping that someone will eventually come seems seems harmless (though less likely) but there's also the removal policy. What you're doing here has got me thinking about it and I'll raise this issue with the others at Talk:Peer review.
But I still prefer actively trying to get someone to participate rather than wait it out. You've not answered my question QPQ above, so I'm going to assume you don't want to? Okay, so let's try the other options then, tell me the current condition of the article. You've said it failed FAR, so I assume those issues brought up there are resolved? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
If you do want it to be reviewed then you wouldn't say "it has five days until I close it". I'll take your advice and ask someone. This article has yet been nominated at FAC yet, I was talking about a previous incident where I felt an article was ready (with no PR comments) and it was speedy closed from a reviewer; I don't want that to happen again. jona(talk) 22:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I shall review this. Give me a day or 2. Fremantle99 (talk tome) 23:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fremantle99: Are you still going to review this article? Best, jona(talk) 22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@AJona1992: Yes, Just have less time than I thought. Aneditor (talk tome) 23:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, just wanted to know. Thanks, jona(talk) 23:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

First off, I like the quality of the prose. It's generally well-written and engaging, but I'll list a few minor nitpicks below.

  • According to OC Weekly, BuzzFeed, and Latina magazine, "I Could Fall in Love" was one of the best songs recorded by Selena in her musical career.
Maybe it's just me, but "one of the best songs" seems kinda ambiguous. Why is it so good?
The general consensus is that they favored its musical composition and the singer's vocals in the song as their determination of the song being one of her best. I've added this information onto the article. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The track was not released as a commercial single in the United States, where it was feared that it might sell more copies than the album itself.
It's not clear why this would be a bad thing.
No information is given about the decision to not commercially release it in the US; just the fear of it selling more than the album was enough to have one of the head of EMI Records uneven about the possibility. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It became the most played song in Kansas City, Miami, and Boston and the second most played in Los Angeles.
You employ a serial of Oxford comma before and Boston, but it looks like it's been omitted elsewhere; e.g., soul, pop and soft rock influences. They are neither required nor forbidden, but usage should be made consistent throughout the article.
I also think that most played needs a hyphen, but I admit that I might be wrong about that.
Yes check.svg Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Background and release
  • Selena was murdered in Corpus Christi, Texas, by her friend and former employee
Was she really a current friend but a former employee?
At the time of her death, Selena still considered her a friend and only believed that Saldivar was stealing from her about two weeks prior to the murder. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • An editor from the Arizona Daily Star wrote that "‍ '​I Could Fall in Love' ... seemed aimed more towards adult contemporary airplay than the R&B or Top-40 markets where Gloria Estefan scored well".[16]
I recommend paraphrasing this quote, as it does not seem creative enough to require a direct quote.
Yes check.svg Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Composition and lyrics
  • which makes use of an electronic piano, a violin, and a flute in the background.
Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in a period.
Yes check.svg Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The first couple of sentences are a little choppy. Try to rework them with an improved flow.
  • Mario Tarradell, an editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, called the song a "mundane ballad".[24], An editor from the Contra Costa Times called the song a "jazzy ballad".[27], and Brian Galindo of BuzzFeed called the track a "melancholy ballad"
Consider condensing theses points and losing the quotes.
I can't come up of a good direction for these, care to help out? jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I would simply state that the song has been described as a ballad, with no quotes, then use one or two cites after. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • emotional vulnerability and emotionally vulnerable narrator
This is kinda repetitive, so consider condensing as above.
I removed the first instance of the word. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • When asked what the "secret" was about, Saldivar responded that she won't discuss the matter at the time.[36]
This last part is a bit confusing, and I wonder if it's really all that necessary.
Removed. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Critical reception
  • Is there any particular reason why you have "reviews" and "accolades" under the same header?
Fixed. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • thought the song had "a whiff of" Celine Dion.[38]
I would paraphrase "a whiff of".
It is the reviewers opinion and not mine. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph under reviews does not flow, but rather reads as a list of assorted comments. Try to rework so that the sentences naturally follow and flow.
I believed I fixed that problem. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • More recently, Elizabeth Rodriguez Kessler and Anne Perrin wrote in their 2007 book
Drop the "more recently" bit as unneeded and redundant with mentioning the year.
Yes check.svg Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is reliable?
Depending on the editor and their expertise, yes. The editor has a masters degree in folklore/mythology with a specialization in ethnic music and dance. This is according to her profile. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
But is a reliable website? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed the source. jona(talk) 19:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • number 4 on the Hot Latin Tracks chart on 1 July 1995[62][63] and peaked at number 2
I think "4" and "2" ought to be written out in prose, as with any number under 10.
Yes check.svg Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The Chart performance material reads like a list, and I wonder if this would be better represented in chart form.
It is a standard practice for song articles. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Music video
  • the music video accompanying the song
This is a little rough; maybe "the song's accompanying music video"
Yes check.svg Done jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Cultural impact
  • "I Could Fall in Love" dominated the Top 40 radio stations,[22][87][88] a fact that was well received by critics.[87][89]
For one, this seems like citation overkill, and for another, I'm confused why it's radio play was well received?
John Lannert (who is a regular on Billboard for Latin music charts) noticed how music shops were "eager for a followup" after the song scored in the top five in several radio formats; which is a nice exposure for Latin artists who rarely competes with pop music artists. Mario Tarradell's comment is forgotten and I can't access it on google since they removed all archived newspapers dating back to the past five years. Tarradell has written articles about Latin music for The Dallas Morning News and I believe he shared the same excitement that Lannert expressed about the success of the song by a Latin artist in the American mainstream. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say that this section could use a thorough trimming and maybe even a complete removal in favor of a one-sentence summary, as it's one of the more developed ones in the article, but lends little in the way of understand about the actual song. Having said that, I've never written or significantly contributed to a music article, so maybe this is standard practice. If so, please disregard.


With the exception of some jarring list-like paragraphs, this is an excellent article that needs a little more polishing. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: I believe I have Fixed all issues you have raised. Thank you for reviewing this article! Best, jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 March 2015, 01:14 UTC)----

Everyday life[edit]

Highland cattle[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback as to how it could get up to FA.

Thanks, TheMagikCow (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 May 2015, 15:15 UTC)----

The Boat Races 2015[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how it would swing at WP:FAC. It was made a WP:GA pretty soon after the race itself and I've tried to keep it up to snuff following it's quick trip to WP:ITN. As always, my unending gratitutde is extended to anyone prepared to take the time to have a look.

Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 23 April 2015, 08:51 UTC)----

Panta bhat[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe, with a little push it can become a GA alright. Face-smile.svg Thanks, Aditya(talkcontribs) 17:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MJ94[edit]

  • In the lede, I suggest rewriting the last sentence. Based on what you have already wrote, the reader already knows that panta bhat is a dish of rice, so it is not necessary to refer to it as a dish of leftover rice. Also, if you were to keep it as it currently reads, the comma after "spoiling" is not needed unless there was also a comma after "rice."
  • The Etymology section, while interesting, needs to be rewritten a bit. When I read it aloud, I was a bit confused about what jalao chasani is. Is this a phrase that can be linked to another article? The same goes for "sweetmeats". Also in the Etymology section, can you please define what "Both" refers to? Which names? "And" should not start a sentence; since what comes after the "and" is related to the previous sentence, consider connecting the thoughts in one sentence.
  • In the History section, "in the Mughal Era" could be "During the Mughal Era". "Circa 17th century" is not needed.
  • Your Preparation section looks very nice content-wise. It would probably be a good idea to check punctuation and grammar in this section as I have noticed several instances of improper comma usage.
  • In Health effects, "According to a study" is not needed. However, the study should be cited at the end of the claim.

@Aditya Kabir: I hope these comments have helped you. Overall, be careful of grammar and punctuation. I would also like to point out that your references look very nice. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please post them here or at my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as I am able. MJ94 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

All done. Aditya(talkcontribs) 20:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 19 April 2015, 17:30 UTC)----

Fire Emblem Awakening[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm hoping to take this to FA status, and need input on how to improve and tweak the article so it can meet those criteria.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SnowFire[edit]

Nice work. Comments on the article as I go through it:

The gameplay, like previous Fire Emblem games, focuses on tactical movement of characters across a battlefield engaging enemy units, along with the ability to strengthen characters through relationships. Features new to the series include adjustable difficulty levels, a mode that disables the permanent death of characters, and multiple camera perspectives in battle.

This reads awkwardly. "Engaging" is rather indirect; why not "fighting" or some other synonym? Engaging enemy units + strengthening characters through relationships are kind of an awkward pair. Also to be a nitpicker that sounds vaguely like it's *actually* making the character's muscles grow, rather than being some kind of vague "synergy" bonus. Adjustable difficulty levels isn't new to the series, and Casual mode was introduced in New Mystery of the Emblem, as noted in the Gameplay section. More generally, I'm not sure a split of "new features vs. old features" really makes sense here. I'd just list key features naturally and not tie them together awkwardly. Maybe:

The gameplay, like previous Fire Emblem games, focuses on tactical movement of characters across a battlefield fighting enemy units. Other features include the ability to build relationships between the characters, adjustable difficulty levels, a mode that disables the permanent death of characters, multiple camera perspectives in battle, and {"good graphics"}.

Dunno how to phrase the graphics part, "camera perspectives" seems a really lame feature to mention in the lede, but it's hard to express "better graphics than GBA / Nintendo DS Fire Emblem games, although not necessarily better graphics than other 3DS games or Fire Emblem GC/Wii."

"private army."

Personal army perhaps? He is a government official and people might wrongly interpret this as public vs. private.

carried over from the Nintendo DS remake of Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem

"carried over from the Nintendo DS game Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem" perhaps?


Do the sources capitalize p/Permadeath or not? It isn't a phrase used very often in-game (if at all). Also expect criticism for using jargon at FAC, so definitely back this with sources if you can and want to keep it.

they can travel across a world map featuring pre-set pathways between battles

Well they're locations where battles occur, more specifically, and why care about the "pathways"? And you can buy armor at Awakening's merchants?! News to me, unless you meant Dracoshields. Maybe:

"they can travel across a world map both to new locations and revisit old locations. The time of day on the world map is synced to the player's time zone and time of day. New locations can contain main story missions as well as side stories where new characters can be recruited. Previously visited locations have shops where the player can acquire new weapons. They also can contain random enemy skirmishes with the Risen. Between missions..."

though some characters are set

Is this really needed?

Character movement is dictated by a tile-based movement system: blue tiles show a unit's range of movement, and red tiles show attack range

The blue tiles are merely a UI thing, not the cause. And is this color-coding discussion really necessary anyway? "Characters have a movement range affected by their class; for example, flying pegasus knights can cross water tiles. The game's interface displays the potential movement and attack range for each character by hovering over them," perhaps. I know that classes haven't been introduced yet, but oh well, maybe rearrange a bit.

The player can choose to give rough commands to their units, then initiate an auto-battle mode.

Cut this and move it somewhere else and keep it shorter. "There exists an auto-battle option for fights the player finds easy" or the like.

Depending on the strength of the relationship between characters, the actions can range in strength and effectiveness

It's less random than this is implying: higher ranking supports are unequivocally good. "As the relationship between characters strengthens, they gain greater bonuses to their strength and effectiveness when paired up in battle." And for that matter, "pair up" doesn't appear anywhere here! As far as key innovations in the gameplay go, this is pretty high up there. I might want to add a sentence somewhere describing that in more detail.

Two new skills are also learned by each character.

Giving a count is going to be misleading without a lot of verbiage I don't think you want to spend. I guess this means "2 skills pre-promotion" but that isn't communicated very clearly. "Characters learn new special skills as they level up based on their class; they can set 5 skills at maximum." Still misleading since you'll only have 4 skills for the normal endgame, but not inaccurate at least.

The Avatar's starting class is the Tactician, but they can change to any other class later in the game.

Totally optional idea: I see you're using the singular they, which is fine, but the Avatar just might merit a reasonable "he or she" when referred to. It soft emphasizes that rather than being unknown gender, the Avatar has a picked gender.

A Master Seal upgrades the character's class, changing character stats and giving access to a new move set

improving character stats, perhaps? (Yes I know that they can go down a little in weird edge cases like movement for Troubadour -> War Cleric, but it's pretty uncontroversial it should be an overall improvement.)

Even if the change is reverted, characters can still retain skills

Huh? Maybe just "Characters retain learned skills from earlier classes."

Relationships between characters, which play an important role in battle

No need for "which play an important role in battle," just describe the effects in more detail later if you want.

Relationships also have a direct impact during battles, with certain character pairings granting unique boons

So yeah, here's where you should talk about it more. As noted above, don't beat around the bush: they have a *positive* effect. Not sure what you mean by "certain character pairings granting unique boons" though. Support bonuses are the same for everyone to my knowledge, at least ignoring specific skills like Dual Strike+/Dual Guard+. "Relationships make paired characters stronger in battle, allowing extra attacks from the paired character and occasional negation of enemy damage" perhaps?

Which child is born with what abilities depends upon the mother.

The child depends on the mother, but the abilities depend on both. And the mom thing isn't super-relevant anyway. Maybe "Children inherit skills from their parents?"

While there are some limitations of which units can pair, the Avatar can pair with any unit from any generation as long as they are not a direct descendant.

This is conflating two things: pairing up and having a support relationship, and while explaining the difference in detail in the article probably isn't worth it, we should still be accurate. Everyone can pair up with everyone, but support relationships are restricted. And the Avatar thing is more specifically *romantic* supports, and that's barely a footnote ("sorry, you can't marry your child, since by definition you must already be married."), they can have supports with direct descendnets just fine and in fact get a free C support. Maybe: "Most characters have a specific list of units which they can have Support conversations with; the Avatar can build a relationship with all characters."

Plot section

Hey, wait a second. Marth fought *Medeus* an Earth Dragon, not Grima. Hmm, not generally too happy with the focus here, but maybe a closer look later. Personal preference, but I'd think the history from ~20 years ago would be more relevant than the largely irrelevant history from 1000 years ago: more about Ylisse fighting a war against Plegia semi-recently, less about Naga. It suffices that it's the same land and world as Marth.

"The plot is foiled with aid from "Marth", whose disguise is shattered, revealing they are a woman"

"she", drive the minor little twist in.

Design section

Not sure if there are actually sources for this, but Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem has a very huge influence on the game, with a lot of features being ported over. It is of course Japan-only so I can see getting reliable sources being difficult here, but maybe a tad bit of implication might help, e.g. "the game shares various innovations from FE12, like casual mode, random power-ups at the Barracks, a bland player stand-in although at least Awakening's Avatar has a plot as opposed to FE12's generic Mary Sue..." ahem. Maybe leave that last part out.

Reception section: "lack of an in-game reload option"

Uh... on one hand, we want to reflect the sources accurately, but we don't want to make them look like idiots. There basically is an in-game reload option: soft reset, push start. It takes like 3 seconds to get to the load screen any time you want. Can we find better criticism than this? To the unfamiliar it might imply the game actually lacks it, and to the familiar it just makes the reviewer look bad as if the article wants to discredit any criticism.

trading card game was released. A set themed after Awakening includes a code to download Lucina as a playable character.

"electronic trading card game" I assume? Pretty hard to download cardboard cards, which is what I'd think of by default if I heard "trading card game." SnowFire (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

SnowFire, thanks for the comments and I've addressed them in general apart from a few exceptions. Lead has been done. I was aiming for an impartial approach to the article, which is why I have used 'they' and such. I think all the major gameplay things are addressed and the others have been tweaked, and I even managed to incorporate character class-based movement and attack styles into the character class section. I've done some tweaking to the plot, but it's generally not my fault it's the way it is. I needed to get the lore out of the way quickly, and frankly (warning: personal opinion) during the second half of the game... the story is crap. I think it needs its own little section for tweaking and suggestions if it is to be pursued further. The development section is really all I have that's noteworthy, and there's no one strong influence cited. Reception section thing has been rectified. As for the trading card game, it's physical and includes the code as a physical thing that you enter into a website, I presume. THe article's not very clear on it, but then If hasn't been released yet. Thanks for this. It's been really useful. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 18 April 2015, 16:00 UTC)----

Final Fantasy Type-0[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... this article is on my list of articles to bring to GA and FA status. I've been working on it for some time, and would appreciate opinions on how it can be further improved. There are obviously gaps in the game's sales data as it has not been released that long. The things it would be nice for reviewers to focus on are grammar stuff, as I've taken great pains to properly cite information, fill out references properly, be consistent with dating and archive links. Of course, if you find any gaps in these, please point them out. You could also offer up suggestion on the structure of the article if some sections seem to large or small.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing some light, as-I-see-it copy editing; later I will be printing it out for a closer look and the deeper review you want. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 April 2015, 21:34 UTC)----

Engineering and technology[edit]

List of Link Light Rail stations[edit]

I've written this list in the style of previous rapid transit station lists that have been featured, though they were promoted with standards from a few years ago. I believe that this list is close to being worthy of being featured, but there's a few issues (redlinks to future and deferred/unbuilt stations that were not given official names, a suitable map) that need to be resolved and I'd like to get a headstart on whatever overhauls I might need. SounderBruce 01:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MJ94[edit]

  • Link Light Rail should be bolded.
    •  Done
  • "Central Link, unconnected from the existing Tacoma Link line, opened from Seattle to Tukwila on July 18, 2009; an extension to the Seattle–Tacoma International Airport was opened on December 19, 2009." I would get rid of the semicolon and add a word to connect the thoughts as you see fit.
    •  Done
  • "All stations include works of public art as part of the STart Program, which requires one percent of station construction funds go to art installations." Is the capitalization of "STart" correct?
    • Yes, the name of the program is "STart". I've tried to remove confusion by
  • As you mentioned, the redlinks need some attention.
    • Once the names for the stations are adopted by the transit board (which is expected sometime this year), the station stubs will be created.
  • I really like the pictures you added as well. They are a nice addition.
    • Don't get too attached, since they're only placeholders with randomly-selected stations. I plan on taking my DSLR down to each station and just spend a sunny day photographing them one-by-one.
  • Otherwise, everything looks pretty good!

It might be worth your time to check out Wikipedia:Featured Lists just to see what some high-quality lists look like. I definitely think yours is headed in a positive direction. You may want to check out MOS:ACCESS and make sure your tables meet the guidelines described there. Let me know if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns. MJ94 (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll look into making sure my tables are accessible. SounderBruce 00:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 25 April 2015, 01:18 UTC)----


God of War (series)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like opinions on the article's current state and what can be done to improve the article so that it can eventually be taken through FAC. I've recently reorganized the lead and added a Development section.

Thanks, JDC808 17:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

I'll do a review of this. Be back in a day or two at the latest. If not, please remind me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay, thanks. --JDC808 21:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Right JDC808, generally a good-quality article, just a few things about the references/external links/formatting that need mentioning.

  1. In the lead, and through the article in general, it would probably be wise to refer to the prequel and spin-offs by their subtitles (Ghost of Sparta, Betrayal) rather than using their full titles (excepting initial links, of course). The numeric entries can use their full titles as the numerals on their own make reading difficult for some.
  2. This is an optional suggestion, but I was thinking maybe switch the "Games" and "Gameplay" sections around. As a newcomer, I find it a little odd being plunged into the gameplay when I don't even know much about the games themselves. Most other game series articles I've seen seem to put games first, gameplay second. As said, this is optional, and more a matter of style choices.
  3. Also optional, but that screenshot of gamplay in God of War (not Betrayal, I must note) looks strange to me as I know the game uses a 4:3 screen ratio and it looks like something from a mobile game. Either clarify that it's cropped/similar, or replace it with another image that shows similar content but stays true to the chosen game's screen ratio. On a side-note, the combo/QTE section seems out of place. Maybe it should be closer to paragraphs involving combat.
  4. Refs 21, 24, 60, 91, 117, 118, 119, 120 and 130 need their urls updating.
  5. I saw a use of Amazon for Ref 99. That would like raise questions at FAC. That I would certainly question. Maybe Game-OST would be a descent substitute, as that is an official music documentation site that holds information about both physical and digital albums.
  6. External links generally need looking through and updating as most are either redirecting or have been permanently moved.

That's what I found on a first look-through. I may come back for a second, but these should tide you over in the meantime. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 30 April 2015, 17:12 UTC)----

MediEvil (video game)[edit]

I'm seriously contemplating submitting this to FAC in the future, any advice considering the prose/organization of the article would be greatly appreciated. Luckily I have a few extra sources for this.

Thanks, JAGUAR  17:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 April 2015, 17:57 UTC)----

2013–14 Bengaluru FC season[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article is upto the mark with good football season pages of other clubs.

Thanks, Coderzombie (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 April 2015, 16:08 UTC)----

Lithuania men's national basketball team[edit]

I have listed this article for peer review because I have been improving it for a really long period of time and I believe that it reached higher level than just a B-class article. My main goal was to make it a Featured Article. I have covered all the major events the team has participated in, described the most notable players and added many extras (like flags, song, etc). The article has a complete team's statistics with all its records as well. I believe it could be worth being a FA since there really is no further things to be added to the article, unless the upcoming new competitions in the future (which I'm planning to describe from time to time as well). Please share your thoughts what else should be improved in it before nominating it for a FA. I know that the references list currently is a huge mess and I'm planning to fix it soon, so skip this part.

Thanks, Pofka (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I have to thank you for the work about Lithuania. The Article is excellent and I am asking why it was not proposed as GA. The article is extremely well done and it involves clear parts about Lithuanian Basketball History. However, I think that some ameliorations should be done soon.

  • Coaches: Even an average work about Basketball Teams involves a full list of main coaches. However, you made only a list of important ones. This should be reviewed.
  • Records: The Work does only involve some excellent detailed lists of records of the team: Best series of win, The player who scored the most in his international career, the player who had played in the youngest age ever... This can give an overview about the different performances of Lithuanian team in the different parts of its History.
  • Ranking: FIBA Ranking is not included in this work.
  • Awards: The Article does not cite whether the Team had received governmental and institutional awards for winning international competitions.
  • Fans: You did not write anything about Fans. You should cite their songs and their customs.
  • Stadium: The Stadiums in which the Lithuanian Team played in its working History should be included in the work. You can even include about some facts that happened when playing in these international stadiums.
  • Wear: You should expand the part about the wears of the Lithuanian Team. You can even include older wears.
  • Video games: You should expand this part about Lituanian Team in NBA Live and involve some important references. You can also include the players represented in the video games.
  • Cups: You should include some photos about how Lithuanian Players had received the FIBA Eurobasket
  • Sponsors: You should include some photos about Sponsors. You have also to include some facts about how they sponsor Lithuanian Team, how the Lithuanian Players do some ads to these important sponsons and how their names are featured in the wear of the Lithuanian Players.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


@Csisc: Thanks a lot for a such quick review! You provided some really interesting points for expanding!
  • Coaches. Actually it already has a complete list of coaches here with their achievements mentioned. Already done
  • Symbol question.svg Question: Records. This was a bit confusing. What did you meant by that? The list of the longest team's winning streaks? It could be done, but the national team's competitions have so few games that these streaks would be so short and also the team almost always suffered some defeats in the knockout stages, which quickly ended these streaks. The longest streak would be probably be from the EuroBasket 2003 when they won all 6 games. Though, the following competition (Athens 2004) games could be continued so it would reach bigger numbers. Although, in the other years the streaks would be <5 games, so I'm not sure if this really would be interesting. Most points scored players can be found here (7th column). Not sure if the youngest players list could be really that useful since they mostly had a very few influence in the game these years. Though, if that's really required - it could be easily done. yellow tickY Partly done
  • Symbol question.svg Question: Ranking. I was thinking about this thing as well. Though, I'm unable to find any information about the ranking history. FIBA doesn't provide it in its page (or I'm unable to find it), so do all my known sources. Google/Wikipedia doesn't tell it either. It would be easy to do if I would get that information somehow. Wikipedia FIBA World Rankings history page has it only since 2007. Incomplete list probably would not work because the ranking was began to be calculated in 2000. Situation without solution...
  • Awards. It has the government awards lists, but they would be too huge to include in the main page. They can be found at the "Main article" pages: FIBA World Championship 2010, EuroBasket 2013. Already done
  • Fans. It would be difficult to write something informative about it because it can be described in just a few sentences. First of all, they obviously wear the yellow-green-red clothes, often flies these flags (which I already provided in the article). The variety of chants is not so common among this team's fans. Mostly they just shout "LIE-TU-VA" (Lithuania in the native language). Sometimes they also sing the popular Lithuanian song "Ant kalno mūrai" short part together ( The crowd always sings the Lithuanian anthem before every national team's game loudly together (other countries fans does it as well, so that's not very unique). And there is a lot of them in every competition Lithuania participates in. I don't really think there really is anything more to tell about them. I think most of this information is obvious and doesn't really requires the individual section. Yes check.svg Done (remade one of the sections).
  • Stadium. The Lithuania national basketball team does not have its own stadium/arena. Every year they just play friendly games in all the major Lithuanian arenas before championships. Invalid
  • Symbol question.svg Question: Wear. It is really similar every year. Dark ones: green with yellow sides and white ones with green/yellow sides. It doesn't really change much like that. Though, I might try to do something about this, but I need more information about creating these jerseys. They are not simply uploaded like pictures to the Wikipedia, but they are similar to templates. Could you provide more information about how they are done?
  • Video games. I doubt anything more could be told about it. The team's rosters are the same as the national team and there hardly are any significant/interesting references. Not sure.
  • Symbol question.svg Question: Cups. I would gladly do that, but there is no free pictures available anywhere. Would the use of the copyrighted ones qualify as fair use for such purpose? I failed to receive any answers about it from any moderators of that type files as they all simply ignored me. Yes check.svg Done (added the non-free historic images into the empty sections).
  • Sponsors. Good idea. I will probably add the list of the general sponsors as their logos are printed on the team's jersey every year (under the text LIETUVA). Yes check.svg Done

Thanks again for the review,

-- Pofka (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Pofka,
I think that you have adjusted some facts. However, some changes should be done soon.
Records: If you want it, you can add a table of the records in which you write the name of the best player for each category. It can be useful for people who do not want to see all records.
Ranking: Involve the current ranking.
Wear: In the part dealing with wear, you should add something describing it.
Sponsors: you should expand this important part and include some other information like how the sponsors decided to support the Lithuanian Team and how it was announced to the media
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


@Csisc:Thanks for more suggestions.
  • Records. I am not sure if this would be really necessary because the records section doesn't really is very complex and it is possible to find everything you want easily. Addition of another table would duplicate some data. Invalid
  • Ranking. Done what I could by creating a new section. Older data is not accessible anywhere. Yes check.svg Done
  • Wear. Done by greatly expanding one of the older sections ("Kit supplier"). Yes check.svg Done
  • Sponsors. Created a completely new section ("General sponsors") and provided all data I was able to find about this topic. Yes check.svg Done
Thanks again,
Pofka (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 April 2015, 15:59 UTC)----

Geography and places[edit]

Lake Parime[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • Article covers an unusual topic in the history of cartography and the exploration of South America
  • Article is carefully researched, bringing together history, cartography, geology, geography, mythology and treasure-hunting

I am interested to know if the article is coherent, interesting, sufficiently referenced and sufficiently illustrated. Also if citation style is acceptable.

Thanks, Cmacauley (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 21 April 2015, 17:26 UTC)----

Fjäll cattle[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would really like to get this article up to GA status. I would like somebody to give direction and how it could be improved as I am having trouble finding sources and things to put in.

Thanks, TheMagikCow (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Hi TheMagikCow- I'm happy to offer a review. In terms of sources, I think you need to focus more on scholarly journals/books, and less on webpages.

  • First, the sources you cite: The university web page may have been OK, but I note that the page seems to be no longer there. Norden's Ark may be OK for some uncontroversial information, but, especially if you're aiming for GAC, it may be better to replace it with a stronger source. The cheese maker has an obvious agenda, and probably is not a good source. It would also be useful to format the sources a little better: Template:Cite web may be useful for this.
  • In terms of sources you may want to cite...
    • This article has the breed in the title, but I don't have access to CAB Direct.
    • From doi:10.1080/01426399508706468, p. 142: "The Vikings introduced Fjall cattle to Britain whose descendents, British White Cattle, are found in areas occupied by the Viking invaders, such as East Anglia. These successive invasions forced indigenous Britons to retreat to highland areas with their own breeds of domesticated cattle (Friend and Bishop, 1978). This may seem far removed from contemporary landscapes but today's Welsh Black, West Highland and Kerry cattle are descended from these breeds and are largely confined to the Celtic fringes of the British Isles."
    • There are other hits on Google Scholar, but they look pretty technical.
    • Don't forget to search for the alternative name. That said, this paper suggests that another (extinct) breed goes by that name. Either way, lots of hits on Google Scholar.
    • There's an open access paper here which may well be relevant
    • In terms of further sources... I think you are going to need to seek out hardcopy books on cattle breeds (there'll probably be plenty in any university library where agricultural sciences is taught) and maybe also look for sources not in English. As this is both obscure and not really an Anglophone topic, you may not be able to get far on English-language sources alone.
  • You may want to use Template:Infobox cattle breed
  • It is not clear from the article whether this is a breed exploited for milk, flesh or something else (we also have categories for this). Surely, this is central information about a breed- what kind of environment? How are individuals used?
  • Large Black pig is perhaps an example of what a good breed article would look like.

Hope this is helpful. Sorry I can't be of much more help. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MJ94[edit]

  • I'm not sure the comma is needed after "cattle".
  • "The breed was first recognised in the late 19th century but has history back to at least the viking age." Since you just referred to it as a breed in the last sentence, consider using a different title, such as "Fjäll cattle". When, specifically? I would not describe it as "the Viking" age, but if you do, capitalize "Viking".
  • In the third sentence, you say "the breed" again. Consider changing this.
  • 1000 → 1,000.
  • "The breed has been around since pre-Viking times." Refer to them as "Fjäll cattle" here; also, when specifically is "pre-Viking" times?
  • "They were introduced to Britain when the Vikings came and descended into the British White breed..." The Vikings descended?
  • Viking should always be capitalized.
  • "Here, they were described as being 'small, hornless, white or whitish grey, often with dark spots." Where is here and by whom were they described as such?
  • "The cattle were first officially recognised in 1893." By whom?
  • "At this time the average milk production per year was between 1200 and 1400 kilograms and also weighed 300-350 kilograms." Comma after "time", commas in the numbers, and a source is needed here.
  • 1970-80 → 1970–1980.
  • "In 1970-80 the breed was nearly driven to extinctinction due to extensive cross breeding." The word "breeding" is overused.
  • "The appearance can vary from being totally white to totally black or red. They are often kept in mountainous areas in Sweden, for dairy produce because of their ability to survive on infertile soil and survive the cold winter." The appearance of what? What is "they"? Please copy edit this sentence for grammar and punctuation.
  • This section frequently begins sentences with "they". Consider changing this up a bit.

Overall, the article has a nice start; however, it is in need of a major copy edit. In addition, bare URLs should not be used in the References section. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. MJ94 (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 April 2015, 13:18 UTC)----


Romney Academy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it to Good Article status and write similar articles about other academies existing during the same era as Romney Academy. Any guidance or suggested edits would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, -- West Virginian (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 May 2015, 06:41 UTC)----

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Hi, this article has been completely overhauled in the last few months. Requesting feedback before taking the article to GA review. All comments welcome. Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Hi Enigma, good to see you. I have a few copyediting comments.
  • "The 70th Infantry Division was an infantry division of the British Army, which fought during": See WP:REDUNDANCY, part of LEAD. I recommend: "The 70th Infantry Division of the British Army fought during"
  • "It was formed on 10 October 1941, via the renaming": I think "formed" is going to suggest to many readers that something happened other than changing names; even for those who get "via the renaming", there's a garden path here. This suggests that we're talking about a renaming: "On 10 October, for security reasons and in an attempt to confuse Axis intelligence when the division was fully redeployed, the 6th Infantry Division was renamed the 70th Infantry Division".
  • "would continue post-war": would continue after the war
  • " the Australians inducted their British reliefs on life in the fortress.": "reliefs" seems jargony to me, and isn't listed at for instance Cambridge Dictionaries. "inducted ... on" is a rare usage.
  • "Besieged, life was uncomfortable": Some say that "Besieged, their life was uncomfortable" doesn't fix the dangling modifier, because it's not "their" that's besieged", it's "they", but I side with those who say it does fix it, with a minimum of fuss. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 1 May 2015, 23:33 UTC)----

Burning of Parliament[edit]

On 16 October 1834 the ancient Palace of Westminster, the medieval royal palace used as the home of the British parliament was destroyed by fire – a result of a cock up of monumental proportions. Still, it resulted in the magnificent replacement provided by Barry and Pugin, now a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

This article has undergone a recent re-write, with FAC the planned next step, if reviewers agree. – SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • "The Palace of Westminster, the medieval royal palace used as the home of the British parliament was destroyed by fire of 16 October 1834." -- Are we missing a comma after "parliament"?
  • "The blaze was caused by the burning of small wooden tally sticks which had been used..." -- "...which were used"?
  • "The sticks were destroyed in a careless manner..." Is there a careful way to destroy something then? Do you mean "disposed of"?
  • "The Palace of Westminster began..." -- The construction can begin, is that what you meant?
  • "Successive kings added to the area: Edward the Confessor built Westminster Abbey; William the Conqueror began building a new palace; his son, William Rufus, continued, including Westminster Hall, which was started in 1097" -- This sentence tails off at the end and doesn't really make sense. Rufus continued with what? Building a new palace like his father? From "including" onwards there seems to be a few missing words causing some confusion too.
  • "By 1245 the King's throne was present in the palace, signifying that the building was the centre of English royal administration" -- By 1245 the King's throne was present in the palace, which signified that the building was at the centre of English royal administration"?
  • "In 1295 Westminster was used as the venue for the Model Parliament, the first English representative assembly, called by Edward I; he called..." -- called/called repetition.
  • "...began to meet separately, and by 1377 the two bodies were entirely separate." -- Separately/separate
  • "St. Stephen's Chapel remained largely unchanged until 1692 when Sir Christopher Wren, at the time the Master of the King's Works, was instructed" who?
  • " This was followed by an 1878 report from fourteen architects warning against the possibility of fire in the palace; signatories included John Soane and Robert Adam.[13] Sloane again warned of the dangers in an 1828 report" -- 1828 report/1828 report -- CassiantoTalk 03:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • All done as requested. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
16 October 1834
  • "The glow from the burning, and the news spreading quickly round London, ensured a large crowd turned up to watch events." -- "The glow from the burning, and the news spreading quickly round London, ensured that a large crowd turned up to watch events."?
  • "Among them, The Times reported,"-- Did the actual paper turn up, or a reporter from? I would say: "Among them was a reporter for The Times who noticed that there were "vast gangs of the light-fingered gentry in attendance..."
  • "Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher, was one of those present that night, and he later recalled that" -- Should this have a colon at the end? We are also missing an opening quote mark.
  • "who oversaw the upkeep of royal palaces, including the Palace of Westminster." -- palace/palaces. Maybe swap "palaces" for buildings? I should imagine that the royals don't own anything smaller than a palace.
  • "By 9:00 pm three Guards regiments arrived on the scene. Although they assisted in crowd control, the move was in part a reaction of the authorities to their fears of a possible insurrection" -- Not quite understanding the latter half of this sentence from "the move" onwards.
  • Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which amended..." -- Amendment/amended
  • "Westminster Hall was regarded as safe..." -- by who?
  • "...and had gone by around 3:00 am, by which time the fire near the Hall was nearly gone," -- Two birds with one stone here: gone/gone repetition, but if you loose the last "gone" and replace it with extinguished we've solved it entirely (it sounds a lot better to boot!)
  • Ah...that is until I saw the second "extinguished".
  • "its robing rooms and committee rooms" -- rooms/rooms
  • " the Law Courts, were damaged and in need of restoration. -- Is "in need of restoration" a little redundant?
  • Possibly, but I wanted to clarify that these were salvageable, rather than being another part lost entirely. – SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The British standard measurements, the standard yard and standard pound" -- standard/standard/standard
  • "the measurements had been created in 1496 by Edward I" -- Relevant? CassiantoTalk 08:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it gives an indication as to the historical - let alone practical - value of their loss. I've trimmed it back to just the date tho. - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

All done, bar the two commented on. This is all excellent stuff, as usual, and I'm looking forward to the next batch. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • "...committee, who met in private, heard numerous possibilities of the cause of the fire" -- " to the cause of the fire"?
  • "The committee thought it unlikely that Cross and Furlong had been as careful in filling the furnaces as they claimed," -- " they had claimed"?
  • "which was entry 64, identified by a portcullis—the entry of the..." -- entry/entry. CassiantoTalk 12:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
New Palace of Westminster
  • "After it was built the water was pumped out and the land allowed to dry" -- "After it was built the water was pumped out and the land was allowed to dry"?
  • "... it has proved to be problematic" -- "has" is redundant here.
  • "Barry's wife laid the foundation stone on 27 April 1840, in a building that consisted of 11 courtyards with accommodation for 200 people, with 1,180 rooms, 126 staircases, 2 miles of corridors, 15 miles of stem pipes with 1,200 stop cocks." -- Two "with"'s sounds kind of odd.
  • " In 1852 the Commons was finished and both Houses sat in their new chambers for the first time, and Queen Victoria first used the newly completed Royal Entrance." -- Ouch! The double conjunction really doesn't work here.
  • "The fire became "single most depicted event in nineteenth-century London ... attracting to the scene a host of engravers, watercolourists and painters"." -- "The fire became the "single most depicted event in nineteenth-century London ... attracting to the scene a host of engravers, watercolourists and painters"?
  • "UNESCO describe the site as being "of great historic and symbolic significance", in part because the it is.." -- oops!
  • "The decision to use the Gothic design for the palace set the national style, even for secular buildings, which also "drew attention to the close bond between Church and State at Westminster". -- Who said this?

Everything else looks fine and was a joy to read. As with Tim, I'm not too bothered about the title change and quite like the current one; It's far better than the alternative ones offered below. Please let me know when this gets elected (sorry) to FAC. CassiantoTalk 23:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent stuff: many thanks for your thoughts and efforts - it looks much tighter now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Wasn't going to - feel free to nom it yourself - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unknown on the source. I'll drop a line on the uploaders Commons page (thankfully they are still active), but I have a plan B for FAC of this, or a similarish one from the DNB. I'd prefer the more contemporary version in his uniform, if possible tho. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492 I,presume this means that it's probably not PD? (Or if it is, there is insufficient information to use it as such?) – SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Crisco. I've covered them all except one, which I'm chasing the uploader for further details. Cheers, as always - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Prose comments

  • a publicly run Brigade - why the capital B?
  • to get a good view, and many took to the river in whatever craft they could find or hire to get a better view - view / view
  • What caused those casualties?
  • 34 of the competitors - shouldn't start sentences with numerals
  • The Westminster site covered eight acres, and the palace site partly consisted of unstable, marshy ground. - site / site
  • 2 miles of corridors, 15 miles - worth including the metric? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Driveby comment from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I'd be happy to change the title (the least satisfactory part of the article, I think), as only a few of the sources refer to the event as such. Part of the problem here is that there is no single, common name which can be applied to cover the event. I know that this article was created in 2003 under this name, but it very quickly became a list of other parliaments that had burnt down, before being dragged back to this subject.
Do you have any suggestions for a possible new name, or new format for a title? - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize there were so many burnings of parliaments, otherwise I'd've suggested Burning of the Parliament Buildings in London or something. How about Burning of British Parliament, 1834? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
There's a few listed in one of the older versions of the page (I had no idea either!) The current title focusses on Parliament, but the law courts were also destroyed and it was still a royal palace, so we could go for something more precise - 1834 fire of the Palace of Wetminster or Palace of Westminster fire, 1834? - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you think readers would most likely search for? Or what format do you think would be easiest to link to? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
...or, "The Biggest Explosion in Parliment; until 2002, when John Prescott had the Brussel Sprout Curry option from the Commons canteen"? CassiantoTalk 12:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea CT! It looks like Cassianto and Tim Riley thinks the current title is suitable, so we may as well leave it in place unless others raise objections. – SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't think of a better title. When I used to work for a living as Librarian to the Crown Estate I found deciding the key words for titles and indexing among the hardest parts of my daily tasks. One looked for the most reader-friendly terms, but so far as this article is concerned Mr A would look for Fire, Mrs B for Parliament, Miss C for Burning, Sir D for Palace of Westminster and so on. I think when there is no obvious key word, as here, it's probably best to go for the plainest title, which we have here. Tim riley talk 22:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the issue wasn't finding a "better title", though, but disambiguating it from another one. The Montreal one was the only "Burning of Parliament" I knew about until finding out about this article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The only other title I can think of is "Palace of Westminster Fire" which, it has to be said, still comes as a less preferred title to the current one. Is there anyway the Montreal article can be disambiguated away from this one? CassiantoTalk 23:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is by having Montreal in the title, but that doesn't help when someone looking for it comes across an article called "Burning of Parliament". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I suppose you could differentiate it to the other article by adding "in London" to the existing title? Failing that, my offering above causes no confusion whatsoever as there is only one Palace of Westminster. CassiantoTalk 01:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd be satisfied with anything the Brits thought appropriate, but another thought crossed my mind—the Canadian article uses "Parliament Buildings", likely out of consciousness of a difference between "Parliament" the institution that of the building(s). Perhaps that's an argument in favour of "Palace of Westminster"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Though in that case we'd probably want a "Burning of Parliament" dab page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim[edit]

First lot – more to come:

  • Lead
    • "competition established" – you have inadvertently omitted "catastrophically" or "lamentably" between the words. Today's front page boy User:KJP1 will be able to provide the necessary adjective (and may have wise things to add about the rest of the article, too.)
  • Background
    • "The Palace of Westminster began to be constructed" – a bit jagged. Perhaps "The Palace of Westminster originally dates from…" or some such?
    • "Cnut the Great" – our WP article admits that he is better known as Canute, and I think you should consider piping accordingly.
    • "Westminster was used as the venue" – just "was the venue"?
    • "the machinations needed to implement change" – not at all keen on "machinations", which I take to mean plotting and conniving, rather than bureaucratic bumbling
  • 16 October 1834
    • "Black Rod's box alight" – I believe you've worded it thus to provoke ribald comment from Sarastro, Brian and other cricketers.
    • "The glow from the burning, and the news spreading quickly round London, ensured that a large crowd turned up to watch events" – you've told us before that there was a large crowd. At this point in the text I think you'd be wise to say that crowds continued to turn up, in increasing numbers, or something like that
    • "Lord Broughton, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests" – As the former Librarian to that organisation I hardly know where to start with this but here we go: (i) he obviously wasn't the Commissioners plural, (ii) he was the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, (iii) he wasn't Lord Broughton at the time: he was Sir John Hobhouse until kicked upstairs in 1851. (We were still plagued by a Hobhouse in my day: all present made the sign to ward off the evil eye when she entered the building. I must stop for the moment and revive myself with drink.) More anon. – Tim riley talk 19:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • continuing:
    • "were involved in breaking down doors" – "involved" sounds slightly shady: perhaps "helped break down doors"?
    • "All of the original Acts" – in BrEng (as opposed to American) I don't think the "of" is wanted.
  • Aftermath
    • You and I have discussed capitalisation offline, but Cabinet/cabinet didn't come up. It looks a bit odd to have cabinet ministers and Cabinet meeting in the same sentence.
    • "they instructed" – "they ordered"? And I have my doubts about capital C Committee in the same sentence.
    • "read by Lord Brougham" – I think we need to be told here that Brougham was Lord Chancellor rather than any old peer
    • "With no English secular Elizabethan or Gothic buildings to use as inspiration" – eh? There were and are quite a few English secular Elizabethan or Gothic buildings. Do you mean "Uninspired by any English secular Elizabethan or Gothic buildings …"? (That would also eliminate the infelicitous repetition of "inspiration").
    • "to complete the necessary pen and ink drawings required" – either necessary or required, but not both, I think.
    • The same sentence falls at the last hurdle: he asked Pugin, who was such-and-such, but then you don't say what he asked him.
  • New Palace of Westminster
    • "a stonemasons strike" – arguably wants a possessive apostrophe
    • "Royal Entrance" – I boggle a bit at the caps for this
    • "ongoing revisions" – nothing actually wrong with "ongoing", but I think "continual" would be more pleasing
    • "finish the Victoria Tower, although Barry's death in May that year was before the building work was completed" – the "although" seems odd, as if refuting a causality that doesn't seem to be there. I'd be inclined to make this "finish the Victoria Tower; Barry died in May that year before the building work was completed" – or am I missing a point?
    • "overseen by Barry's son, Edward" – "his" rather than "Barry's", possibly?
  • Legacy
    • "The fire became single" – missing a definite article before "single", I think.
    • "initially based in Chancery Lane; the body, now based in Kew, has since been renamed as The National Archives" – feel free to tell me to take a running jump, but I'd footnote all this bit. I don't think the location of the PRO or its amalgamation into TNA is of central importance to your narrative.
    • "the cost of re-building" – hyphen wanted?
    • "Westminster Palace" – the Palace of Westminster is the only proper term, in my view
    • "said that the building is in need of extensive repairs" – as you're using indirect speech "is in need" should be "was in need"

That's my lot. I prodigiously enjoyed this article. I'll watch with interest to see how you finally decide on the best title, and I wish I could offer a helpful suggestion. Faute de mieux I find the present title okay, though I take the points made above. You'll alert me come FAC, natch. Tim riley talk 20:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Excellent stuff - all grist to the mill, and the article is now much improved thanks to your keen eye. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from BB[edit]

First instalment (to halfway through the fire section):

  • "The competition established the Victorian gothic style of architecture as the national norm, even for secular buildings." That strikes me as a little too assertive and perhaps overstated – the national norm?
  • That came from Pevsner (see the Legacy bit below, c. reference 100) - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but surely he meant the norm for public buildings, stately homes etc, rather than just "buildings". Not having seen the quote, though, I can't say for ertain. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Returned to the library! I'll grab it again on Tuesday and clarify the situation. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The full quote reads "It (the competition) established Gothic as the national style even for secular architecture and even on the largest scale and it introduced to official recognition the Elizabethan style as a debutante." I think Pevsner is indeed saying that Gothic became the national style. Pevsner's view is supported, for example, by Georg Germann, Gothic Revival in Europe and Britain: Sources, Influences and Ideas, p.68, "(Barry's designs) established Gothic Revival as the principal style of the century". Personally, I'd use Gothic Revival rather than Victorian gothic as I think the former is the more commonly understood architectural term. It is also the term used in the UNESCO report on the site. A possible rewording below.KJP1 (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
In 1836, a competition for designs for a new palace was won by Charles Barry. Barry's plans, developed in collaboration with Augustus Pugin, incorporated the surviving buildings into the new complex. The competition established Gothic Revival as the predominant national architectural style and the palace has since been categorised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, of outstanding universal value.
Many thanks, KJP. Your suggestion now incorporated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. As @Tim riley: knows, my lack of attention to detail makes me a poor peer reviewer but very pleased to assist. Incidentally, some of us could usefully reflect on why the committee determined that the style for rebuilding should be Gothic: "The peculiar charm of Gothic architecture is in its associations; these are delightful because they are historical, patriotic, local and intimately blended with early reminiscences." KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it was an odd decision to make, especially given Gothic is as foreign as the Italianate they were trying to avoid – and just as odd to leave the decision to a group of five amateurs! - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "classed" and "classified" in close proximity, last line.
  • "The Palace of Westminster began to be constructed..." → "Construction of the Palace of Westminster began..."
  • "added to the area" – I think I'd say "buildings" or "complex" rather than "area" which is a bit vague.
  • "which included Westminster Hall, which..." – repetition
  • "By 1332 the barons—representing the titled classes—and burgesses and citizens—representing the commons—began to meet separately" – too many confusing mdashes. I'd rather see parentheses, thus: "By 1332 the barons (representing the titled classes) and burgesses and citizens (representing the commons) began to meet separately"
  • "to slow the progress of the fire" – drop "the"
  • "In the late eighteenth century a committee of MPs reported that there would be a disaster if the palace caught fire". I think "predicted" rather than "reported", which is bland
  • Soane becomes Sloane (unless they are different people)
  • You have "usefulness of each tally" and "usefulness of the tally system" in close proximity
  • Would it be possible to indicate the dimensions of a tally stick? I see a reference to measurements in the next section, but that seems to relate to the height of piles of tallies rather than to their actual size
16 October 1834
  • I wonder if "firelighter" is the best job description?
  • That appears to be his title, rather than just a description. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "No one" is two words, no hyphen. But I'm a bit worried about the apparent editorial tone of the sentence: "What no-one appreciated on the day was that the heat from the fires had melted the copper lining of the flues and started a chimney fire." I'd reword this less dramatically, e.g. "Those tending the furnaces were unaware that the heat from the fires had melted the copper lining of the flues and started a chimney fire."
  • "Although these would have been repaired as the child exited" – I can't visualise what you mean here. How would they have been repaired?
  • "The first flames were spotted at 6:00 pm, under the door of the House of Lords, by the wife of one of the doorkeepers; she entered the chamber to see Black Rod's box alight, and flames burning the curtains and wood panels, and she cried out that "The House of Lords is on fire!" Too long, two ands, and you can't have a "that" in front of a direct quote. As we are an encyclopaedia rather than a tabloid, I'd lose the quotes and the exclamation mark.
    • Dejected to find my speculation above unfounded in re Black Rod's box. Tim riley talk 22:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "For 25 minutes the staff inside the palace panicked and tried to deal with the blaze..." – I rather doubt that they did these things simultaneously for 25 minutes. Perhaps after initially panicking they tried to deal with the blaze? Consider rewording.
  • "now highly visible" – redundant words, since you've just said the fire could be seen from Windsor

I shall return Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

As always, many thanks for your input, and I look forward to the next instalment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


16 October
  • "crowds continued to turn up in increasing numbers to watch the events" – I think "spectacle" rather than "events"
  • "By 9:00 pm three Guards regiments arrived on the scene" → "At 9:00 pm three Guards regiments arrived on the scene"
  • "as was the unrest from..." – needs to be "as were", since you follow with two examples
  • "At around 1:30 am the tide on the Thames..." – perhaps the last three words unnecesary? Where else would the tide be?
  • Is "hugely effective" sufficiently encyclopaedic? We tend to curb our enthusiasm.
  • "More malicious rumours were also reported, when the Prime Minister was anonymously sent a letter claiming it was an arson attack." This sentence has me flummoxed. First, does "more" mean "an additional amount of", or is it qualifying "malicious" and therefore meaning "nastier"? In either case, what were the earlier "malicious rumours"? Then, what does "when" mean here? Rumours were reported when the PM received an anonymous letter? Would I be right in thinking that the intended meaning is something like: "Other rumours began to circulate; the Prime Minister received an anonymous letter claiming that the fire was an arson attack"?
  • "34 of the competitors petitioned parliament at the selection of Barry" – probably "against" the selection?
New Palace of Westminster
  • Having read this section, my impression is that it is a little too detailed for an article about the burning. OK, it's relevant to know in outline terms what took the place of the old palace, but there's a rather too much information here. I would recommend using about half this much text, and making it a subsection of "Legacy". After all, the new palace is the most enduring legacy of the burning. To give you some idea of what I mean, I would reduce the first paragraph to something like this.

"In June 1838 Barry and colleagues undertook a tour of Britain to locate a supply of stone for the building, eventually choosing Magnesian Limestone from the Anston quarry of the Duke of Leeds. Work started on the building on 1 January 1839. The stone was badly quarried and handled, and with the polluted atmosphere in London it proved to be problematic, with the first signs of deterioration showing in 1849, and extensive renovations required periodically."

I believe that the subsequent paragraphs could be likewise condensed.

  • "Although Dickens deplored the cost of rebuilding parliament..." – Did he? The only previous recorded comment from Dickens related to the preservation of the obsolete tally system. I'd personally lose these words; whatever Dickens said hasn't got anything to do with the Palace of Westminster's status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. I might also slim down the various encomiums to the new building, on the same grounds as indicated above – they tend to shift the focus of the article away from the burning.
  • £3 billion? Bugger that! Large tent, couple of thousand max.

Very absorbing. I've done a few prose tweaks that you may want to check. Otherwise the article is well on its way. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, Brian. All done, bar the "New Palace" section, which will need a little more careful thought. Thanks again - all much tighter now. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Will look at this later this evening.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • "After a competition to find a new design for the palace, the plans of Charles Barry—who was aided by Augustus Pugin—incorporated the surviving buildings into the new complex." -do we know when this was? When did they decide the competition?
  • " The replacement palace has since been categorised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site " -since when?
16 Oct
  • "hugely effective" -not too keen on that, can you think of an alternative?
  • All the original Acts of Parliament from 1497 survived, as did the Lords' Journals, all of which were stored in the Jewel Tower at the time of the fire. then "In the words of Shenton, the fire was "the most momentous blaze in London between the Great Fire of 1666 and the Blitz" of the Second World War.59" -Doesn't feel quite the right place to say this. I'd either start a new paragraph and flesh it out a bit or move "In the words of Shenton, the fire was "the most momentous blaze in London between the Great Fire of 1666 and the Blitz" of the Second World War" down to the start of the Aftermath. In fact actually in reading on I'd move that part to the beginning of Legacy, would fit much better.
New Palace
  • eight acres -convert?
  • "The decision to use the Gothic design for the palace set the national style, even for secular buildings,[100] which also "drew attention to the close bond between Church and State at Westminster", according to the political and social historian Dr Roland Quinault.[101]" -this is rather awkward, the "even", "which also" and "according" jar a little, can you reword?
  • Did Dickens really write "he" -"[t]he -looks a bit odd around just the t.
  • Link for Chimney Sweeps Act?

Very little to complain about. looks in terrific shape, it's about as English a subject as you can get too, a vital article for British heritage and history, so glad to see it of such quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1[edit]

New to this, so apologies if you'd have preferred that I just actioned my minor CEs. KJP1 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

However you want to do it is fine by me - I'm always extremely grateful to hear people's opinions at PR however they want to give them! - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1295 Westminster was the venue for the Model Parliament, the first English representative assembly, summoned by Edward I; during his reign he called sixteen parliaments, which sat either in the Painted Chamber or the White Chamber." Missing words?
  • "The result was something that one visitor to the chamber called "dark, gloomy, and badly ventilated, and so small ... when an important debate occurred ... the members were really to be pitied." Is the first part a little convoluted?Perhaps - The result was described by one visitor to the chamber as "dark, gloomy, and badly ventilated, and so small ... "
  • "Over the next three centuries the palace was enlarged and altered to become a warren of wooden passages and stairways." I don't think that was the intention of the alterations. Perhaps - "enlarged and altered, becoming a warren of ...."
  • "The facilities were so poor for members" - and for everyone else. Perhaps - "The facilities were so poor..."
  • "that Joseph Hume, a Radical MP, called debates in 1831 and 1834 to find new accommodation for the House to sit.." Do you call debates or call for them, or call for X in them? And did Hume want accommodation for the House solely to sit in? Or to work in? Appreciate the double meaning of sit here but perhaps - "that, in debates in 1831 and 1834, Joseph Hume, a Radical MP, called for new accommodation for the House, while his fellow MP William Cobbett..."
  • "He decided against giving the sticks away to parliamentary staff to use as firewood,.." I appreciate it's Dr Shenton's view but I do wonder how she knows? Christopher Jones doesn't say it and, to my mind, it matches too closely Dickens's sarcastic suggestion as to how the tally sticks might usefully have been disposed of. But there is a source...
  • Shenton goes further in the book, saying that some of the previous disposals had involved giving the sticks away for firewood. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • All followed, as sggested. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
16 October 1834
  • The first para. has two instances of "later reported". Could the first be replaced with something like - "Weobley checked in on the men throughout the day, claiming subsequently that, on his visits, both furnace doors were open,.."
  • "Another witness to events, Richard Reynolds,.." - "the events" ?
  • "she entered the chamber to see Black Rod's box alight, and flames burning the curtains and wood panels, and she raised the alarm." Suggest deletion of the second "she". Have avoided any Riley-inspired innuendo.
  • "By the time Braidwood and his men had arrived on the scene, he realised that the House of Lords had been destroyed." The destruction had occured, whether or not Braidwood realised it. Perhaps delete "he realised that"?
  • "..and he had his firemen cut away the part of the roof that connected the hall to the already burning Speaker's House, and then soaking the hall's roof to prevent it catching fire." Is there a switch of tense in "soaking"? Perhaps "soak"?
  • "by which time the fire near the Hall was nearly gone, although it was still in situ towards the south of the complex." Perhaps - "by which time the fire near the Hall was nearly out, although it continued to burn towards the south of the complex.
  • "by which time the new shifts of police and soldiers relieved their colleagues." This sentence repeats "by which time" from the preceding sentence and I think it also has a redundant "the". Perhaps - "The firemen remained in place until about 5:00 am, when they had extinguished the last remaining flames and were relieved by new shifts of police and soldiers." No - that suggests the police and soldiers relieved the firemen. So - "The firemen remained in place until about 5:00 am, when they had extinguished the last remaining flames and the police and soldiers had been replaced by new shifts."
  • "The House of Commons, along with its library and committee rooms were also devastated" - Missing comma after rooms?
  • All done down to here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "they ordered a list of witness to be drawn up,.." "witnesses"?
  • "a committee of the Lords of the Privy Council sat to investigate the fire." This is, indeed, exactly how Jones describes it but I'm unsure as to why it isn't simply a committee of the Privy Council. Are/were the "Lords of the Privy Council" a recognised sub-set. One for Tim, I think!
  • Sending up the batsignal for Tim riley for the point of order! - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Here, Commissioner Gordon. The phrase didn't leap out at me when I did my read-through, but on rereading I agree with the point made by KJP1 (or KJP, to those of us on tutoyer terms). To the best of my bureaucratic knowledge there has never been an entity called the Lords of the Privy Council. The Privy Council was and is awash with lords, and conceivably the committee in question was recruited entirely from the House of Peers, but without doubt it suffices to refer to "a committee of the Privy Council". (I forget who it was who declined appointment to the office of Lord Privy Seal on the grounds that he was neither a lord, a privy nor a seal, but I digress) – Tim riley talk 23:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The committee, who met in private, heard numerous possibilities .." Should this be "The committee, which met in private.." and I wonder if "theories" would suit rather than "possibilities"?
  • "The committee issued their report.." - "its report"? Getting a bit out of my comfort zone here.
  • "This body determined in which style the new construction should be built, and in June they decided that either Elizabethan or gothic styles should be used. The commission also decided that although the original outline of the palace did not have to be used,.." Three points. First, would it be useful here to include the Germann quote as to why they chose a Gothic style? I can do the necessary reference if you think it would. Secondly, did the Commission actually specify Gothic or Elizabethan? I don't have access to Rorabaugh, and Barry certainly did use an late Gothic style that Germann considers verges on Elizabethan, but to have made the distinction between the two would have displayed considerable architectural sophistication on the part of the Commissioners. Later - checking Jones, I see he specifies "Gothic or Elizabethan" so ignore my query, although it would be most interesting if Rorabaugh has a primary source for the distinction. Thirdly, there is a double "be used". Perhaps the second sentence could be reworded to something like - "The commission also decided that although competitors would not be required to follow the outline of the original palace, the surviving buildings..."
  • Which Germann quote was that - the "established Gothic Revival as the principal style of the century" one? - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "each entry was to only be identifiable by a pseudonym or symbol." Perhaps - "each entry was to be identifiable only by a pseudonym or symbol."
  • "The commission presented their recommendation in February 1836, which was entry 64, identified by a portcullis—the emblem used by the experienced architect Charles Barry, who won £1,500; Barry's original competition drawings are now lost." This sentence packs a lot in! And the use of "emblem" doesn't match the use of "symbol" in the previous, related, sentence. Perhaps - "The commission presented their recommendation in February 1836; the winning entry, which brought a prize of £1,500, was number 64, identified by a portcullis — the symbol chosen by the architect Charles Barry." You could then reference the fate of the drawings - see below.
  • "to complete the necessary pen and ink drawings, which are now lost, he employed Augustus Pugin, a 23-year-old architect who was, in the words of the art historian Nikolaus Pevsner, "the most fertile and passionate of the Gothicists". This amendment would incorporate the detail re. the fate of the original drawings. On an unrelated point, would Pevsner be more commonly known as an "architectural historian"? But perhaps POV on my part.
  • I think both art and architectural, but probably primarily the latter. - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Uninspired by any English secular Elizabethan or Gothic buildings, Barry had visited Belgium to view the town halls prior to drafting his design;" A few points. I don't have access to Port - is he the source for this claim? I think we would need a direct source for the suggestion that Barry was unable to find any inspiration from English sources. Pevsner suggests that Barry's visits were later than his/Pugin's undertaking of the original drawings and that the purpose of the visits was to see how "secular Gothic could be reconciled with pitched roofs" (Bradley & Pevsner, p=216). Lastly, "visited Belgium to view the town halls" sounds a little odd to me. And all of them? Perhaps - "visited Belgium to view examples of Flemish civic architecture..."
  • Yes, that bit was from Port: "In consideration of the lack of English secular models, he toured Belgium to study the famous town halls." There's another reference in the biography written by his son, which can be seen here, which says that there were "... but fragments of Gothic palaces to be found in England". - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Barry planned what Christopher Jones,..." would this section sit better in the next?
  • "reports of the estimates vary from £707,000[75] to £725,000, with six years until completion of the project." To me, this reads slightly strangely - conflating, as it does, cost and time estimates. Perhaps - "reports of the cost estimates vary from £707,000 to £725,000, with an estimate of six years as the completion period for the project." Though this also sounds a bit clumsy.
New Palace of Westminster
  • On a general point, I tend to agree with BB that this section could be a little more concise as it is less directly related to the burning of the old palace, the subject of the article. Whether it should be a sub-section of "Legacy", I'm a little less sure. That said...
  • "The Westminster site covered eight acres (3.2 ha), and the palace site partly consisted of unstable, marshy ground." Are they two different sites? Perhaps - "The Westminster site covered eight acres (3.2 ha) of partly unstable, marshy ground."
  • "After it was built the water was pumped out.." Missing comma after "built"?
  • "In June 1838 Barry undertook a tour of Britain..." This jars chronologically with the previous sentence which talks of building work commencing in 1839. Perhaps - "The previous year, Barry had undertaken a tour of Britain..." or "The previous year, Barry undertook..."
  • "consisting 1,180 rooms, 126 staircases, 2 miles of corridors, 15 miles of stem pipes with 1,200 stop cocks." This clause repeats "consist" and is, I think, missing an of after "consisting". Dare I suggest - "comprising 1,180 rooms..."
  • "after their deaths their sons publicly argued". Perhaps - "after their deaths their sons argued publicly.."
  • "In Pevsner's view, "[t]he secret" - I haven't a clue as to the Wikipedia convention, but this strikes me as very odd. All that has been done is to uncapitalise the "t". Would commonsense not permit either the use of the upper case, or the removal of the "[]"? Otherwise, I think it is just puzzlingly for the reader as it stands.
  • "which changed the character of his design so much he refused to enter the chamber again." I'm not quite sure this fully conveys the magnitude of Barry's gesture. Perhaps - "which changed the character of his design so much that he refused ever to enter the chamber again."
  • "In 1852 the Commons was finished and both Houses sat in their new chambers for the first time; Queen Victoria first used the newly completed royal entrance." Does the final clause sit a bit oddly? Perhaps - "In 1852 the Commons was finished and both Houses sat in their new chambers for the first time, the Queen arriving for the State Opening through the newly completed royal entrance."
  • "The same year Barry was appointed a Knight Bachelor,[87][88] while Pugin suffered a mental breakdown and spent six months in Bethlehem Pauper Hospital for the Insane; he left the hospital shortly before dying in September.[76]" Do ignore, as this is pure stylistic POV, but I wonder if their cruelly contrasting fortunes are captured in "In the same year, while Barry was appointed a Knight Bachelor, Pugin suffered a mental breakdown and, following incarceration at Bedlam, died at the age of 40."
  • "The final cost of the building came to around £2.5 million.[93][k]" This reuses "final" from the previous sentence. Perhaps "total" or just "The costs.."
  • "The decision to use the Gothic design for the palace set the national style, even for secular buildings,[100] which also "drew attention to the close bond between Church and State at Westminster", according to the political and social historian Dr Roland Quinault.[101]" While Dr Quinault is certainly right, I don't quite get the relevance to the legacy of the fire. Unless he is talking of the Gothic styles of the Palace and the Abbey? Again, stylistic POV which you should probably ignore, but I'd go for the other Georg Germann quote we mentioned earlier in the discussion on the lede. Perhaps - The architectural historian Georg Germann wrote that the decision to require the palace to be Gothic in design "established the Gothic Revival as the principal style of the century."

Well, that's my lot. Apologies again for the lapses into POV and if I've not followed Peer Review conventions. KJP1 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Absolutely nothing for you to apologise for all all: an excellent set of comments wich I have largely adopted. The only ones I haven't followedare the couple (maybe just one) with a question to clarify, ad those for the last section, which I will take into account whe I am doing my BB-suggested trim of the section. Thanks again! - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 30 April 2015, 19:53 UTC)----

Coinage Act of 1873[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd appreciate feedback before taking it to FAC. The Coinage Act of 1873 really isn't about the coins, it's about a piece of legislation that sparked the largest political controversy in the US in the last years of the 19th century.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments[edit]

First instalment – I'm about two-thirds through:

  • "The Mint, in its first decades, only coined gold and silver in response to deposits of that metal by citizens..." - As two metals have been mentioned I'd say "those metals" rather than "that metal". Also, I think "only" is redundant.
  • "At that time, gold or silver U.S. coins were rarely seen in the nation, as they were heavily exported—most pieces in circulation were foreign in origin". There seems a contradiction here: gold or silver U.S. coins were "heavily exported", yet "most pieces in circulation were foreign in origin". Can you explain what these pieces in circulation were?
  • Sorry, but "half-dime"? What's that in cents?
  • "replaced with a shortage" → "replaced by a shortage"
  • "Since it had been two decades since much silver was regularly deposited..." Is there a "so" missing from before "much"?
Not really. There may be a "very" implied there.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would specify the "British gold sovereign" in the text, rather than requiring the link. Likewise "25 French francs", although for some reason you haven't wikilinked "franc".
  • You could economise on wording re. Knox, whose dispatch to San Francisco is mentioned twice in successive sentences at the beginning of para 2.
  • The sentence beginning "The proposed major changes to existing law..." is too long and overcomplicated. It also apperas to mix proposals with actual changes ("the office of treasurer at the mints and assay offices was abolished..." etc).
Consideration and passage
  • "Knox's bill had abolished the charge of .5 percent" → " Knox's bill proposed to abolish the charge of .5 percent" (?)
  • "recommitted to committee" – is there a more elegant way of phrasing this? (We also have "committed to Sherman's committee" later on)
  • "The bill at that time provided that the cent be made of nickel alloy as well" – does this mean "The bill at that time provided that the cent be partially made of nickel alloy"?
  • I don't see how Townsend's motion to kill the bill can be said to have "succeeded twice", when it actually failed to pass on a roll call.
  • Sentence needing attention: "The House initially refused to agree to the Trade dollar, and representatives of both houses, led by Sherman and Potter, met in a conference committee, and the House acceded to the Senate amendment for the Trade dollar". There is one "and" too many.
Intent of the bill's authors
  • The first sentence reads very awkwardly, partly I think because of punctuation placements and partly because of the initial "Once". I suggest a slight revision: "When, several years after its passage, the 1873 act became a political issue, ..." etc
  • Adding "they argued" to a fairly long clause makes for confusion in reading. Why not "They argued that..."?
  • The "though" after "Boutwell" is a kind of honorary "however". I'm not convinced it's needed.
  • The sentence beginning "Within a few years..." is too long, too complicated, needs a split.
  • I have slightly altered the format of this section, to rescue the otherwise awkwardly place Nugent quote which, as it stood, did not stand out sufficiently from the main text (particularly as it begins mid-sentence).
  • The (again overlong) sentence beginning "Knox and Linderman were both personally familiar..." is not syntactically correct. Suggest: "Knox and Linderman were both personally familiar with mining conditions in the Far West. They knew that the amount of bullion produced..." etc

Will return to complete shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The rest: slim pickings:

Bureau of the Mint; duties of officers
  • " each required to be bonded" - explain?
  • "and required them to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate..." etc: this information is stated in the previous paragraph and doesn't need repeating.
Testing and the Assay Commission
  • "The Coinage Act of 1873 kept the judge as a member, but made the two other federal officials who were members the Comptroller of the Currency and the assayer of the New York Assay Office." I had to read this more than once, and I'm still not certain of its syntax. If you deleted "who were members" it would flow better and remove an unnecessary repetition.
  • "The president, under the 1837 act, was allowed to appoint members of the public each year..." For clarity, I suggest: "Under the 1837 act, the president was allowed to appoint members of the public to the commission each year..."
Criminal offenses and miscellaneous provisions
  • " Each office would be governed similarly to the mints, with a superintendent in charge, and an Assayer, and Melter and Refiner as the two officers under him." Compare with: " In addition to the superintendent, each mint had an Assayer, a Melter and Refiner, and a Coiner" a couple of sections earlier. It seems an unnecessary inclusion in this section anyway.
  • "setting a April 1, 1873 effective date" – "a" April? Maybe "setting April 1, 1873 as the effective date".
Later reaction
  • The opening sentence (like Macbeth) has three "whiches". Apart from that, better as two sentences, I think.
  • "recovered some" is, I recognise, standard informal American prose, but is it encyclopedic?
"Crime of '73"
  • "resumption of specie payments" – explain?
  • "Even though Kelley denied this had taken place, the story stuck,..." Well, Kelley would deny it, wouldn't he, even if the story was true. The "even though" rather implies that a congressman's denial of something was a standard for truth. I'd reword slightly: "Kelley denied this had taken place, but the story stuck,..."

That's all. An interesting legal imbroglio. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've either done what you suggested or done something similar.

Coemgenus's comments[edit]

  • "...causing large quantities of silver dollars to be struck and the gold standard endangered." Earlier, you said that bimetalism was the standard. Maybe "driving the more-valuable gold dollars out of circulation" or something like that (if what I wrote is even accurate).
  • "So long as silver prices remained high, this placed the United States on the gold standard." The word "effectively" might help here, since we were legally still on a bimetal standard.
  • "Greenbacks, backed not by silver or gold..." Maybe "Greenbacks, a paper currency backed not by silver or gold..." just so people are clear on what they were.
  • I'd rearrange the first two sentences to get the cause and effect in order. Something like "Losses of nearly $250,000 at the San Francisco Mint had concerned the Treasury, and McCullough sent John Jay Knox, a Treasury employee, on a special mission to investigate in 1866."
Consideration and passage
  • "Knox's bill proposed to abolish the charge of .5 percent." You said this in the previous section.
  • "The bill was reintroduced into the House by Kelley when Congress reconvened in December 1871, and was debated there in January 1872." I'd say "Kelley reintroduced the bill in the House when Congress reconvened in December 1871, and it was debated there in January 1872."
Coins and deposit of bullion (§13–39)
Later reaction
  • It's linked in the lede, but I'd link "free silver" the first time it's used here, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 24 April 2015, 23:04 UTC)----

Palmer E. Pierce[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, it just passed a B-class review at MILHIST, but I want to send it to GA, but it needs some work, so I need a PR.

Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I did some copyediting; these are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria

  • Find-a-Grave is generally not considered a reliable source
  • Is there any further information about his post-Army life?
  • I see mention of Palmer E. Pierce as chairman of the Committee on Inter-American Relations in the 1930s - is this the same person?
  • There appear to be a fair few scholarly sources mentioning Pierce in relation to the NCAA that could be exploited for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Aditya Kabir Many questions remain unanswered:

  • I understand that he fought in Spanish-American war of 1898 during the Invasion of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the resurrection of the Philippines, the Boxer Rebellion. What were his troops, ranks and battles?
  • What is the Villa Expedition? Why is it not with the rest of the campaigns, in the Early Service section?
  • What is the significance of the Finance Committee? Describing a discussion verbatim seems to be a bit trivializing anyways.
  • His command with 27th Infantry Division and the 54th Infantry Regiment, I believe, were during WWI. Were there no battles or campaigns that added to his career?
  • Nothing to report from his days of leadership in Standard Oil Company?
  • No family? Father, mother, sister, brother, wife, son, daughter? Who were they?

Please allow me to research a bit more before I make further comments. Aditya(talkcontribs) 20:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 April 2015, 23:09 UTC)----

Foundation of Moldavia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review before its GAN. All comments are welcome.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


  • Repeating the same reference over and over again is unecessary.
  • The article is kind of long (~61 kB), so is there any way to split it?
  • Since my next couple comments seemed like nitpicks, I did them myself.
  • There is one dead link in the article.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Tomandjerry211, thank you for your comments. I fully agree with you: the article is long. I am thinking of shortening the "Background" section instead of splitting it. The dead link was deleted. Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments. I did a little copyediting. These are my edits. I wasn't always sure that I got your meaning, so you may need to revert some of that. - Dank (push to talk) 03:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dank, thank you for your edits. I made some minor changes. Feel free to revert them if you think they are not appropriate. Borsoka (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Your changes are fine. They're not what I would have done, but I can see good reasons for them. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I have to thank you for your work about the Foundation of Moldavia... The topic is important and I think that you can proposed it for getting the GA Status. It shows a good overview about the History of Moldavia and its development and gives some detailed information about influencing people in founding Moldavia. However, the work lacks from some facts:

  • Commemoration: The work has not shown the importance of the Foundation of Moldavia to people living there nowadays. You should cite events related to the commemoration of the Foundation of Moldavia and its major main leaders. You can also add a part about the social thoughts about the foundation of Moldavia. You can cite the current reputation of the main leaders of the Foundation of Moldavia. I think that working about this subject would be very efficient.
  • Arts: You should also cite the romans, plays, draws, films done about the Foundation of Moldavia. As this fact is important in the History of Romania, I think that you will have a good list of these artistic works. You should involve them and describe the general overview about the Foundation of Moldavia given by these works. You will give by this a better artistic overview about the fact and a better description about the thoughts of people about it till now.
  • Templates: the work lacks of significant templates. You should add a template in the beginning describing the period of the foundation of Moldavia, its founders... More explanations of the development of Moldova should be given in this innovative template. You can also add some templates in the work in which you involve more details about the situation of Moldavia in each period involving topology and politics. This fact will be very important.
  • Honours: You can give some awards given for works about the Foundation of Moldova... You can give the historical sites related to the Foundation of Moldavia and the archeological samples from that period exposed worldwide... This could be a better advance in your excellent work because people who like to learn more about this very important phenomenon will have the alternatives to find alternative ways to learn more about the Foundation of Moldova

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Csisc, thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 April 2015, 03:06 UTC)----

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently added a lot of info since I realized that this article is rated as Start Class. After adding the "Eras of the Phanerozoic" section, I believe that it's, at the very least, rated GA. If you disagree, don't be afraid to tell me. I'd appreciate your input!

Thanks, Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 2 May 2015, 23:00 UTC)----

Ralph Vary Chamberlin[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to promote it to GA status and am seeking feedback on structure, coverage, readability, areas for improvement, etc.

Thanks, --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I thank you for your work about Ralph Vary Chamberlin, one of the most famous scientist in the world even if it is misconsidered by many people... The work is well structured even better than ones with GA Status. It involves a clear overview about his life, his studies, his works and his discoveries and this is required for many other works... However, you can expand all the parts and involve more information about the scientist by searching for quotes from the works citing Chamberlin and journals... The work can be also widened by citing the events related to Chamberlin, the tomb of Chamberlin, the rivalry of Chamberlin, the thoughts and ideas of Chamberlin about important issues and debates, the students of Chamberlin... These details can better your output and give it more length and quality. You can use for this fact some books, some journals... These details are important to see the other sides from the life and personality of Chamberlin. You can also cite the honours received by Chamberlin... This will give a better overview of this exceptional scientist. Furthermore, try to gather some information about his travels and explorations... You can explain how this affected his researches... You can write about the places in which he lived during his travels... You can write about his assistants when travelling aborad... You can write about the verifications that had been done about his work... You can cite if some of his discoveries had been falsified or not... You can cite if he is still an exceptional reference... You can cite if one of his students had an exceptional prize for works that had been initialized by Chamberlin... You can write about the conditions in which Chamberlin had worked and conducted his researches and you can also expand the part about the reasons of the death of Chamberlin. You have many ways to expand this work. So, try to do your best and feel free to answer me if you need further information.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Csisc. Aside from the 1911 controversy I've so far found very few in-depth sources about Chamberlin that include such details- many sources are obscure and scattered, or only briefly discuss his work. But hopefully I will obtain some of the 1958 Biologist articles this weekend. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 April 2015, 23:11 UTC)----

Glomerulus (kidney)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve the readability of this article.

Other readers readers and editors (especially those not familiar with anatomy), what could be done to improve the readability of the article? Please feel free point out anything big or small that needs explaining or could be improved.

Thanks, Tom (LT) (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tom thanks for taking the initiative to improve this article (a very important one). I think the main problem here is that the article reads in short chunks of text and disconnected sentences. Perhaps the "Structure" section could use some sort of text introducing what the main structural characteristics of the glomerulus are. Also, most sections need expansion. I'll see what I can add to the Histology section from books, and there should be lots of information about the structure of the filtration barrier in journal articles. A 'Clinical significance' section will have to be added at some point, glomerulopathy is an extensive subject relevant to many fields of medicine. I've already started to make some edits to the article, I'm sorry I can't collaborate very often lately but if you need a hand with something tell me ;) --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

OK I've done my best to fix up the 'structure' section and will get to the physiology section eventually.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Also added the 'clinical significance' section and will expand it eventually. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I thank you for your work about glomerulus, the functional unit of the kidney... The work seems to be interesting particularly because it talked about the anatomy and the mechanism of this functional unit. However, it lacks from some important details.

  • History: You had talked a bit about who discovered the glomerulus. However, you did not mention what were the theories about the work of the kidney before this and how they had been falsified then. You did not mention how Malpighi described his discovery for the first time. You have to expand this part and involve more effective references... You can use the papers citing Malpighi, important journals... I think that working on this part would be very fructuous for this important work.
  • Permeability: You explained well the mechanism of work of the renal glomerulus. However, there are some hormones that influence characteristically this permeability. You should involve more information about this and you can use for that some books for Medical Students, some papers... Try to involve a list of substrates influencing the permeability of glomerulus. This will give more scientific depth to your work.
  • Clinical significance: glomerulonephritis is not the main pathology that can influence glomerulus... There are some other pathologies that you can find within the version of this important work in the French Wikipedia. You can explain for example the reasons of having sugar in urea for diabetes... You can use for this many references. This will give to your work more trustworthiness and will give it more scientific depth. So, try to do this as soon as possible.
  • Further information: Try to expand the first parts of your work about drainage because they are quite limited. Try to involve more information for this fact. You can use some books in French as they give more information about this important phenomenon. You can even use some books in German and Italian for this. Try to see the list of probable references that can help you by consulting the work about Glomerulus in other Wikipedias.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Csisc, they're much appreciated. Unfortunately outside of greetings I can't speak French or German. However I do have access to a number of good sources that I can use. I'll firstly get the article's 'function' section up to scratch and then reply to you in a more comprehensive way. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

comments from Animalparty[edit]

In addition to the chunky sentences already mentioned, I think the placement and inclusion of images need rethinking, as well as their captions. The caption for File:Juxtaglomerular Apparatus and Glomerulus.jpg for instance, starts off with "The juxtaglomerular apparatus", a phrase which is not defined in the body, and the only time "juxtaglomerular" appears again is at the very end at Regulation of blood pressure. Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE WP:CAPTION, the images and captions should largely complement the text, not have new or tangential content within. The lead infobox image has a very wordy caption, that fails to even clearly specify where the glomerulus is: "The glomerulus is the network (tuft) of capillaries in red." Unless I'm mistaken there is a lot of red capillary network in that image that is not glomerulus. Similarly, the gallery of photos at the end should eventually be worked into an expanded body, such that they illustrate key paragraphs. Extraneous images should be omitted unless they can be placed into proper context (see also WP:GALLERY). Update: I think the lead image might actually be overly complex, and perhaps moved lower in the article, replaced with a less ambiguous image that immediately identifies the focal subject. See below --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed up the captions and changed the images, will get around to the ones in the physiology section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 20 April 2015, 12:24 UTC)----

DNA sequencing[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently rated C Class - as one of the most important and consistently one of the most viewed pages in WikiProject Computational Biology, I feel this article needs to be improved to at least GA status. I'd appreciate any comments on what needs improving to make this happen. Thanks! Amkilpatrick (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I have to thank you for your work about the DNA Sequencing. The work is well structured, well done and involves some important details... However, it seems that the work lacks from some adjustments...

  • Important Works that were used to create DNA Sequencing: As many people know, the works about DNA Sequencing were based in part on the Citation Classics of Lowry who had invented the principles of biological sequencing and used it from proteins... It is quite important to involve such works of reference that helped the invention of DNA Sequencing... Many other papers can be involved and cited in this work. You can even check the references of the first paper of Wu in PNAS talking about DNA Sequencing, the paper of Sanger and the one of Maxam and Gibert for more details about Reference works and principles used to create these important techniques...
  • Principles of DNA Biology: You had mentioned in the two first parts of the work the use of sequencing and the nucleotides... I think that you should merge the two parts in one common part and expand it in a better way. Include the new nucleotides that had been discovered for bacteria and germs and try to write about the structure of DNA and its organization.
  • Practice of DNA Sequencing: The work does not show any information about the main first practices of DNA Sequencing... You should include that many trials of DNA Sequencing had been done till now in order to indicate the quality of development of the technique. You can include the reasons for the use of DNA Sequencing and write about its commercialization and trade.
  • Ethics: You can include the ethical issues that had been raised about DNA Sequencing. The access of this important technique to all people was always controversial.

You can use papers, books, journals and websites as references in doing this work.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Csisc, thanks for reviewing this article and for your comments - although I can't really take any credit for the article, almost all of the work is by other contributors :) I agree on combining and expanding the first two sections, and some mention of the ethical issue would be interesting as well. It might take a little while to get round to, I will let you know when it's done. Thanks, --Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Csisc and Amkilpatrick, thank you for your work and comments so far. I agree that some critical details are missing from the article but may already be present in related articles like nucleic acid sequence or a bit from sequence analysis. Combining the first two sections may help but only if they're followed by a well-organized History section. JHCaufield - talk - 15:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 14 April 2015, 19:44 UTC)----

Peripheral artery disease[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is classified as a "High importance" page within Wikiproject medicine. It got 12,000 views in the last 30 days. PAD is an area of interest/expertise for me, so I am curious what parts should be expanded to aid others coming to it with fresh eyes.

Thanks, BakerStMD 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've notified at WikiProject Medicine about this. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Right off the bat, I'd say the article has too many lists. I think many of those should be converted to prose and more informative details added. Praemonitus (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I concur with the above opinion, after having viewed the article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

  • is a narrowing of the arteries other than those that supply the heart or the brain.[1]
Is there a more postive way to state this? "other than those" seems to be defining it by what's it's not?
  • Most commonly the legs are affected.[2]
Maybe "Legs are the most commonly affected appendages"
  • Complications may include an infection or tissue death which may require amputation; coronary artery disease, or stroke.[2]
Look for missing commas preceding non-restrictive clauses like the one above.
  • The main risk factor is cigarette smoking.[2] Other risk factors include diabetes, high blood pressure, and high blood cholesterol.[5]
I'd combine these two sentences.
  • It is unclear if screening for disease is useful as it has not been properly studied.[9][10]
Does "disease" here refer to PAD, or other ailments, as it is not clear.
  • In 2010 about 202 million people had PAD worldwide
I think "had" is not that descriptive here; maybe "suffered from" or something like that.
Signs and symptoms
  • Up to 50% of people PAD may have no symptoms
Missing "with"?
  • PAD in other parts of the body depends on the organ affected. Renal artery disease can cause renovascular hypertension. Carotid artery disease can cause strokes and transient ischemic attacks.
It's good practice to include a citation at the end of all paragraphs and sections.
I think this would be better as prose organized into paragraphs rather than bullet points.
Risk factors
  • Same as above.
  • blood pressure readings in the ankles is lower
"Readings in the ankles are lower"
  • The material in this section would benefit from a copyedit that combines and arranges the stuff so as to be less listy.
I'm not sure this is best presented in list form, but maybe this is a common practice for these types of articles.
  • It is not clear if screening for disease is useful as it has not been properly studied
I assume this means "screening for PAD", but it's not that clear.
This is also too listy.
There ought to be more than two citations in this section.
This seems more like "treatment".

I think this article still needs quite a bit of work before a GAN would make sense. I'd start by working on the prose and sourcing, and later focus on expanding the topic, as I'm not convinced that this topic could be covered in a comprehensive way with just 1,600 words or less. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MJ94[edit]

  • " a narrowing of the arteries other than those that supply the heart or the brain."This should be reworded. A simple search leads me to an article by the Mayo Clinic which states that peripheral artery disease is a "common circulatory problem in which narrowed arteries reduce blood flow to your limbs." While that wording should not be used directly, I feel as if an example such as this reads much better than "other than those."
  • "Most commonly the legs are affected." → "The legs are areas (or limbs) most commonly affected by peripheral artery disease."
  • Perhaps the symptoms listed in the lede could be moved into their own section. I would make the same suggestion for complications.
  • Why are there no symptoms for up to half of people? What people? I'm assuming those who have PAD?
  • "It is unclear if screening for disease is useful as it has not been properly studied." Did you mean to say "the disease" or "PAD?"
  • "In those with PAD stopping smoking and supervised exercise therapy improves outcomes." This (and the rest of the paragraph) should probably be in their own section.
  • Watch the use of commas and punctuation. I see many in which a comma is needed, including (but not limited to) "in the developed world".
  • What constitutes the "developed world"? Try not to start two consecutive sentences with the same phrase second and third to last sentences in the lede do.
Signs and symptoms
  • The first sentence needs to be reworded. It is unclear which people the text is referring to here, though I am assuming it is those who have peripheral artery disease.
  • "PAD in other parts of the body depends on the organ affected." How does it depend on the organ affected? More to the point, what depends on the organ affected? While the article states "PAD", I am unsure if this means the existence of PAD in general or otherwise. Do you have a source for this?
  • This section looks much too similar to a list of definitions rather than an encyclopedia article.
  • The overall content of this article looks pretty well-done. It's important that this is organized into paragraphs of prose rather than bulleted lists.
Risk factors
  • Similarly to the section above, this section would benefit greatly from reading like a paragraph of prose rather than a list.
  • There is a significant lack of citations in this section.
  • "When the blood pressure readings in the ankles is lower than that in the arms, blockages in the arteries which provide blood from the heart to the ankle are suspected." Is lower → are lower.
  • This looks okay to me, but I'd consult someone with more experience of medical-related articles.
  • What isn't clear and what has not been properly studied? This needs to be more specific.
  • Again, this looks too much like a list.
  • This section looks pretty good.
  • I think this could definitely use some more sources.

This looks good!

This article definitely needs a lot of work before it will be promoted, but with some significant work, I can see this very important article becoming a GAN. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. MJ94 (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 April 2015, 14:42 UTC)----


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what others think about its future suitability for good article status.

  • I'm not 100% responsible for its content
  • I don't intend to be 100% responsive to edits

I invite editors to comment and edit. For users who are not familiar, the criteria good articles are reviewed against are here.

Cheers, Tom (LT) (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've notified at WikiProject Medicine as well. Joel. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Ping to Iztwoz and CFCF who've played a large role in editing this article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

in contrast to the other article (peripheral artery disease) I believe this one has too many illustrations( when it is useful and serves the point of informing the reader it is a good idea, however images should not be used for "decorative effects" ...IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point! I count at least 5 pictures with references to ECGs here, plus a number of pictures of tablets which are similar to tables in text...--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
OK I've removed a number of duplicate images and also moved some images around to more relevant sections. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I used Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Anatomy as a guide to check whether all the expected topics had been covered. I feel that in the "society and culture" section there should be a subsection about the economic cost of of treating heart related health issues. I think that coverage is warranted here because elsewhere in the article a lot of attention is given to treatment of medical problems related to the heart. There is a major economic divide over who can access appropriate treatments, and I think something should be said about cost and access to care in that section. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I will consider whether to put this in a separate section or as part of the 'modern histry' section.I've removed an indent from your reply to keep track of individual points, I hope that is OK. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I will place it in the 'surgery' section of 'clinical significance'. I think that makes the most sense. I may make mention of the cost of statins in the lifestyle disease section too (I will provide a reference to justify 'lifestyle' and make some mention of the gray area too, but I feel this is probably the heading most readers will be familiar with, and not entirely inaccurate) --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from myself: a number of modalities that assess cardiac function (echocardiogram, stress tests, angiography, etc.) should be mentioned together in the 'clinical significance' section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added a placeholder and will flesh this out tomorrow. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from myself: there is a lot of coverage of the tables and electrical conduction. Could this be moved to the child articles? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've summarised one table and moved the other tables (And images of tables). It's confusing to have the same idea in three different places and I'm not sure the tables do the best job of communicating to lay readers (1 - in text, 2 - in our table, 3 - in an image that is a table). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved off the page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Since my comments on talk page nothing much has changed in the article. Suggested combinations of subsections which I think would be of help weren't carried out. I was also going to make the same point about overuse of tables - much of the content was cut and pasted from a textbook and a lot of the content to me - particularly the tables - is still textbook padding. That said, I haven't looked at very recent changes.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Just had a quick look and glad to see tables have been dealt with. Would also say that I dislike the use of gallery images in the body of the text - think they belong in additional images. also think some captions are overly detailed. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Iztwoz, actually I've combined quite a few sections together, trimmed some images, removed the tables, and since your comments in November 2014 a large amount of the physiology section has been moved off the page. I'll get to the captions. So you have been listened to :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The only place I've used the gallery is in the 'development' section. Because this is a specific section I am not sure readers will be aware more images will be at the bottom of the article. That said maybe we should just move them to Heart development? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should consider merging / reorganising the "Heart rate" and "Electrical conduction" subsections... there's a lot of duplication in these sections and they're pretty difficult to read end to end. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I've significantly shortened those sections but I think they should stay separate, as they're about different things. One is why the heart beats, the other is how the heart beat gets transmitted across the heart. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 April 2015, 10:17 UTC)----

Language and literature[edit]

The Story of the Three Bears[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed FA. I would like to find where the article is weak and how to upgrade it. Thanks, SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Have the issues raised in the FAR been addressed? It seems to me that not all of them are. Consider doing those and then opening a PR. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 9 April 2015, 20:03 UTC)----

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Social sciences and society[edit]

United States v. Ramsey (1926)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am preparing it for a run at Featured Article.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 04:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 2 May 2015, 04:00 UTC)----

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to take this article to Featured Status.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 1 May 2015, 19:00 UTC)----


I want to get this article up to GA status and eventually FA status if possible. I understand that this article needs a lot of work, so the more feedback, the better! I'm listing this as a social sciences topic because I would like this article to be written more from a social sciences perspective than only a geographical perspective. I'd like people knowledgeable in society, history, and politics to feel free to contribute, particularly if they're well-acquainted with Hawaii's socioeconomic history. All are welcome to help clean up links, sources, and grammar, though!

Thanks! The Obento Musubi (talk · contribs) 06:58, 18 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Doing... I'm trying to do the peer review thoroughly, so I removed the bot message that closed the peer review request. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, WeijiBaikeBianji! The Obento Musubi (t · c) 08:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I have to thank you for your work about Hawaii... It is clear that this work was an excellent overview about it as it has described its history, its social situation, its politics and its topography and this is not available for some UN affiliated countries. So, I am really satisfied with your work and I think that you can do better and get FA Status. However, this work lacks from some details which are important for me:

  • Customs and Traditions: The work does not give any detail about the events and the festivals held in Hawaii every year. It does not also describe the Native traditions of Hawaii and this includes wear, handicrafts... Although these social details are not very important to see the position of the State of Hawaii in the United States, they are important to promote the culture of Hawaii. So, I think that you should work more about these details soon.
  • Influencing People: The work does not involve any name of an influential person who helped the promotion and the core development of Hawaii. This involves the names of the influential people in the First Existing Hawaiian Civilizations and the discoverers of Hawaii... The people who had influenced Hawaii should be efficiently cited. So, you should expand the History part in order to do this more efficiently.
  • Industrial Activities: The work does not involve the name of main factories in Hawaii. Furthermore, it does not involve any information about the type of fruits and vegetables produced in Hawaii... It does not give an overview about the rate of dependency of Hawaii to the production of tropical fruits... These information are important although they are very important to see the quality of the Regioanl industry of Hawaii.
  • Historical Sites: This part is very limited. Try to merge it with Gallery Part and better its output more efficiently. Try to involve a better description of the policy of Hawaii about Hotels... Furthermore, try to site more historical sites that are very important in Hawaii. Try to describe the evolution and the style of Architecture in Hawaii... Try to give more details about main civilizations that influenced architecture in Hawaii... Try to specify the characteristics of houses in Hawaii...

Finally, I do not have to tell you that you can answer me anytime and I will give you more details.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 22 April 2015, 19:15 UTC)----

Richard von Weizsäcker[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done some work on this since his death. I welcome every comment on the article's quality especially considering what needs to be done to bring this to GA-status.

Thanks, Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by GermanJoe[edit]

By no means a complete review, just some suggestions for possible improvements:

  • Infobox - "President of West Germany". I'm not a legal expert, but "Office abolished" in this part of the infobox looks incorrect (afaik all state institutions continued in their normal constitutional roles, with a few adjustments for the reunified territory of course). I'd just repeat "Reunification" here to indicate the lack of a "successor".
Done You are right, someone changed this a couple of days ago and I only switched the first one back.
I've done something controversial now... On second thought about this, I decided that a separation between President of Germany and President of West Germany is bogus. I therefore merged the two in the infobox. I'll put that up for discussion on the talk page... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Lead - It's difficult to choose and summarize, but the lead should have more information about 1) his views and role in important political discussions 2) the main stations of his career. Currently the lead doesn't provide a good overview about all notable aspects of his life.
  • "Political career" - I would put the first few sentences in a separate section as well, and merge them in 1 paragraph. The 1974 events are in the wrong order (they should be later in the paragraph).
Changed the order here a little bit. I'll try to make this section better by expanding it a bit more.
  • "Political career" - Try to avoid and merge stubby 1- or 2-sentence paragraphs.
  • "Death and funeral" - I am not sure that Kohl's absence should be mentioned without acknowledging his frail health here as well. The relevance and background (why didn't he attend?) of this detail are missing.
Valid point, I took it out for now.
  • Consider putting 1-2 of his most notable sentences in their own quoteboxes to make them more visible.
Good idea. I'll see that I expand on the 8 May speech and put quote boxes there. Maybe another one later from the 1997 Spiegel interview as soon as I find it.
  • "Other activities (selection)" - consider splitting this in "Other political activities" and "Social activities" (or any other meaningful split) to organize the information a bit more.
  • "Other activities", "Honours" and "Ancestry" seem to have almost no references. This could probably be a problem at B-level and will likely be questioned at higher levels.
  • "List of state visits" - consider moving this hidden list to a separate article if it can be sourced, or delete it otherwise. It doesn't add that much to the main article. Visits with additional notable information are mentioned in the main text anyway.
Still on search for a source. If I don't find one, I'll take it out.
  • "Honours" list should be formatted consistently (the different Iceland and Malta entries are distracting).
  • "References" should be inserted before "Literature". Also, "Bibliography" is more common than "Literature" for this section - see MOS:LAYOUT.
  • "Literature" - the cite book parameter "pages" is only used to include the referenced pages of a book, not the total of all pages. If the whole book is the reference, the parameter should be removed.

I won't have time for a full prose review unfortunately, but the article is informative, mostly well-sourced and structured. Nice work improving the coverage of this important topic. GermanJoe (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take care of these things step by step today and maybe tomorrow. In any case: Danke für die guten Anmerkungen! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have polished a few refs meanwhile. Btw, please don't use "done" or similar graphic templates (see instructions on top) - I took the liberty and changed them to regular bolded text. GermanJoe (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I adopted that from other reviews here. Thanks for the polishing! I'll be able to fix some more later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I thank you writing a work about Richard von Weizsäcker, a political leader of Germany who had led the unification of Germany by the end of the Cold War. The article is excellent as it involves many details about the political history of this German Leader. The part about the circumstances of the demolition of Berlin Wall is important and fructuous... However, the work lacks from many facts that are important for a work about a great personality:

  • Childhood: The work does not give minor information about the circumstances in which von Weizsäcker had studied and grown up. The early life part can be expanded by consulting the German Work. I think that you should include more details about how he got married and how he had studied when his father was travelling from a country to another to represent Germany... There are minor details about the situation of the Family in the period of war and After war. The reference that proves that Von Weizsäcker has four children is not efficiently given.
  • Honours: The part about Honours received by this German Leaders lacks from significant references. This should be resolved if you want that the work gets the desired FA Status. The other activities part also seeks from the same problem... You have probably to merge both parts and cite more references to give more trustworthiness to the part.
  • Publications: The part about publications should involve the ISBN of the books of von Weizsäcker. It should involve more details about the books and their structures. You should involve also the name of the publisher. You can also write some comments given by leading people about these important books. You can cite comments written in leading journals in Germany. So, you have to expand this part in order to let it more efficient.
  • Religion: It is clear from the work that von Weizsäcker has a major religious function in Germany. However, a part about the religious life of von Weizsäcker does not exist. You should expand all details you provided about the religious thoughts and responsibilities within Germany in a new part. This will give a better overview about the personality of this great leader and give more importance to his social works in the German Community.

So, try to work on the parts I cited and feel free to answer me if you like further information about what I have said.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I'm hoping to be able to do massive work on this over the course of next weekend. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 April 2015, 12:30 UTC)----

Hina Rabbani Khar[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to FA. Please help me out.

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Ugog Nizdast

Hmm, so we meet again after those two GA noms of yours. Surprised to see you, you're really doing a lot of work lately. Check the "Peer reviewer" tool on the toolbox, there are some useful suggestions. Let's begin.

  • The first thing what strikes me is the prose. I don't think it's bad per se, but for a FA, the standards are very high. Consider getting it copy edited at the WP:GOCER. Besides this, I'll try to point out instances where you can improve it.
  • Another one of the criteria is the coverage. Are you 100% sure everything is covered about her? Are you able to obtain any good biographies on her? Those can improve the coverage unlike news sources which give bits and pieces.
  • Check the criteria regarding reference formatting and arrangement. I'm not familiar with it so just makes sure if there's any work left regarding that.
  • Lead could do with expansion, see WP:LEADLENGTH. If unsure on what part to expand, I'll see if I can mention it here.
  • There is one image on the left which sandwiches text with the infobox, don't let that happen. WP:IMGLOC.
  • This: "Khar is co-owner of..." doesn't belong to "Early life", move to Personal.
  • "Early life and Family" should be "Early life and family"; MOS:HEADER. There'll be more comments if possible, -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Here are those instances, "formerly served as a member" -> "is a former member" - 'served' is idiomatic, I think, a general copy edit would usually replace it
  • "... a Pakistani stateswoman and economist who was the 26th Foreign Minister of Pakistan." -> "... a Pakistani stateswoman, economist and 26th Foreign Minister of Pakistan." - the sentence flows better now.
  • Why is an external link there for Abdus Salam Institute of Physics? 'Dr' Abdus Salam should also be removed per WP:HONORIFIC.
  • You've added "Main articles: Pakistani general elections, 2002 and Shaukat Aziz" and "Cabinet of Pakistan and Pakistani parliamentary election, 2008" but they aren't main articles of those sections, see WP:SS.
  • "reports surfaced in several media that Khar", again 'surfaced' is an idiom, redundant, 'several media' sounds incomplete, better is "there were reports that...". The following sentence just repeats ("Khar is already married...") what is already mentioned, about Bilawal is not necessary, in my opinion.
  • The See also link Economy of Pakistan seems to be shoehorned there, remember if you can't think of any relevant link...there is no need for that section. Usually Biographies are like this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 April 2015, 19:23 UTC)----


Shinhwa discography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FL status and so it can be used as a standard for other Korean pop discographies. I'd particularly like comments on the clarity of chart citation methods in a country whose chart has changed over the years and which has no centralized place for an artist's chart history.

Thanks, Shinyang-i (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

  • two prestigious Daesang (lit. "grand prize") awards
I would clarify that "grand prize" is an English translation of a Korean word, which might seem self-evident, but still is a good idea.
  • Avex Trax released three greatest hits compilations in Japan and one in Taiwan.
This seems to conflict with the totals detailed in the first paragraph; e.g., "One greatest hits compilation, My Choice, was released in 2002 in South Korea".
  • four-year hiatus of Shinhwa's group activities, as five of the six group members
Copyedit to avoid saying group twice here.
  • "idol group"
Maybe I'm getting old, but what's an "idol group"?
  • You list 6 albums there, but, unless I miscounted, the lead only mentions four.
  • Aren't EPs considered albums here? If so, are they included in the albums total?
  • Being the English language Wikipedia, I wondered if the non-English names should be in parenthesis rather than the English translation.
Other songs charted
  • I think "Other charted songs" is better syntax.

This all looks pretty tight. There might be some room for clarifying the totals, and there might be issues with the English versus non-English names, but overall I can find little to be concerned about. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MJ94[edit]

  • The first thing I noticed when reading the article is that it really needs to be broken down into sections. In the first paragraph, I really like how well-formatted and thorough it is. I would definitely recommend that this paragraph should be the lede and that the other paragraphs should be split off into their appropriate sections.
  • The second large chunk of text could possibly be moved into a section titled "History" or something similar. This would allow for you to break up the large wall of text and just focus on the group's history together, like this particular paragraph (or chunk of text) seems to be doing. The phrase "Shinhwa moved to Good EMG, a small and then relatively unknown agency" is a bit ambiguous. In this context, I believe that you are trying to say that the group's record label changed to Good EMG upon expiration of their original contract with SM Entertainment, correct? If so, I think it would be best to make that a bit more explicit with that wording. Looking at those record labels, I notice that SM Entertainment does not have a wikilink. If it's notable and has an article on Wikipedia, I think it would be a good idea to add one here. In regards to Good EMG, the article says that it was "a small and then-relatively unknown agency." Who is saying that it was relatively unknown and by what standards?
  • "Shinhwa released their first album under Good EMG, Winter Story, in late 2003". It's probably not too important, but I'd put "titled" before "Winter Story."
  • "Winter Story was the first of four albums Shinhwa would eventually release under Good EMG with "Winter Story" in the titles." I don't think it is necessary to say "under Good EMG" as we have already established that the band has a new record label at this point. Maybe you can give examples of other albums with "Winter Story" in them here?
  • The fact that Winter Story albums are considered special releases and not usually counted when assigning ordinals to their studio album released is very interesting and is a nice addition to the article.
  • Remove "The year" from the paragraph that begins with "The year 2008".
  • The last paragraph is very interesting to me. It is neat that they started their own company to oversee the band. I also find it very interesting that they are one of the only Korean pop artists who continue to release full-length albums instead of EPs and maxi-singles. Even cooler, they are considered the longest-running "idol group" in Korea.

@Shinyang-i: I really enjoyed reading your work and can tell that you put a lot of effort into writing about Shinhwa. Great job! Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns by leaving me a message here or on my talk page. I hope you found my review useful. Best, MJ94 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 17 April 2015, 21:27 UTC)----

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]