Wikipedia:Peer review/April 2010

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

---

WildBird

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is new and unreviewed. I have checked it for spelling and grammar and no corrections are necessary.

Thanks, Max Deployment (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be expanded to encompass all the subjects in the article. See WP:LEAD for lead criteria. There isn't much to this article but I still think a couple more sentences could be added to the lead, perhaps discussing the current editor, set up of the magazine, and circulation. Just to name a few. Usually in-line citations are found at the end of sentences or end of paragraphs. The Special issues section has no references. There are a few citations that are sprinkled into the middle of sentences, these should be moved. See WP:CITE, website references should at least have publisher and accessdate along with the url. Why is the category a bunch of red links? This doesn't seem right can it be fixed? The article is very sparse, is there anything else that can be put in about the magazine? Perhaps not, as I can't readily think of any suggestions, but it's worth mentioning. I think that does it for my review. I don't usually watch this page so if you have questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. If you found the review helpful please consider reviewing someone else's article here at peer review or going to WP:GAC and reviewing an article. There is a significant backlog of articles to be reviewed and not enough editors willing to review. Cheers. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Hepatic encephalopathy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This page has recently undergone a major rewrite and expansion using several high-quality sources. Before submitting for GA I thought some feedback would be useful. Specifically, I should like to know if the prose is too difficult to comprehend, as the topic is tricky. I will get a peer review from a colleague with regards to the scientific content.

Thanks, JFW | T@lk 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Colin:

This article was easier to read than its title might imply. Well done for explaining most of the technical terms. I'd never heard of this before so thanks for working on it and polishing it. The sources look to be first class. At a first pass through, I've made some comments below. I'll try to find time later to confirm the source-accuracy and comprehensiveness.

1. Definition mentions "altered level of consciousness" -- these range from confusion to coma according to our WP article. So is there some redundancy in our definition which also mentions both extremes. The source says "functional disturbance of the brain" and later says it is characterised by "personality changes, impaired intelect, disturbed sleep patterns and depressed level of consciousness". On the latter includes those we list.
2. "tendon reflexes may be lively" -- I suspect the use of "lively" here is jargon, of which I'm unfamiliar. Is this the same as "exaggerated"?
3. In the "Electrolyte or metabolic disturbance" box, explain hyponatraemia (low blood sodium), hypokalaemia (low blood potassium), alkalosis (alkaline blood), hypoxia (insufficient oxygen).
4. Is it "PSE-Syndrom-Test" or "PSE-Syndrome-Test"?
5. "stage IV encephalopathy". Is this the same as the "Grade 4" above or referring to some other scale? See elsewhere too.
6. "TIPSS" or "TIPS". Seem like both are acceptable but consistency?
7. Several sentences cite four sources. This is overkill for what is often just one fact. Can we just pick the most appropriate source from the four?
8. "Given the frequency of infection...is sometimes required". I'm not sure about "required" as the need isn't established for sure. How about "antibiotics are sometimes administered empirically (...".

Colin°^Talk 23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Have taken the liberty of changing your bullet points to numbers so I can respond to each.

1. Conciousness is only impaired in more severe forms; I am not keen to refer to confusion as impaired consciousness.
2. Have changed to "exaggerated" as the term "lively" implied that this was normal and not really pathological.
3. Agree that these terms needed expansion and have done as suggested
4. The name is hyphenated because it is German; I thought I should stick to the German spelling rather than introduce an English word in an otherwise German term
5. In the sources, the White Haven grading is with Arabic numerals; generally grading is doing with Arabic numerals while classes (e.g. NYHA) use Roman
6. Have changed to TIPS for consistency
7. Is there a guideline prohibiting this? I feel more comfortable that claims are thoroughly sourced; it also implies that the Harrison's chapter leaves out of a lot of treatments that were already known at the time of its writing
8. Have rephrased as suggested.

Thanks for your input! JFW | T@lk 23:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read over some of the sources and compared to the article (to my limited ability). It does appear to be accurate and comprehensive. I did notice that the West Haven Criteria was a match for source 7 but not source 1, which in addition to different text had a grade 0 (subclinical). Wrt multiple citations, I think that if you are confident your source is good, then one is sufficient unless multiple is literally needed (e.g. you say "several authors report..." and cite several sources). I find multiple citations to be common in poor articles where the editors are citing primary sources or multiple unreliable sources as if quantity can make up for quality. This is often a sign that the editor is trying to prove a case in front of the reader, rather than cite one authority who has judged the literature for us. It is rare for FA-level articles to do this. Good luck with the GA. Colin°^Talk 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Officially there is no grade 0 on the West Haven scale because it is only used for overt encephalopathy. The entity of MHE was introduced properly by Ferenci et al.

I have never had trouble with multiple references, and I'm sure you'll concede that my references are all MEDRS-compliant. Again, I will immediately yield to any policy on this matter. Thanks for your input! JFW | T@lk 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by BirgitteSB

This has good material but the article overall needs more meat. The biggest issue is that there just is not enough context to really flesh out a narrative structure. I wonder if you might back up a notch on your sources, maybe sources with more of an overview perspective would help you. Maybe check out Liver#Further reading.

• Lead: Should be a complete overview of the article per WP:LEAD. If it has a subheading in the TOC it should have a passing mention in the lead. Granted I think some of the subheadings should go, but the grading systems at least deserve mention.
  • What information do you think is missing? JFW | T@lk 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Signs and symptoms: Way to many parentheticals. Some of these are needed and should be converted to commas, some should just disappear. One of the best tricks is to use the mainstream understandable version linking to jargon named article. (i.e. swelling of the brain tissue)

• • This is the only way to sensibly offer translations of medical terminology. I want the text to mention both because the reader may be familiar with either version. JFW | T@lk 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Addendum: I think the grading systems are rather too technical to be mentioned in the lead. JFW | T@lk 09:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Causes:
  • While some forms of hepatic encephalopathy are directly due to liver failure (particularly acute liver failure) from any underlying cause, the majority of cases are precipitated or aggravated by particular situations and conditions. Yikes! That doesn't scan at all.
  • Table is just plain bad. Type of what? Convert this all to prose (and get rid of parentheticals).
  • Hepatic encephalopathy may complicate the creation of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), a treatment used in refractory ascites, bleeding from oesophageal varices and hepatorenal syndrome. Switch it around so the cause is mentioned before the effect. I had to read other parts of the article to realize the shunt caused the encephalopathy.

• • • Will deal with the grammar. I'm not sure what can be done about the table, keeping in mind Colin's suggestion of offering translations for the terminology. JFW | T@lk 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • • See my suggestions at Talk:Osteochondritis dissecans#Lead, which was in a much worse state than this article, and simply wikilinked the jargon. There are other alternatives than "jargon (lay)". Colin°^Talk 08:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Classification and grading: This needs an intro before the subsections. Explaining the existence two systems and how their purposes deffer.

• Pathogenesis: Perhaps this section should be merged with "Causes".

• Diagnosis: Why the sub-heading "investigations"? I would remove that. I would start this section by mentioning that it is a clinical diagnosis and what that means at the very beginning. The rest is nice and clear except the parentheses count keeps creeping upwards. Since "Minimal HE" only a single paragraph, I would kill the subheading. Just start the paragraph by saying "Minimal HE cannot be diagnosed by the regular methods, but instead . . ."

• • I'll look into this. JFW | T@lk 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Treatment: The organization of this section is very poor. It needs a complete overhaul. The sub-headings aren't needed but some sort of order is.

• • I thought the sections were needed because each is dedicated to a particular treatment, discussing the strength of available evidence and pros and cons. JFW | T@lk 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Epidemiology and prognosis: What is here is nice, but type B is missing.

• • I think the data on type B are in there somewhere, but not in this section. JFW | T@lk 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• History: This is just so small I wonder if it could be merged into "Classifications and Grading" to give that section some background material.

• • I think the historical angle (e.g. Hippocrates/Galen) would be a big distraction elsewhere. JFW | T@lk 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I also felt some "big-picture" stuff was missing. How prevalent is this disease? Is more of less common than other types of encephalopathy (or at least the similar types that were worth mentioning under diagnosis? Does everyone who needs a liver transplant have this or is destined to get it without transplant? Why do people have Minimal HE? --BirgitteSB 03:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There is simply no data to suggest that HE is more or less common than other forms of encephalopathy. It is also treated by different kinds of doctors, meaning that few will be in a position to make a comparison. I also don't think there is reliable data as to whether HE is a "must" for requiring a liver transplant. JFW | T@lk 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BirgitteSB, for your very thorough review. Colin°^Talk 08:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I was think about the organization in this article. There are two intrinsic sorts of order at war here. Chronologically where you organize the sub-topic by information relevant as the disease proceeds or breaking it up by type A, B, or C. Causes obviously lend themselves to the latter but I would try and manage to use the former in the Treatment section. You can mention the things specific to type as they reach the state of the disease that they must be considered, like removing a shunt (or whatever occlusion means there if not removal). --BirgitteSB 12:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Olivia Manning

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd be grateful for feedback on this article which I have been slowly working on for the last year. It is currently a good article, and received a very helpful review from User:Yllosubmarine, whose recommendations I have been seeking to address. [1] It would be nice to have other opinions; my ultimate plan is to submit this as a featured article candidate.--Slp1 (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is close to featured quality, methinks. It seems comprehensive, well-sourced, professionally written, well-illustrated, neutral, and stable. Some of its images need alt text; the lead is a bit too thin as it stands, and I have a short list of prose nitpicks. Otherwise this looks fine to me, and I enjoyed reading it. Manning was a most interesting and talented writer; I've seen the BBC production, Fortunes of War but have not read the books. I will add them to my to-do list. Here are my suggestions:

Lead

• I'd be inclined to merge the one-sentence lead paragraph with the second paragraph or, more likely, to add another sentence or two to give the paragraph some heft. Done
• In general, the lead, though well-written, is a bit skimpy for such a long article. I'd think about expanding it to four full paragraphs by including more about her personal life; for example, sex is not mentioned in the lead even though it appears many times in the main text sections. I'd also include more about the themes running through her work and the reactions of the critics; the "Themes" subsection isn't mentioned in the current lead. Done

• "Manning returned to London after the war and lived there until her death, writing poetry, short stories, novels, non-fiction, reviews, and drama for the BBC." - Spell out and link British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) here on first use?  Done

Early career

• "Miles, a well-respected and -connected literary advisor and translator in his late thirties... " - I'm not sure the punctuation works. Would "well-respected and connected... " be better?  Done
• "despite opposition from her mother, moved into a run-down bed-sitting room" - Wikilink bed-sitting?  Done
• '"but was sacked when she refused her boss' order to give up novel-writing in the evening" - Maybe boss's? Otherwise, when I read this sentence aloud, it sounds like "boss order".  Done I could have sworn "boss'" was right but not according to the MOS! Thank you.

Marriage and Romania

• "and Reggie's production of a Shakespeare play, in which she was promised a prime role that was given away to another." - Tighten by eliminating "away"? Just "a prime role that was given to another"?  Done

Greece and Egypt

• "On board with the Smiths were the novelist Robert Liddell, the Welsh poet Harold Edwards, and their wives– the Smiths sharing a cramped cabin with the Edwardses." - Spaced en dash?  Done
• ""My hand brought Reggie Smith to this strait bed- Well, fare his soul well, fear not I the dead". - Should this be ""My hand brought Reggie Smith to this strait bed / Well, fare his soul well, fear not I the dead". The spaced front slash is used as a separator between lines of poetry, but since I don't have the poem in front of me, I'm not sure about the hyphen. Oh, I see you've used them in the next paragraph but without spaces; those need spaces fore and aft.  Done The text does have a long dash.[2]; I hate dashes and hyphens.

Palestine

• "Manning never fully recovered from her loss, and was rarely to talk or write of it. She was unable to have further children and in the future transferred her maternal feelings towards animals and especially cats." - Maybe "directed" instead of "transferred"? Done

Post-war England

• "After a brief stay with her still grieving parents in heavily bombed Portsmouth, Manning moved into a London flat." - Link flat?  Done
• "Post war, both she and Reggie were unfaithful." - Maybe "Post-war" or "After the war"?  Done

Other works

• "Her post war works... " - Add a hyphen, post-war?  Done

Colonialism and imperialism

• "The Artist Among the Missing (1949), Manning illustrates the racial tensions that are created when imperialism and multiculturalism mix... " - Start the sentence with "In"?  Done
• "In these works, colonialist attitudes are reproduced by the stereotyping Catholic southerners as wild, primitive and undisciplined, while northerners live lives of well-ordered efficiency." - Does this mean "are reproduced through characters who stereotype Catholic southerners as wild, primitive and undisciplined and northerners as people who live lives of well-ordered efficiency"? Or do you mean that the author sees them in this way?  Done. It was the latter.

Displacement and "otherness"

• "... scholars note Manning's positioning of Romania as an exotic "other", a legacy of the Ottoman empire located the limits of civilized Europe... ". - Missing word, "at" before "the limits". Also, wikilink and cap Ottoman Empire?  Done
• "In keeping with colonial construction of exoticism in Western literature, however, "otherness" is increasingly domestified as characters recognise, with greater exposure to the country, links to Western culture." - "Domesticated" rather than "domestified"? Or do you mean "de-mystified"?  Done Yes, you are right, domesticated is the word.

Works

• "Rose of Rubies (1929) -as Jacob Morrow" - I'd uses spaced en dashes in this list rather than hyphens. Done

Notes

• The Manual of Style recommends "and" over the ampersand except when the ampersand is part of a formal name; e.g. "Braybrooke & Braybrooke" should be "Braybrooke and Braybrooke".

Note I'm not sure how to fix this. It seems to be automatic with the Harvard citations with two authors, but I'll look into it.

• I found it odd that early in the article Reggie is introduced as a Marxist and described as a Communist spy, and then these ideas disappear. Did his politics affect the couple in any way? Did it make any practical difference that the MI5 thought he was a spy? I think it would be good to flesh this out a bit. Done Thanks for the suggestion.

Other

• The lead image and the last two images need alt text. Done
• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds one link (Axis) that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target. Done

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all these very useful suggestions. Sorry for the delay in responding; I've been distracted by life and other things, but will start working through your suggestions asap. --Slp1 (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I've worked through all your suggestions. Anything else you can think of? Thank you once again, and yes, do read the books. An epic that is definitely worth it!! --Slp1 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

---

On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… The article is of fair quality and I would like to get to FA quality. In terms of coverage it is pretty comprehensive, but I still feel like the article is missing something. Any advice how to improve this article in any way would be appreciated.

Thanks, —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is well-done and fascinating. I can't think of anything that is missing. Nice job. One of your source links has a dead url, which may or may not be a quick fix. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

• "in terms of sheet music sold" - Wikilink sheet music?
• "Due to the ambiguity of United States copyright laws at the time of its composition, and the poor management of Dresser's estate, the song was plagiarized." - Those two conditions (ambiguity, poor management) weren't the only factors; people also had to be willing to plagiarize. Maybe "The ambiguity of U.S. copyright laws at the time and the poor management of Dresser's estate left the song vulnerable to plagiarism"?
• I'd consider breaking the second paragraph into two parts, starting a third paragraph with "His younger brother... ".

Composition and popularity

• "music firm in which he was a silent partner" - Wikilink silent partner?

State song

• "Following the 1997 centennial anniversary of the writing of the song, the Indiana General Assembly passed a resolution reconfirming Dresser's song as the state's official song and urged state institutions to make more use of it and return it to popularity." - I'd merge this one-sentence orphan paragraph with the one above it.

Lyrics

• Would it be good to include a source for the lyrics?

Adaptations

• On the Banks of Havena, Far Away - Havana is misspelled. Is that how the source spelled it?

References

• Citation 3 (which supports eight claims in the article ) has a dead link. The Indiana Historical Society might have moved the url to a new page you can find. Alternatively, the Internet Archive might have saved the old page.

Sources

• I'd add the place of publication to each of these. Also, the first Gitelman book needs an ISBN. You can find missing data about books via WorldCat. If a book has no ISBN, you can identify it by its OCLC number, which you can find via WorldCat.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. It is much appreciated! 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Coach of the Year

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for both User:Remember and for myself for peer review because we believe it is close to meeting all of the criteria to become a featured list, but would like suggestions or improvements before submitting a formal FLC request. It already has a sister page (Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year) that we made reach FL status a while back and would like this one to do so as well.

Thanks, Jrcla2 (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Shirik

• Looks like a decent candidate for a featured list to me, but it could still use a little bit of work. I made a thorough copyedit on it, the prose was a little wordy or misleading in some places. I think it's OK now. The biggest concern I have is that source #1 seems to be given very heavy attention while the other sources aren't used at all in the lead. Preferably the lead section would have varying sources. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that, if any references are to be used in the lead, then there should be more than one. I have a question however: Given that all the lead is doing is putting into words what the list itself is representing (which is referenced by many sources), is there even a necessity to have any references in this particular article's lead? E.g. needing to reference the fact that Dean Smith has won the most awards seems a little overkill to me, especially considering anyone can plainly see that in the well-referenced list below. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcla2 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 19 March 2010
    • Actually, all articles can get away with not having references in the lead iff the lead only summarizes content that is present later in the article that is appropriately referenced there. It's certainly arguable that this is the case here, so I wouldn't object to no references. The content in the lead can easily be verified by the fully-referenced list. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
      • How about I remove all references in the lead, since it is only one used repeatedly (making the lead look cluttered/weird)? Would that be alright and then get your approval for FL? Jrcla2 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

• Make sure you have non-free use rationale for using the ACC logo in this list.

 Done

• Why do you have color w/ symbol for some of the qualifiers like HOF coaches? Wouldn't the coloring of the box or the symbol by itself be enough? It just seems like overkill to have the symbol and the color.
  • The reason is that other similarly-themed Featured Lists use this demarcation as well, and Remember and myself did not want to disrupt the consistency when this becomes a FL too. I am referring to Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year and Big East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year.
• I'm not sure the specifics about the recruiting violation are important. The fact that they had to skip the postseason due to a recruiting violation is important but the exact violation seems a bit unnecessary. In my opinion of course.
  • I agree that they may not be essential to the overall purpose of the article, but in my opinion it is worthwhile to leave in there because it fully explains to the curious reader exactly why N.C. State would/could finish a season 27–0 but not claim a national championship.

Otherwise the list looks good. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 18:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Christ myth theory

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has made serious progress in the last few months, it has recently obtained GA status, and is within striking distance of FA status (I posted it for FA review only to have it shot down for somewhat dubious reasons; Ruhrfisch has given a special dispensation to allow the article a PR prior to the normal 2 week wait time). Needless to say, this is an article that attracts a lot of fringe attention and knee-jerk criticism. But if Intelligent Design and Xenu can make it to FA status then, theoretically, so can this article. To ensure that the Peer Review is actually helpful (and not just a rerun of old, baseless arguments) I'd really appreciate comments from people who are at least tangentially familiar with the general topic; editors with earned degrees in history, religion, theology, literature, and so forth would be especially helpful, as would comments from professional post-secondary academics of any sort. Please read the entire article (including footnotes when necessary, as well as the FAQ if need be) before commenting.

Thanks, Eugene (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Rumble Fish

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…this article has already undergone one Peer review and I have made the changes suggested and would like to see if this article is now ready for a GA review.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Sorry, I'm greatly pressed for time at the moment, but here are some comments on the lead and plot summary. Try and deal with these, and I'll get back to the review.

• Disambiguation link: Robert Evans
• Lead
  • informal English such as "can't" should be avoided
  • "The film is notable for its avant-garde style, shot on stark high-contrast black-and-white film, using the spherical cinematographic process with allusions to French New Wave cinema and German Expressionism." Two problems with this sentence: first, it's not entirely grammatical, so I suggest you alter the beginning to read: "The film, notable for its avant-garde style, is shot in stark high-contrast black-and-white, using..." etc. Then, the term "spherical cinematographic process" needs a few words of explanation.
  • Mainstream reviewers acted negatively, yet the film won an international critics' award. Seems odd.
  • What do you mean by its "overt style"?
• Plot
  • General point. I could not pick up a coherent narrative from this summary. Maybe it's that kind of film, full of unexplained nuances, impossible to follow, box-office poison etc. I've done a little copyediting and left some points for you. Does "Rusty James" always have to be identified by both names? It makes for rather tedious and repetitive reading.
  • "rendevouses" is a very clumsy, artificial construction. It doesn't work; try "meets up"
  • Likewise, "cadre" doesn't seem the right word to describe a gang
  • "The two battle, with the fight ending when Rusty James disarms Biff and beats him almost unconscious." Needs rephrasing: "The two battle, until Rusty James disarms Biff and beats him almost unconscious.
  • "The Motorcycle Boy sends his motorcycle flying into Biff." This is the last mention of Biff - what happened to him? Was he killed? Were there no consequences from this?
  • "had it in for" is a bit informal. Perhaps "borne a grudge against"?
  • Informal again: "he's insane" → "he is insane"
  • "He's kicked out of school" - same point
  • Why are capitals used in the second mention of the pet store?
  • "newly-stolen motorcycle"? When did that occur?
  • The parenthetical (something the Motorcycle Boy never got to do) seems like a comment, rather than part of the plot summary.

Call me when you're ready Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Ganoga Lake

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article grew out of a reflink in Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park, which is an FA. I've listed it for peer review because I think it is close to ready for FAC, and I am tired of waiting for a GA reviewer (since Feb. 23). Thanks to Dincher for his review, more comments are welcome. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Arsenikk has just passed this as a GA with more useful comments, which I will address today. I would still appreciate a PR before FAC. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I know this is an amazingly unhelpful thing to say at Peer Review, but I don't have any major comments on this extremely interesting article, except to say that perhaps more could be said about leisure/fishing activities on the lake. Other than that I can't see any room for further improvement and if this came up at FAC I would vote unconditional support. Please let me know when it is taken there, and if the creators have any other articles up for review let me know as I would be happy to (and greatly enjoy) reviewing them as well.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments - the main problem with more sources on the lake is that it is privately owned (I have never laid eyes on it myself as they have a gate up on the access road). If it were public (in a state park or state forest or state game land) then there would almost certainly be more on modern recreation available. Since three reviewers have found very little to complain about, I think I will nominate it FAC soon. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

---

List of members of the International Hockey Hall of Fame

</noinclude>

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this to FL status and I have had some editors take a look and help out, but I don't know if more needs to be done or how to go about it and I would like some more in depth critic before I go forward. Basically to steal a line from some one on the Olympics project group I don't want to look like a Muppet during the review process.

Thanks, Leech44 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'd like to say something encouraging, but I have doubts that the article can survive as a stand-alone. What would a reader learn from this list that he or she would not learn from List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame?

• "List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame" is a featured list and Hockey Hall of Fame is a featured article. Reading quickly, I see that these articles overlap significantly with yours.

• It's possible that you might rescue the article by adding sufficient new information not available in the other two articles. How did the players qualify for nomination? Who chose them? What were the rules? Did any controversies arise about any of the selections? What was the inside of the building like? Who went there? Did they pay to get in? Why was a lager logo on the front of the building? It might be possible to improve this article by digging deeper, finding out all you can about this particular topic.

• The article (including the alt text, which should describe the images but should avoid introducing ideas not conveyed by the images themselves) needs copyediting. I found and fixed several errors near the beginning of the lead, but I see others further down. For example, "permeate" is the wrong word for "permanent", and "leagues" is possessive and should be league's.

I hope these few comments are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the grammar and ALT text but unfortunately since I wrote the text it's difficult for me to do a good copy-edit 1. because if I made the mistake the first time I would probably make it again. 2. because I've realized that my writing is not the greatest in general. Also I'm going to try and address some of the other concerns regarding the addition of information in the lead, but that will take a little more time. Thanks--Leech44 (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am still researching information, but I wanted to point out that the IHHOF is separate from the HHOF. I think that one of the lines in the HHOF article is misleading where it states tat the HHOF was originally called the IHHOF, I posted something on the discussion page for the HHOF hoping to get some clarification, in case I have misinterpreted some of the articles I have read. Although they are still very similar and your concerns are still well warranted. --Leech44 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems as i have hit a snag on this article as information has been difficult to come by. The best information comes from the IHHOF website which I was told that it's own website is not a reliable reference, and a Google scholar search turned up nothing and Google book search only offer slight previews, books containing little blurbs, or some thing along the lines of the Canadian encyclopedia (I don't remember the exact title off hand), which I'm sure I won't be able to get in the States on an inter-library loan program. The fact is that this list my never be able to achieve FL status.--Leech44 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Paramount Television Network

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached GA, but may need additional work to reach FA. Comments on clarity and prose suggestions are especially appreciated.

Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Good solid TV history, copiously referenced. Only one image; I agree that non-free use of the logo is justified. A few specific comments:-

• Lead: I think that the general nature of the clash between Paramount and DuMont ("one of the most unfortunate and dramatic episodes..." etc) should be indicated in the lead.

Thank you. I've worked on expanding on this. Please review for prose and clarity.

Expanded wording is fine (note: no spaces around mdashes - I have fixed) Looking at the lead again, a couple of extra points occur tome. The description "ill-fated" in the first line seems judgemental, non-neutral. Perhaps it would be better avoided. Secondly, since we know who "one television historian is", why not name him? Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Origins
  • "Paramount was the party of several anti-trust lawsuits..." Odd phrasing. Perhaps "target" rather than party?

Switched, thank you. The alternate wording suggestion was particularly helpful.

• • Prose suggestion: some sentences would have more impact if their phrasing was "flipped". An example is "Executives at Paramount Pictures were interested in what was then the new medium of television as early as 1937." This might read better as "As early as 1937 executives at Paramount Pictures were interested in what was then the new medium of television."

Switched. (Actually, your suggested wording was what I had written months ago, and was kept in the article until this week, when I switched it at the recommendation of an automated grammar checking site).

My xperience of such sites is that they murder prose. Stick to your instincts! Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• • The "as early as" form is used again in the next sentence. Try to find an alternative phrasing.

Thanks. I've given 'by' a try.

• • "emceed"; I know what this means, but it seems informal, even slangy, for an encyclopedia

Replaced with "hosted"; I rather liked "emceed", though.

Yeah, it's a good word, but we poor encyclopedia writer-drudges have to rein in our vocabularies, alas. Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "...opened up the possibility that they might become..." - a double tentative! Perhaps "might" should be amended to "would"?

Thanks. This is exactly the sort of thing I can't seem to spot in my own writing.

• Launch
  • "...or when none of the four networks' programs were particularly good." This seems a very subjective criterion. Who decided if programs were not "particularly good"?

Station managers; this was during a time when large blocks of network programming were basically just "filler". Still, I've reworded, per your advice.

• • "Federal Communications Commission" already linked and initials already explained

Removed.

• • Is "O&Os" (with ampersand) a recognised abbreviation of "owned-and-operated stations"?

if you mean in a traditional dictionary: I checked Webster's and it's not there. But in the broadcast industry and the sources used, it is definitely a recognized term.

OK, then you should add ("O&O") to the first mention of owned-and-operated stations. Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Affiliates
  • The US map should have a summary caption

Done.

For clarity the caption should add something like: "Each symbol represents a receiving station". Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• • The main table: I was initially confused by the double format, but I think this is just to save space. The resultant gap between text and table is a bit of a problem, as is the absence of any date information in the table, which makes it difficult to interpret.

Yes, the double format was intended to save space, as I did not want the table to overwhelm the article, but felt the table was highly useful for the few (niche) readers who will come to this article. No source anywhere gives exact dates for the affiliations; early U.S. TV history was a mess until gradually being straightened out starting in the 1990s. The years during which a series aired on a local station have only been included when absolutely necessary (ie, where there would otherwise have been reader confusion about overlapping affiliations, like both KPIX and KGO-TV in San Francisco airing The Harry Owens Show).

Is the gap you are talking about the white space between "not shown in the table below" and the table itself? It looks tiny in my browser at my screen resolution, but I understand it might be much larger in other resolutions and in other browsers. If this is the gap you're talking about, I might be able to fill in a little more text.

Yes, that's the one. The gap is not huge on my resolution, but it's big enough to detach the table from the text. If you can add relevant text that might help. Otherwise, give the table a summary title. Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• End of network
  • Initials, e.g. UPT, should always be given after first mention of the full name.

Done, thank you.

• • Yet another link on Federal Communications Commission

Fixed, thank you.

• • "Paramount executives, however, cavalierly denied..." This non-neutral wording needs to be attributed, or withdrawn if it is editorial comment.

Withdrawn, as it was my own wording.

• • "The ruling "ensured that television broadcasting would be controlled by the same three companies that had dominated radio broadcasting, thus fostering a lack of diversity in both station and network ownership" Important statements like this need to be attributed, as well as cited.

Already cited, now attributed. Thank you.

• • "historians such as McNeil..." Give full name.

Done.

• • "In a dramatic move..." Another instance of non-neutral phrasing.

Not sure how to phrase it more neutrally. This was the moment when Paramount cleaned out the house at DuMont with the hostile takeover. It was definitely dramatic. I did not include any of the scene with Dr. DuMont sobbing, as I felt this might be difficult to word neutrally. I am open to suggestions, though.

Let it go. Neutrality doesn't have to mean 100% bland. Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• References: some inconsistency in access dates for online sources. For example, compare [196] and [212] (other examples exist).

Reference #196 uses template:Cite journal, as Billboard is primarily a periodical; a URL was included for easier verification by the reader. Reference #212 uses template:Cite web, as it is only available on the Internet. I could remove the links to Billboard, but then it would be more difficult for the reader (or future editors) to verify.

You can use the same date formats in cite journal and cite web (I always do). Brianboulton (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please contact me via my talkpage if you need to discuss any of these issues. Brianboulton (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. I greatly appreciate your reading of the article, and the suggestions for improvement, which I've tried to incorporate. I'll ping your talk page as well, but I do want to thank you for your thorough efforts reviewing this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Manchester United F.C.

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to regain Good Article status, and then hopefully Featured article status. Already made some fairly significant changes, what else can be improved?

Thanks, Tomlock01 (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick review from Jayron32

Hey, following a request at my talk page, I perused the article. It looks pretty good, I think it only needs some minor polishing, if any, before GA status is returned. The only glaring thing missing is proper referencing of some sections. The "History" sections in this regard need some work, there is at least one unresolved citation needed tag in there, and other referencing is spotty; the entire 1969-1986 section is unreferenced, which IS a problem, especially parts where there are questionable statements made (the bit about them offering the manager job, and being rebuffed by, Jock Stein, for one example). A good "rule of thumb" is that, at minimum, each paragraph should have a reference showing where that information came from, while additional references should be provided directly after statements which are direct quotes, contain facts and figures, or which may in some way be challenged, like the one I note above. Another example of a controversial or questionable or challangable statement which is unreferenced is the first paragraph of the "Ownership and finances" section. It should be noted that these same problems were noted when the article was stripped of its GA status, see Talk:Manchester United F.C./GA1 for more info. --Jayron32 21:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Freshman fifteen

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it is in need of comments to develop it for a school project. Thanks. Benro129

Auntieruth55

• Prose. The prose on this is generally quite good. It still needs some proofreading and tweaking. Try reading Tony1's advice here. Although he's generally discussing Featured Article criteria, his suggestions apply to writing well. this sentence in particular is confusing: However, despite some disagreement[26] that the number is that high, there is some evidence[27] that this term used to be "freshman 10", and the increase in the number reflects the increase in the weight gained in the first year. That whole section could use some expansion. This sentence is also confusing: Nicole L. Mihalopoulos and colleagues developed at a private university in the Northeastern United States where they tested freshmen college students who lived on campus. . they developed what at a private university in the northeastern United States?
• Citations. Although your cites are consistently done, they would be improved by wikification of the links.
• Enhancements. Pictures would be good. Do you have charted data that would help to illustrate in visual terms some of your textual material? There is a lot of text without any break, and that makes it more difficult to read.
• Ambiguous interwiki links. There are twelve, and these need to actually direct to the proper page.
• External links. A few are dead, several are redirects, and several link directly to a secured site. While that is okay, it's important to make sure that those citations are well documented so that someone else can find them without linking to the article you used.

Just some points to make. It's more than a good start, and I'll look forward to seeing how you improve it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Ottawa Senators (original)

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

I've worked a lot on it (hundreds of edits), nominated it for FA and it was not promoted. I am basically looking for help in any way to fulfil the FA criteria. I'm possibly too close to it to see obvious improvements.

Thanks, ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I'm not going to offer a full review, as for one thing I don't feel I am qualified; having no FAs of my own to judge off, and for a second, as much as I would like it, I simply don't have the time! However, here is what I have noticed.

• You start the Team History section with: "It started with a small group of like-minded hockey enthusiasts." I'm personally not a fan of this language, it sounds a little too story-like, rather than encyclopedia-like.
• "The first organized ice hockey club in Ottawa, and first in Ontario," sounds a bit clunky to me, and I'd like to see Ontario linked, I'm aware it is the province Ottawa is in, but I'm sure not everyone is. Maybe something like "The first organized ice hockey club in Ottawa, and in the whole of the Ontario province," or something like that?
• "the club had no other clubs to play that season" again, a little clunky for me, especially with the repitition of 'club', maybe "the club had no opposition to play that season"? I know I'm being picky here, so feel free to ignore or argue with me!
• "For the 1885 season, the club adopted gold and blue as its colours and returned to the Montreal Tournament." As the tournament is called the 'Montreal Winter Carnival', not the 'Montreal Tournament', I think tournament can take a lower-case 't'.
• "...and Ottawa HC would not play an outside match again until 1887." An outside match? Is this outdoors, or against another team? I'm guessing the latter, but it's slightly ambiguous for me.
• "It incorporated several Montreal-area teams," Maybe "It incorporated several teams from the Montreal area,"?
• ..., plus Quebec City and Ottawa." Teams from Quebec City and Ottawa, or just a team called Quebec City and Ottawa HC?
• "When the club began competition again in 1890," Sounds weird to me, maybe it's just a phrase I don't use, but personally I'd say "When the club began competing again in 1890,"

Right, that's all I've got time for at the moment, I'll look back later if I've got a chance. Nice article on the whole though, my points above are picky ones. Harrias (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

These are all good points, thanks. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The Open Boat

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FAC in the near future. "The Open Boat" is highly notable and fascinating American short story by Stephen Crane; the article was recently promoted to Good Article-status and alt text has been added. Any and all comments would be appreciated, although I'm of course most interested in whether or not it stands a chance against the FA-criteria. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 02:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(Note: several un-actionable comments have been moved to the talk page here. María (habla conmigo) 19:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

• Agree that plot sections do not need references. The article looks like it is in good shape; the prose is well written and the paragraphs flow nicely. Quotes in the lead are all intergrated into the body; references are properly formatted. There is nothing that I can see that would hold this back from FA accreditation. Good luck! ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 06:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Junipers Liege, I really appreciate the positive feedback! :) María (habla conmigo) 12:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is very good, professionally written, interesting throughout. I have a few minor prose and style suggestions and one more serious concern (or question, at least) about Crane criticism that might have examined gender-specific identity in this story. I haven't read the criticism, so I'm only guessing at what might be out there. The question of whether the full spectrum of critical opinion is fairly represented in the article is sure to come up at FAC.

Lead

• "The story is told from the point of view of an anonymous correspondent, Crane's fictional doppelganger... ". - Link doppelgänger and add the umlaut?
• "the story, which is considered an exemplary work of literary Naturalism... " - Lowercase "naturalism"?
• "one of the men, an oiler named Billie Higgins" - Link oiler here on first use?

Background

• "On the St. Johns River, less than 2 miles (3.2 km)... " - Since 2 miles is an approximation, I'd round the kilometer figure to an even 3 by adding the parameter |0 to the conversion template; i.e., 2 miles (3 km).
• "He and three other men (including the ship's Captain)... " - Lowercase "captain"?
• "When Crane asked the other man how it was... " - Maybe alter to "how good the story was"? "It" is a bit ambiguous.

• All of these (save changing "Naturalism") have been addressed. María (habla conmigo) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Publication history

• "Crane only dedicates roughly two paragraphs... " - Tighten "Crane dedicates merely two paragraphs"?

Plot summary

• The Manual of Style advises against using bolding to highlight words in the text and suggests italics instead. I'd suggest italics for correspondent and the other characters. WP:MOSBOLD has details.

• Cool, changed. María (habla conmigo) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Style and genre

• I'm used to seeing "naturalism" and the others without the initial capital letter, and my dictionary agrees. This is not a big issue but might come up again at FAC.

• Because "Naturalism" is a proper noun, I think it should be capitalized so that the movement itself is evoked, rather than just run-of-the-mill naturalism. This was brought up several times when I was writing Stephen Crane, and I'm still stubborn about it. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Furthermore, "The Open Boat" distances itself from Romantic optimism common in works of literature at the time, reaffirming man's place in the world by concentrating on the characters' isolation." - I don't think it will be quite clear to readers what this sentence means. It might be better not to mention the romantic movement or, if you mention it, to make more clear how "reaffirming man's place in the world" was naturalistic rather than romantic. I think Wordsworth and Coleridge, for example, might take issue with the idea that they were not "reaffirming man's place in the world". The phrase is so vague, it's open to varied interpretations.

• Great point, I agree it's a little confusing. I've removed the reference to Romanticism. María (habla conmigo) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• "man's place" - I know what is intended by "man"; nevertheless I flinch at this construction here and in the lead ("man and nature"), and elsewhere. I'd consider replacing it as smoothly as possible. I would consider, for example, whether the subhead, "Man vs. nature" could be reasonably replaced by "Men vs. nature" and altering the first sentence of the subsection to read, "Similar to other naturalistic works, "The Open Boat" scrutinizes the position of men who have been isolated not only from society but also from God and nature, and the struggle between men and the natural world is the most apparent theme in the work." These are guys on their way to a 19th century war, and no women are on board. The only woman seems to be Nature, who is "indifferent, flatly indifferent". Ouch! Haven't any of the Crane critics said anything about the question of gender? Do any of the critics see the story as sentimental?

• I can definitely add a little info about woman as wild, unreliable, untamed, indifferent nature (I wrote an essay about that once!), so great idea. As for the "man/men vs. nature", I'll have to think about this for a bit. "Man vs. nature", in the singular, is how the conflict is commonly referred to in criticism; although of course there are four men in the boat, it's traditional to refer to the theme of "man vs. nature". I'll give the structure some thought. María (habla conmigo) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Bender wrote that Crane "emphasizes that Bille's steady, simple labor... " - Billie's is misspelled here, probably not in the original, but I can't be sure.

• Whoops, typo. Thanks for catching that! María (habla conmigo) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Other

• No problems with dead links, dabs, or alt text.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. We always have a wealth of articles and a dearth of editors; you'd be a great reviewer. Finetooth (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Finetooth! You've given me some great suggestions, and a few helpful things to think about. I've already reviewed two PRs, and I may get around to doing another before I bring this to FAC. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Slipknot concert tours

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think there have been a lot of changes since it being a FLC, and I think it is FL now.

Thanks, CrowzRSA ^{23:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)}

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this, more work is needed before I think it would pass at FLC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I do not think the first sentence meets [[WP:LEAD[[, particularly Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence: First sentence: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1] The article is about the band's tours, but the first sentence does not mention tours in its current form.
• References usually go after punctuation, per WP:CITE
• The prose could be tightened - just in the lead these two sentences could be combined The band's first concert tour was in 1999, when they toured the United States with an annual festival featuring live performances by various heavy metal bands. The festival was called Ozzfest, which was founded by Ozzy Osbourne[1] and his wife Sharon Osbourne in 1996.[2] to read something like The band's first concert tour was of the United States with the 1999 Ozzfest, founded by Ozzy Osbourne[1] and his wife Sharon Osbourne in 1996 and featuring live performances by heavy metal bands.[2]
• Would "supporting legs" be clearer here? The Kill the Industy tour and Slipknot's second Ozzfest were both supporting tours [legs?] of the world tour.[5]
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As a summary, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. I can see things like Ozzy founding Ozzfest being only in the lead, because it is not really about the band and this is a list article. But if performing the song "Purity" is important enough about the band and its tours to be in the lead, I think it should be mentioned in the article body too.
• Ditto with "Skin ticket"
• Awkward The tour lasted 28 months, was performed in 34 different countries, and had 233 shows.[6] how about something like this instead The tour lasted 28 months, with 233 shows in 34 different countries.[6]
• I think I would rather see more about some of the tours that are not mentioned in the lead at all, than band members' broken ankles.
• Why no number of performances for the World Domination Tour?
• I think these sentences could be combined into one The tour, with part of it taking place during the summer, posed a challenge to Slipknot in particular.[39] Slipknot performed in masks that, even under the best circumstances, were extremely uncomfortable.[40]
• "European leg" is singular, "they" is plural The European leg was intended to begin around the September 11 attacks, but because of the incident, they were postponed to February 2002.[52]
• This After a Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand leg at the "Big Day Out" festival,[75] Slipknot returned to the United States, supported by Lamb Of God and Shadows Fall.[76] could be something like After Canadian and Australian legs, and a New Zealand leg that included the "Big Day Out" festival,[75] Slipknot returned to the United States, supported by Lamb Of God and Shadows Fall.[76]
• Refs need to give more complete information in some cases. For example current ref 42 is just "Mtv Retrieved 2010-03-03" but looking at the ref itself, there is a date, article title, and author: Jun 22 2000, Coal Chamber Drummer Sidelined, Still Plans "Tattoo" Tour, By Robert Mancini Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
• I would get someone to look it over for a copyedit.
• WP:ALT says to describe the picture, but not to assume the average reader will recognize what Slipknot fans (in this case) do. I would describe the lead image as more like "A rock band silhouetted on a dark stage with white fog on the stage floor"

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review, the list's flaws have been fixed. CrowzRSA ^{23:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)}
  

---

South Jordan, Utah

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… User:Chzz made my day by suggesting I submit the article for peer review with the intent of moving it to good article status.

Thanks, Bgwhite (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is broad in coverage, generally well-written, stable, and neutral. To achieve GA, it will need better sourcing, and it needs more images. When all the other changes are finished, the lead will need to be re-written. The article is interesting and is not all that far from GA, in my opinion, and I'd encourage you to keep working on it. It would be reasonable to aspire to improve this article to FA eventually. (You might look at FA articles at WP:FA#Geography and places to see how other editors have handled similar material).

I made quite a few minor proofing changes as I went. I'm sure I didn't catch everything, and I list several kinds of things below that need fixing but which I didn't fix. If you have a digital camera (or can borrow one), and live in or near South Jordan, you will have no trouble creating suitable images to add to the article. These would be best uploaded to the Commons.

Lead

• The lead should be a summary of the whole article. If you imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you'll have a good idea of what it needs to include. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has details.

Done

Pre-European

• Have archeologists found evidence of any earlier peoples?
• "The changing climatic conditions, combined with ancestors to the Ute, Paiute, and Shoshoni pushing them out of the area, caused the Fremont people to disappear." - Wikilink Ute, Paiute, and Shoshoni on first use?
• "When settlers arrived in South Jordan, the area bordered several tribes." - Were no tribes displaced by the newcomers?
• Does any source give an estimate of the population sizes of the tribes?
• What happened to the tribes after the settlers arrived?
• "Jordan River north of Utah Lake" - Wikilink Jordan River and Utah Lake?
• "Several homes along 1300 West which were built during this time can still be seen." - This sounds like original research as defined by WP:OR. Can you provide a source?

Done

Early Mormon settlement

• The first paragraph of this subsection is unsourced even though it includes information that is not common knowledge. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph as well as a source for every set of statistics, every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, and every direct quote.
• "In 1863, the South Jordan LDS Branch was organized as a branch of the West Jordan Ward, giving South Jordan its name." - You might add something here about the origin of the name "Jordan". Also, LDS should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use in the lead so that it makes sense simply abbreviated thereafter. Readers who live far from Utah may have no idea what LDS stands for or that this is not the original Jordan or why settlers would have chosen Jordan for a name.
• "a granite foundation using left-over materials brought from the granite quarry at the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon" - Wikilink granite and Little Cottonwood Canyon?

Done

Twentieth century

• Link alfalfa and sugar beet?
• Generally, it's a good idea to combine one-sentence orphan paragraphs with other paragraphs to keep the layout from becoming too fragmented. An alternative is to expand the orphans into full paragraphs. This section has four orphans.
• "Citizens voted to incorporate on November 8, 1935, and immediately bonded itself to get money for the water tank." - "Citizens" is plural, but "itself" is singular. Perhaps "immediately issued bonds"?
• "assumed local supervision of police, fire, road and building inspections from Salt Lake County" - Wikilink Salt Lake County?
• The last three orphan paragraphs contain dates and statistics and need in-line citations to reliable sources.

Done

Geography

• "the city has a total area of 21 square miles (54.4 km2)" - I'd set the sigfig parameter to 2 rather than 3.
• "20.87 square miles (54.1 km2)" - If you use four significant figures for the first quantity, the conversion quantity should have four. Sometimes it makes more sense to round the first figure, but the precision seems important here.
• The second paragraph needs a source or sources. You can use maps as sources.

Done

Parks and recreation

• Most of this section lacks in-line citations to reliable sources.
• "City Park includes baseball/softball fields, football/soccer/lacrosse fields... " - The front slash is usually ambiguous. For example, readers can't tell if this means "baseball and softball fields" or whether it means fields that are used for both baseball and softball. Ditto for all the other front-slashed pairs in the article.
• I'd consider linking terms that foreigners might not know. These would include "skate park", "rainbow trout", and "catfish". "Mulligan's two miniature golf" is an uncommon term and needs to be briefly explained or linked. Ditto for the other fish, "dressage", maybe "pocket park" or anything that you think a reader from China or Turkey or Sri Lanka might not already find familiar.
• "67-acre (27 ha) Oquirrh Lake sits inside 137-acre (55 ha) of park and wetlands" - The Manual of Style advises against starting sentences with digits. Sometimes it's easier to re-cast the sentence than to spell out the numbers.

Done

Education

• Needs better sourcing.

Sorry to be unclear. I was zooming along at this point in the review. I don't mean that the sources you've cited are bad; I mean that parts of this section are unsourced. Finetooth (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Done

Transportation

• Needs better sourcing.

Ditto for this section; parts are unsourced. Finetooth (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Done

Famous people

• I'd probably change the head to read "Notable residents".
• The Manual of Style suggests turning lists into regular prose where feasible. You could turn this list into two paragraphs, one about athletes, and the other about actors, authors, and sculptors. Complete sentences within the paragraphs could say something like "X is a former rugby star who was born in South Jordan in 1982." Each claim like this will need a citation to a reliable source.

Done but keeping it as a list for now

References

• The date formatting should be consistent throughout the reference section. Since you've used m-d-y for most of them, I'd suggest changing the yyyy-mm-dd entries to m-d-y.
• The Madsen link in citation 5 isn't working.

Done

Possibilities for expansion

• WP:USCITY has a handy list of guidelines and categories for city articles. You might consider adding information about climate, geology, the economy, sports, arts and culture, and media. For a small city, some of these categories can be combined so that the layout is not made choppy by a lot of little sections.

Other

• The tools at the top of this review page find no dabs or dead urls, which is good. The alt-text tool shows that the images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details. You might not need alt text for GAN, but it's helpful to readers with vision impairments who depend on machines that read the text aloud.

Done

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Desert of Desolation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working to build it up to GA quality at least. I think it's only a few steps away from a GA - a bit more in the lead, a bit less of reception for sure - but anything you can think of to push it along, let me know.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• A couple of things that I noticed while reading through to try and help:

• Is there any more neutral image that can be used besides the "Pharoah" adventure module?
• Is there any additional imagery that can be added to this article? Perhaps art work, or images that elaborate on the modules reception.
• In "Tracy Hickman feels that the module Pharaoh can teach positive Christian lessons, saying of the eponymous Pharaoh character, the "apparent misery to which this figure was condemned by his own lust for wealth continues to teach the value of deeds over possessions to all who play that game today..." I don't see a mention of Christian lessons in the quote. Although it appears in the reference, perhaps you could use a quote that better represents that statement.
• The reception section seems a little bit saturated. Consider narrowing this down a bit, and make it more focused.

Regards, -Cam^T|C 12:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Eduard Streltsov

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just started working on it again after a few months of letting it be, and am looking for thoughts to help me take it to FAC. I'd appreciate comments on the prose, especially, as I understand that this is a weakness of mine.

Thanks, – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is nicely done. The interesting personal story makes the article much more compelling than it would be if it only recounted his playing career. I have several suggestions about prose here and there and a couple of comments or questions about image licenses and other issues.

Lead

• "promising career was interrupted at the age of 20 by a conviction of rape that saw him imprisoned for five years." - Since a rape can't literally see, perhaps "promising career was interrupted at the age of 20 by a conviction of rape that led to five years in prison."
• "After a statue of Streltsov was erected at the Luzhniki Olympic Complex in 1998, 1999 saw Torpedo build a monument to the former player outside the stadium bearing his name." - Since a year can't literally see, a slight re-write might be better. Suggestion: "A statue of Streltsov was erected at the Luzhniki Olympic Complex in 1998, and in 1999 Torpedo built a monument to him outside the stadium bearing his name."

Images

• Some countries such as the U.S. do not have what is called freedom of panorama; that is, freedom to take photographs of statues displayed in public and to publish the photos without violating copyright. If Russian law does not allow freedom of panorama, the statue photos won't survive close scrutiny. I don't know what the Russian laws say about this, but you might find the answer via Commons:Freedom of panorama.

Conviction of rape

• "As a key player for both his club team and for the Soviet national side, these traits combined to create the impression in the government psyche that "Streltsov was becoming rather too much of a celebrity". - Maybe "Because he was a key player... "?

Release and return to football

• "Despite having lost some of his strength and agility,[13] his footballing intelligence was still intact;" - Since his intelligence didn't lose strength and agility, perhaps this would be better: "Although he had lost some of his strength and agility, his footballing... ".
• Caption: "Streltsov featured in May 1967 as the USSR defeated... ". - Maybe "excelled" rather than "featured"?
• "After losing his place for the 1968 European Championship qualifying match against Finland on 30 August 1967, Streltsov missed three Soviet Union matches before reclaiming his place for an away friendly match against Bulgaria on 8 October, marking his return with a goal as the Soviets fought back from 1–0 down with 20 minutes left to win 2–1." - A few too many clauses? Suggestion: "After losing his place for the 1968 European Championship qualifying match against Finland on 30 August 1967, Streltsov missed three Soviet Union matches before reclaiming his place for an away friendly match against Bulgaria on 8 October. He marked his return with a goal as the Soviets fought back from 1–0 down with 20 minutes left to win 2–1.
• "although he scored a relatively low six league goals during 1967, his lowest from a full season since his début year of 1954... ". - "for a full season" rather than "from a full season"?
• "European Championship quarter-final first leg defeat to Hungary on 4 May 1968" - Either "defeat by" or "loss to" would be better than "defeat to".

Post-retirement

• "Due to Olympic policy of the time, the only members of the winning squad who received gold medals were the players who had won the final match; Streltsov did not play in the final, and so was not awarded a medal." - Maybe "Olympic policy in 1956 was to award gold medals only to members of the winning football squad who had played in the final match. Since Streltsov did not play in the final, he did not receive a medal."

Playing style and legacy

• "the club subsequently erected a statue of him outside three years later." - Maybe "the club erected an outdoor statue of him three years later"?

Other

• Valentin Ivanov links to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target.
• Biographies often include metadata that is invisible to most readers but helpful to researchers. I used a script to add "Persondata" via Template:Persondata to the bottom of the article. You can review this in edit mode to make sure it's correct and to add a short description, maybe "Association football player".
• I wondered if Streltsov ever re-married or if he had any children. I also wondered if he continued his high living and womanizing after his release from prison. Related to the thought of high living, I wondered, because of the throat cancer, if he was a heavy smoker. It's not necessary to answer these questions or to add this data, if available, to the article. On the other hand, it might add even more interest.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your comments; they are much appreciated and I have implemented them all. The last point is one which I will investigate over the next week or so! Cheers! :) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  

---

List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. managers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is close to FL standard. I've put in alot of extra work in the last day to bring it up to the standard of articles like List of Bristol Rovers F.C. managers and List of York City F.C. managers. I'd like to know if its lacking anything. I've included a history section so there is a possibility I might have overlinked or used the same words too often. Any feedback will be appreciated.

Thank you for your time. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Dave Smith (footballer) manager.jpg is missing a Fair Use Rationale for this article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats a shame, Dave is well thought of here. I've replaced him with Shilts. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You could have left the image in, you just needed to add a FUR for this specific article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, its done now. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not 100% savvy when it comes to image use on Wikipedia. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments from Cliftonian (talk · contribs)...
  • "Plymouth Argyle Football Club are" → is. Use "are" when referring to the team (as in the players, for example: "Plymouth Argyle are an inferior side compared to Luton Town"), but "is" when referring to the club ("Plymouth Argyle is a better run club than Luton Town"). Only use "are" after a proper noun, in the form I have given above, referring to the team of players. In all other forms, use "is". Your lead is conflicting on this point and this makes it sound awkward. Just be consistent, whatever you do here; but I find that what I've suggested reads best.
  • Why is the committee's nationality given as "United Kingdom"? I'd leave it blank, personally.
  • Promotion isn't an honour, it's an achievement.
  • You may get some trouble over Greens on Screen at FLC; I'd let it pass, but I know many wouldn't without a lot of backing up – just a warning.
  • I've just cast my eyes over the "history" prose; it's entertaining, but a little bit POV for some peoples' liking, I fear – It reads like a fansite in places. Try to tone down phrases such as "However, the team and all the work that had gone into it was undoubtedly the work of Sturrock", "he proved to be an immediate hit" and "Highly-respected administrator". A trick I used a lot in my Luton Town articles and lists was to use the books at my disposal to find phrases such as these and quote them from the text: for example, if one of your books describes Frank Brettell as a "highly-respected administrator", you can quote it and use it here with no problems. I remember having a great deal of hardship trying to describe one of our old owners, John Gurney, without sounding POV – in the end I had to quote the word "controversial" from the BBC!
• Well, Hope these help. God bless. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll get to work on it during the next couple of days. Regarding a couple of issues; you're right about Greens on Screen. I hastily listed the Player of the Year article a while ago and its major sticking points was that website. I couldn't ignore it because its a fantastic resource but I can understand why it would be questioned as a reliable source. I have a few references about it that have been listed on When Saturday Comes, but I'm not sure whether I'll keep it or just reference it all to a couple of books that I now have.

I tried to keep the "History" section as neutral as I could, but it doesn't surprise me that a few journalistic phrases crept in occasionally. I'll have a gander at my books, see what I can find and replace certain parts. One more thing, the first example you gave is a blatent lie! ;) And the second isn't all that true (we posted a loss of £2.8m last year because of terrible signings - speaking of which, would Luton be interested in Steven MacLean and Simon Walton? They're very under-rated *whistle smiley*).

Cheers. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you know as well as I do that those examples were not so much tongue-in-cheek as in-the-next-country! ;) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been carrying out some work in one of my sandboxes, clearing up referencing issues mainly and better presentation, but I haven't had a crack at the history section yet. My laptop's hard disc is close to being written off, so I dare not work much on a large body of writing because it could easily crash and I'd have to start again. I've bought a new computer though, so once I've got that up and running I can focus on it properly. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

---

List of bow tie wearers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be a featured list candidate but current participation at the article is a bit thin. Having another viewpoint on the article would be extremely helpful in this process.

Thanks, ~TPW 20:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments from Cliftonian (talk · contribs)
• I may be better known for my football work, but I am an old hand when it comes to lists and FLC and so am weighing in with some suggestions.
  • First things first: The first sentence is non-engaging and rather confused. I would start with the paragraph starting "Bow tie wearing can be a notable characteristic for an individual." and move the New York Times quote to the bottom of the lead.
  • "Those who write about bow ties often mention famous people who wear or have worn them. These writers often make the point that the image conveyed to others by a bow tie can be affected by associations with celebrities and famous people in the past." Some in-line citations would help this a lot – as it is, it doesn't really work.
  • There are a lot of places throughout the first few sections where events are referred to with no context. Try to provide times and dates when possible. For example "Beau Ties Ltd., an online bow tie seller, has featured a "C. Everett Koop" bow tie complete with an endorsement by Koop, U.S. surgeon general in the Reagan administration."
  • The list itself seems fine and well-done, though I would provide some sort of criteria for inclusion as this can be a very hard obstacle to overcome. Do you have any sort of third-party list of notable bow tie wearers you can refer to? This could be helpful.
• Good luck pal, and God bless. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Middlesex (novel)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive feedback on the article's prose, structure, and depth. I plan to take this article to WP:FAC.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Maria

This is such a wonderful book, so I'm glad to see the article is in great shape! Here are some comments and suggestions made with the FA-criteria in mind:

• The lead contains some unnecessary repetition, and could use some copy-editing with User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing in mind. A couple examples from the top:

• including the 1967 Detroit riot, which he observed when he lived in Detroit -- when he was a child?
• Scholars have noted that the main themes of the novel are nature vs. nurture and rebirth. Scholars have also noted that the novel depicts the differing experiences of polar opposites, such as males and females. -- I would suggest combining these two sentences, to remove the redundancy of the bolded words.
• The bulk of the novel is devoted to telling his coming-of-age story growing up in Detroit, Michigan in the late 20th century. -- To me, "coming-of-age" and "growing up" mean the same thing. Bildungsroman is also already linked in another paragraph.

• Done. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• The novel is told in the form of a memoir in an androgynous voice. This sentence seems out of place, as it's unconnected to the rest of the paragraph.

• Done. Removed. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking of lead organization, I would suggest delving into the plot first (after the initial intro paragraph), and then moving onto important themes and what critics thought. Otherwise, the themes are not given any context; that is why the plot summary tends to be the first or second section in an article.

• Done. I've moved the paragraph about the plot to be before the paragraph about the themes. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the lead switches from present tense to past tense, which is confusing. I would suggest referring to critics' past opinions as just that: past opinions, in the past tense.

• Done. Changed all to past tense. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• With some dedicated copy-editing, I think this article may have a better chance of fulfilling the first FA-criteria, which is that the writing be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". In particular, the sentence structure is very "samey"; take a look at the first few sentences in the "Biographical background and publication" section:

• Eugenides initially thought...
• He had read the Memoirs of Herculine Barbin...
• Eugenides believed that the memoir...
• He sought the advice of many experts...

• Try beginning with an "-ing" verb now and then, combining a couple thoughts with commas or semi-colons to create more complex sentences. "Two decades prior to writing his novel, Eugenides had read the Memoirs of Herculine Barbin, which detailed the life of a hermaphrodite schoolgirl living in a 19th-century French convent. Believing that the memoir evaded discussion about hermaphrodite anatomy and emotions, he concluded that he would 'write the story that I wasn't getting from the memoir'". Or something similar, of course, I'm just brainstorming for the sake of varied sentence structure.

• Done. Revised the sentence structure for that section and did a little copyediting to remove redundancy. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Although I know how long and detailed the novel is, the current plot summary may be a little too long. Some of the details regarding the grandparent's courtship and marriage, for example, can be shortened, as can the details of Jimmy's faked death; although this is mainly Cal/Callie's story, it takes too long to get to him/her!

• Done. Shortened plot by removing less important occurrences. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• For the most part, the remaining areas of the article seem well put together. I still see instances of repetition or lack of sentence variation here and there, but it's not as noticeable as it is in earlier sections.
• You may want to consider splitting the "Reception, awards, and nominations", or else including a couple subsections; it seems a little jam-packed as it is now, and the information towards the end -- Oprah's Book Club, Pulitzer, etc. -- looks disjointed. If there is more/future info about the TV series, I can also see an "Adaptation" section in the near future.

• Done. Split into several sections. So far, there hasn't been much info about the TV series, so I can't expand that paragraph yet. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• The refs all seem to be correctly and consistently formatted, and I'm glad to see a variety of sources used.

• All of the information I would personally look for seems to be present, and other than some superfluous details in the lead, the article's scope doesn't seem to stray too far.

• There's only one image, but it has a proper fair use rationale. It's unfortunate that the one free image of Jeffrey Eugenides is so poor, otherwise I would suggest using that as well.

• I, too, wish that there is a better free image of Jeffrey Eugenides. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope these comments and suggestions help! Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 13:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your insightful comments! I will start revising the article over the next week or two to incorporate your suggestions. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've made the changes you suggested. Thank you for reviewing this article! Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comments from Maria

I was asked to revisit the article, and I find things much improved. The lead in particular flows far better than before.

• The section titled "Biographical background and publication" currently has no information about the book's publication.
• Still watch out for the wordiness and unnecessary repetition throughout. One example I see from the background section: It took Eugenides nine years to write Middlesex. He spent such a lengthy amount of time writing the novel because he had trouble with its voice which... -- "It took Eugenides nine years to write Middlesex, mainly due to the difficulty he had with its voice..."?

• Done. Shortened. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Does the plot need to link and describe 5-alpha-reductase deficiency twice? I suggest removing the second instance.

• Done. Removed. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• I meant to mention this before, but "after an accident" in the plot is somewhat vague. Was it a car accident? (I honestly can't remember!)

• Done. I've changed the phrase to "After Callie is injured by a tractor". Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Both Eugenides and the narrator have lived in a street called Middlesex Boulevard. -- is living "in" a street British? Even so, seeing as how this is an American novel, both lived on a street. :)

• Done. No, it's not British. Just a typo on part. ;) Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why "Biographical background and publication" and "Autobiographical elements" slightly overlap, title-wise? Perhaps rename the first section "Background and publication" (actually including information about the book's publication, of course).

• Renamed the section to "Background and publication". I'll work on adding information about the book's publication. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• The tone of the narrator is considered to be "sardonic empathy". -- Remember Tony1's rules about wordiness, and cutting out unnecessary words: "the narrator's tone".

• Done. Reworded. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Middlesex is characterized as a Bildungsroman with a "big twist"; the coming-of-age story is revealed to be the incorrect one. -- somewhat incorrect use of the semi-colon here. Something's missing. "because"? The "genres" section needs sentence structure variation, similar to what I suggested earlier with beginning every sentence with "The".

• Done. Connected the sentences with "because". Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• The first few paragraphs in the "Themes" section seems to be a catchall of things that don't fit in the below subsections. This is somewhat confusing and disjointed, since this space is typically used to summarize what will be discussed. Some of it may simply be cut, or moved elsewhere for better flow. The Detroit riots and other historical parallels, for example, don't necessarily constitute a theme; can this be moved to the background section?

• Done. I've moved the Detroit riots and other historical parallels to the background section. I'll try to expand those paragraphs so that each can have its own section. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• ...the male prophet who also switched genders. Cal is also compared to the Minotaur, a creature that was also half and half—part man and part bull. -- repetition of "also" here, three times. I have a tendency to overuse "also", "as well", "in addition", etc. as well (ha!) but be on the lookout for reducing them. They are especially prevalent throughout the "themes" section.

• Done. Removed most of the occurrences of "also" from the "themes section". There are three remaining and are in different paragraphs. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the newly implemented subsections in the "Reception" section. It's not something I've seen before, but perhaps it's used elsewhere? Thinking back to what I meant when I suggested subsections last week, I believe what I had in mind was something like initial response vs. later critical acclaim, but I'm not sure how that would fare either. Blargh, I'm stuck. Perhaps wait for further thoughts before you go taking my questionable advice on this matter. :)

• I've seen subsections of this sort in the "themes" section of To Kill a Mockingbird but don't know if this format is widely used. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope these additional thoughts and suggestions help. María (habla conmigo) 12:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over the article again. You've provided very helpful feedback. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

---

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Listing this article for peer review to get feedback for improvements, or to highlight potential issues of omission or bias, before any future FAC run. This article is the result of several weeks of careful contemplation and negotiation, taking in views from editors holding seemingly irreconcilable opinions about this highly controversial issue. In that time, we've taken it from persistent tag-magnet that neglected the nuts-and-bolts to a fully rounded film article that's as stable as it's ever been. Fire at will. Steve ^T • C 16:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and generally well done artcile, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The automated tips points out that some words are in British English, with others in American English. These need to be consistent.
• The article has one image which needs alt text for readers who cannot see it per WP:ALT.
• I also wonder if more images could be added, perhaps one of Chavez? Or the palace?
• WP:LEAD suggests the lead should be three or so paragraphs for an article of this length - the first paragraph could be split with the sentence on the directors as the start of a new second paragraph.
• Per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE, direct quotations in the lead shoud be cited - there are two that I see that need refs. Reviewers cited the filmmakers' unprecedented proximity to key events and praised the film for its "riveting narrative"; ... and also The film is regularly shown on Venezuelan television, and in Caracas it is often broadcast during "contentious political conjunctures".
• The article seems a bit under-linked, for example art house circuit could be linked in the lead...
• Could the quote be changed to In 2000–2001, independent Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain—co-workers on previous projects who shared an interest "in Latin American politics and issues around globalization"—proposed a fly on the wall documentary ...
• Similarly could this quote be changed to According to Phil Gunson of Columbia Journalism Review, in Venezuela "it is hard, if not impossible, to find an impartial observer. Most of the country's private news media have openly joined the opposition...' both of these suggestions avoid the [additions] to quotes
• There are a fair number of quotes in the article where a word in square brackets is included as the first word of the direct quotation, is there any reason not to move it out of the brackets and quotes? Change "[something] like this sentence" to something "like this sentence"
• Would "establishment" work better than "setting up" in He filmed the setting up of the interim government; when Bartley and O'Briain returned to the palace on 13 April, the cameraman let them have his footage.[1]
• I would read WP:MOSQUOTE carefully. I would give refs for the direct quotations in the Synopsis section (to the film itself or the DVD). In the following section there are direct quotes in a sentence which should have the ref at the end of the sentence. In Venezuela, it premièred on 13 April 2003,[5] on state television channel Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), and it has been shown regularly on Venezuelan television since; the state-funded community station Catia TVe often broadcasts the film during "contentious political conjunctures", such as the 2004 recall referendum, the 2006 presidential election, and in 2007 to "help build support" for the government's controversial attempt to revoke the license of private television network RCTV.
• I would try to give some idea of when the film preiered on European TV in the previous sentence
• ALso needs a ref at the end and I would link VHS and add a word The filmmakers could not secure a US television deal, but in March 2003 a VHS [copy? version? tape?] of the film screened for "fewer than 100 people" as part of an American Cinematheque Irish film festival in Los Angeles.
• Perhaps add New York again here? It premièred to the public at the Film Forum in November 2003.
• Pounds sterling in New York City?? Why not dollars? Peace Action New York were given permission for a screening during a fund raiser in the Lincoln Center, where 250 people paid £35 each to see the film and "[participate] in a question-and-answer session" with guests ...
• In the Accolades section, there seem to be some film festivals where it won prizes that were not mentioned earlier. Shouldn't they be mentioned previously too?
• I would say who did the commissioning in He and Thalman Urguelles were commissioned to "produce a response",[33] and ...
• Overall seems well done and does a good job presenting both sides in a neutral way.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Benet Academy

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate it for FA. This article has already had a peer review and recently passed GA. I would appreciate suggestions on how to make it more comprehensive and how to improve the prose.

Thanks, Benny the mascot (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry this is taking me so long - will review in the next 24 hours. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to rush...I have other ways of keeping myself busy. :) Good luck on your FAC, by the way. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for being so understanding - this looks pretty good to me, so here are some mostly nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

• One thing that is sometimes hard to do is to provide context to the reader about things the author is familiar with. I am fairly familiar with the Chicago area, but was not that sure where Lisle was. A brief description would help (x miles west of the Loop / downtown Chicago) or a map with a dot would help too.
  • Small mention of location added. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• I also was confused by mentions of the college, but no real resolution on what happened to it - it took me a little searching here, but I assume it is what is now known as Benedictine University in Lisle. The article mentions the university as the site of buildings The St. Procopius monks decided on March 12, 1900, to build a new college[20] on the site of present-day Benedictine University at the southwest corner of Maple and College Avenues.[12], and in terms of a scholarship at the academy, but I think it needs to explicitly say what happened to the college after the academy split. I realize that this article on the Academy, so it need not be a lot of detail, but some is needed.
  • I added a footnote. Does that help? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• The map is nice, but I am guessing the Census does not show buildings (only streets and water), so the source for those needs to be given explicitly - this will be checked at FAC.
  • I've already provided sourcing on the Commons page. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• The capitalization of College and Academy by themselves seems a bit odd, though it is done consistently as far as I can tell. The Wikipedia:MOS#Institutions says if it is the generic word (college, academy) by itself it should not be capitalized.
  • I fixed the ones I could find. Let me know if I missed any. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• The lead just seems sparse to me - especially the second and third paragraphs. My rule of thumb is to make sure every header is in the lead somehow - are Demographics and the Christmas Drive there?
  • I mentioned the Christmas Drive a little bit, but the Demographics section is already somewhat covered in the lead. ("Benet's average ACT test score has exceeded statewide and national averages, and more than 99 percent of students have gone on to college after graduation")
• The language is decent but I noticed a few rough spots reading - I will try and come back and point some more out soon, here is one to start
  • Classes began on March 2, when Rev. Procopius Neuzil taught two remedial high school students in two small rooms at 704 Allport Street for four months. FOur months in one day? Wow that's concentrated teaching! Perhaps Classes began on March 2, and for the next four months Rev. Procopius Neuzil taught two remedial high school students in two small rooms at 704 Allport Street. would be better. I am also not sure students can be remedial - I thought classes were? Could be wrong
    • Sentence replaced with a small revision regarding the usage of "remedial". Benny the mascot (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! Benny the mascot (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

More from Ruhrfisch

I will try to point out language that needs work here, as well as any other issues that I notice

• Lead It was founded in 1887 as the all-boys St. Procopius College and Academy by Benedictine monks in Chicago, who also operated the St. Joseph Bohemian Orphanage, which along with St. Procopius later moved to Lisle, approximately 25 miles (40 km) west of Chicago.[6] Could this sentence be split into two? As it is now it is quite long and complex - I would start the new sentence after the word orphanage. Also could the year(s) for the move(s) to Lisle be added to provide context?
• Capitalization of college? The orphanage closed in 1956 to make room for St. Procopius Academy, which then separated from the College in 1957. (In Internet Explorer you can search for a word and it highlights all the matching terms in yellow - might be worth checking caps on college and academy this way)
• Tweak sentence Sacred Heart merged with St. Procopius Academy in 1967 on the St. Procopius campus to establish Benet Academy [on the St. Procopius campus].
• Also, any idea where the name "Benet" came from? a ha - here it says Benet is an English form of Benedict
• Unclear Benet's performing arts program stages multiple musicals ... I think it would be clearer to say Benet's performing arts program stages a musical annually... perhaps saying since when
• Need to be consistent on names - in the text it is "Reverend John Nepomucene Jaeger of the Order of St. Benedict..." but the image caption is just "Abbot Nepomucene Jaeger" (no John). I also wonder since St John of Nepomuk is not well known in the US, if a link would be in order?
• Suggested reoganization Reverend John Nepomucene Jaeger of the Order of St. Benedict was the pastor of the parish[.] , which served approximately 16,000 to 20,000 parishioners. Chicago at that time had the largest Czech population of any other city in the world outside of Prague and Vienna. Roughly 50,000 Czech immigrants were served by the three Czech parishes of Chicago, which included [16,000 to 20,000 parishioners at] St. Procopius.
• The source says they were teaching high school classes then, so I would clarify that in Only a two-year [high school] program was offered at the time; the college offered its first four-year high school program in 1904.[9]
• Might flow more smoothly as The first Bohemian abbot in the United States, Abbot Jaeger[, the first Bohemian abbot in the United States,] founded a Bohemian monastic community in 1894...
• What does better atmosphere mean? The college and academy continued to grow in Chicago; in 1896 the Abbey bought the 104-acre (42 ha) Morris Neff farm in Lisle to gain more space and a better atmosphere.[9] Cleaner air than in the city?
• Since I am assuming that the present Benedictine University still is on the site because they are the re-named St Procopius College, I think that needs to be made clearer in this: The St. Procopius monks decided on March 12, 1900, to build a new college[21] on the site of present-day Benedictine University at the southwest corner of Maple and College Avenues.[13]
• OK I am stopping the rough spots here. I think this would benefit from a copy edit before FAC. There are a few other things I noticed:
• What makes Remembering Lisle a reliable source? See WP:RS
• The alt text for the mascot should desribe it as a bird, not a redwing (there might be those who think of the Detroit Redwings or even Red Wing Shoes

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! I've fixed most of the issues you've brought up; I just need to get that copyedit completed. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Climax Series

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like it could have a chance for FAC sometime soon, but I really need a few more eyes to look at it before I send it on Now I'm basically looking for any general copy edit suggestions, format suggestions or possible content additions that would help it pass a FAC.

Thanks, --Torsodog^Talk 21:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

• The article only has one source, The Japan Times. Are there no other newspapers, periodicals etc that have articles or information on this series?

• Unfortunately, not that I know of. Reliable English-language articles/information concerning Japanese baseball are very limited. The Japan Times is by far the most reliable. The rest are generally blogs.

• The purpose of the "See also" link is unclear

• It points users to the article about the MLB equivalent of the Climax Series. Are you saying that this isn't clear or that it isn't useful?

• There seems to be a misunderstanding of the purpose of the lead section, which is to provide an overview or summary of the article. This lead is largely an account of the history of the playoff system and is replicated in the History section given later. I recommend that you replace the first paragraph of the lead with a summary paragraph along the following lines, and leave the detailed history for the History section:-

The Climax Series (クライマックスシリーズ, Kuraimakkusu Shirīzu?) is the current annual playoff system employed by Japan's Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB). It determines which sides, from the Central League (CL) and the Pacific League (PL) respectively, will compete in the Japan Series, the winners of which are the national champions. Since NPB's two-league system was created in 1950 the leagues have used several different methods to determine entry to the Japan Series; the current system has been in use since 2007.

• The remainder of the lead should summarise the content of the rest of the article.

• Comments about the lead are all true. I will work in your paragraph and make changes as necessary. Thanks for the write-up.

• Results section: Is it the intention to maintain this section, i.e. to add results year by year? This will change the focus of the article, from being about the playoff system and how it works to a list of results. But will anyone have the patience, and the interest, to update the results year after year? Otherwise, it might be better to leave them out.

• I'd be willing to update yearly, though the eventual goal is to simply break the section out into its own, standalone list when a few more years pass.

• Prose: the general quality of the prose is quite poor; I had difficulty in understanding much of the aticle, though with an effort I was able to work it out. I don't ave time for a copyedit, but I strongly recommend that you find someone with good prose credentials to go through the entire article.

• Honestly, I'm pretty surprised that you think the prose is "poor". It isn't amazing, to be sure, but I feel that it is very concise and direct. Perhaps that is part of the problem? This article is rather technical and dense when it comes to yearly format changes, and that might make it hard for non-baseball enthusiasts to follow it. Or I don't know what I'm talking about and the prose is indeed poor. Either way, hopefully a copy editor will be able to fix the problem. Thanks for the review. If you get any extra time in the near future, feel free to stop by and do a quick copy edit if you feel up for it! --Torsodog^Talk 14:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Neuroacanthocytosis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is part of a class project and I would like to get constructive feedback and criticism. I would appreciate any help that is given!

Thanks, Saralo16 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Colin This topic covers a group of syndromes that have been classified as "Neuroacanthocytosis". In some ways, this makes it a harder topic to deal with than if it covered just one entity. The biggest problem with the article at present is that it contains four articles within it, and three of them actually already have articles on Wikipedia: McLeod syndrome, chorea acanthocytosis, and pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration. Arguably Huntington's Disease-like 2 deserves its own article. The sections on these diseases are structured like mini-articles rather than being just a summary of the full article. It would probably be best to beef up the individual syndrome articles with the material you have here, and organise these articles' sections per WP:MEDMOS suggested headings. That leaves this article having shorter sections on the four main syndromes per [[WP:SUMMARY].

Structuring an article that covers a group of subjects is not easy. You may get some ideas from reading different sources that deal with the Neuroacanthocytosis syndromes together, to see how they compare/contrast/discuss them.

See my suggestions at Talk:Osteochondritis dissecans#Lead for ways of dealing with jargon.

The lead sentence is your chance to capture a reader and make him want to continue. Don't blow it with jargon that isn't explained or isn't necessary at that stage. Make sure your lead section is comprehensive and lay-reader-friendly. See WP:LEAD for more details. It can often help to write the lead last, after you have written all the body sections.

The classification of syndromes as Neuroacanthocytosis appears to be difficult and some of the literature misleading. Make sure you follow the latest thinking from the best sources. Since the History section covers some syndromes that are no longer so-classified, it might help to move that section to the end, to avoid confusing the reader early on. I'm not sure the source you have for the History section does a good job of including/excluding the right syndromes.

Unfortunately, Medpedia is not considered a reliable source and shouldn't be cited as a source here. It is a Wiki like Wikipedia, and although the editors are MDs or PhDs, it doesn't really have the editorial rigour we need. However, make use of their articles for ideas and use their sources to guide you as to what to read.

The NINDS Factsheets and Genetics Home References (NLM) are reliable but not the first-class level of sources you'd need if you ever intended to aim for FA. They are OK, but referring only to online web sources indicates that perhaps your literature search hasn't been more comprehensive than what Google returns. Both these sources are very good at explaining jargon and complex facts in a lay-friendly way, so you can learn from their approach. Just make sure you don't plagiarise their text :-).

Have a read of WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, which are the two guidelines for medical articles.

I've added some sources on the article talk page, but I'm sure there are more if you search. Both Google Scholar and PubMed are appropriate for searching the academic literature. Google Books is good both for reading the bits of books they let you, and for identifying books to get from the library.

The book edited by Adrian Danek on "Neuroacanthocytosis Syndromes" would appear to be a must-have for this topic. If you can't get it locally, perhaps an interlibrary loan might help.

Don't be disheartened if it seems there is lots to do. What you've added looks generally good (but I'm no doctor and haven't spent much time cross-checking the facts with the sources), it just needs a bit of re-organising. The important thing is to just chip away at it and do what you can. If you want another opinion on any of this, I recommend GrahamColm (talk · contribs).

Regards, Colin°^Talk 23:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Tablighi Jamaat

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i wanted an independent opinion. I need feedback specifically on

• NPOV
• Any more possible pictures
• Language, good or not.
• Any suggested restructuring
• Any sections that need expansion
• Any new sections needed?

Thanks, —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 11:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing the article for around a month and so I would like to know how well I have been doing my job. I'd like to know what other information I should add to the article to further improve it; it might be those on maintenance, financial standing, fleet, destinations, history, etc. I hope that many people will pay attention to this message, and, maybe, spend a few minutes reviewing the article. I would like to thank those who will be reviewing this page, I appreciate it. Thanks, Sp33dyphil 05:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Benny the mascot  Doing... Benny the mascot (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Apologies for the delay. It seems that you have a lot of referencing issues to take care of. Several sections are marked with referencing banners, and the maintenance section has a copyvio banner. I would take care of those first, but remember that you must use reliable sources. Websites like facebook are simply unreliable. Also, it might be helpful to use some citation templates.

Furthermore, you have a few sections that need expanding. I admit that I haven't taken a detailed look at the sections you mentioned, but I'm going to post some additional comments soon. I just wanted to make sure you have some feedback to respond to at this moment. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work so far! I'm glad to see that so much effort has been put into this article. A few comments:

• YYour discussion of the company history has a huge gap between 1996 and 2007. Did anything significant happen within that time period?
•  Doing...While your citations certainly have improved, large chunks of text still go unsourced. Benny the mascot (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

more coming...

Comments by H1nkles

• Y In the lead there is the comment that during the months of October and November it will be the carrier for the Miss World pageant. What year is that?
• Please check through the article for tense agreement. Sometimes it's past tense, other times it's in present tense. Here's an example:

"During that year, the airline was known as General Department of Civil Aviation in Vietnam,[15] and began full operations, carrying around 21,000 passengers, of which one-third are on international flights and 3,000 tonnes of cargo"

The context is a history of the airline so past tense is appropriate. Then comes, "...of which one-third are on international flights...." Are should be "were". This is one of several examples.

• Watch one and two sentence paragraphs. These should be expanded or combined.
• Y "code-share agreements"? What are code share agreements? This should be explained in the article.
• The first two sentences in the Passengers section are a repeat of earlier information, should be removed.
• Y Some things to consider when wikilinking (see WP:LINK for more information):

• Y Don't link terms used in common English like, crash, destination, airport, aviation, and maintenance to name a few. I fixed some but others need to be addressed. If there is a specific crash that you want to refer to then it is fine to link the article for that crash to the word "crash" but linking generic articles about these words is unnecessary.
• Y It is ok to link the word in the lead and then once, or perhaps twice in the body of the article, depending on the article. The word Boeing is linked at least 6 times in the article. That's not necessary. Also there are links to several different types of planes, each one can be linked once or twice, more than that isn't necessary.
• The first mention of the linked word should be linked, don't skip it but link the same word later in the article.

• Y Make sure your numbers are right, "The airline ordered four Boeing 777-200ERs, to be delivered in 2003, under a list price of US$680 (2003)." I'm sure it's more than $680.
• Sections for expansion: In-flight services (there's more than just movies right?), Incidents and accidents (give some specifics, in a summary style, of each fatal accident). What about terrorism? Has the airline experienced that at all?
• I agree with Benny the mascot about the sourcing. Here are my recommendations regarding the sourcing:

• Use a {{cite web}} template.
• Read WP:CITE for information on how to properly cite an article.
• Y Per Benny the mascot, Facebook and most blogs are usually not considered credible, please replace these.
• Read Biman Bangladesh Airlines. This article is a Featured Article, an example of some of our best content. It conforms with all MOS requirements and is considered comprehensive. This article will give you a guide on how to cite your article and what format to use. More on this article later.
• Y Usually in-line citations come at the end of a sentence or a paragraph. Sometimes after a comma and very rarely are they dropped right in the middle of a sentence. This is for flow and readability, please consider moving in-line citations like in this sentence, "In September 2005, Vietnam Airlines ordered eight Boeing 787-8 aircraft[22] to be delivered from 2009,[23] and 10 Airbus A321-200 for deliveries starting from the same year; however, due to the delays of the Boeing 787, Vietnam Airlines will acquire its state-of-the art Boeing 787-8's soon after Boeing completes its test." to the end of the sentence.

Overarching comments:

•  Doing... As I stated earlier, please read the Biman Bangladesh Airlines article. It is an article about an airline that will be an excellent guide for you. It covers all the important topics that should be covered in this article. It also gives you a format for references, tables, and tells you what kind of images you need to have. Keep in mind that this is a featured article and don't feel like you have to get it to this level (unless of course you have visions of getting this article to FA standing).
• The article will need a thorough copy-edit. There are several grammatical errors that crop up in the writing.
• The images are a bit uninspiring. Five photos of airplanes is ok but not great. Consider searching through Commons for free-use images. If you want to upload some of your own be sure they conform with WP:IMAGE guidelines.
•  Doing... One of the biggest issues is the citations, which is why there are all the tags all over the article. Getting the citations cleaned up will be a huge step in improving this article.

That's it for me, if you want to discuss specifics from this review please give me a poke on my talk page and I'll be happy to talk about it. Happy editing. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 18:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Messages from Sp33dyphil

Is it OK if H1nkles tidy up all the references found on the page, while Benny the mascot fact-checks? thank you.

 Doing...If anyone would like to see what I am up to relating to the improvement of the article Vietnam Airlines, please visit User:Sp33dyphil/My sandbox‎.

You already have suggestions on how you can improve the article. I think you should work on those issues first, then I'd be willing to take another look. Benny the mascot (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Second review by H1nkles

Sp33dyphil asked for a second look at the article. This review will look at some of the issues brought up in my first review to determine progress.
Lead

• "The maintenance and overhauling of aircraft is handled by Vietnam Air Service Company (VAECO), while Noibai Catering Services Join-Stock Company caters other airlines using the airport for Vietnam Airlines."

This sentence in the lead is poorly worded and a bit confusing. First off you use the term "maintenance and overhauling" in the previous sentence, could another term be used in this one to vary the writing a bit? Second what is the airport for Vietnam airlines? It appears from the first paragraph in the lead that there are two hubs for the airline, is that correct? If so you'll need to specify which one houses this subsidiary.

• I removed the ref improved tag from the top of the article as I can clearly see that a lot of work has been done on the references. There are a couple of sections that need work in this area but overall I feel that the article has significantly improved to the point that the ref tag is no longer needed.
• Y I made some prose improvements in the lead. Check them out and see if they still jive with the information in the article. More to come. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• There are still one sentence paragraphs, these need to be expanded or combined with other paras.
• Y You need to use templates for your in-line citations. See WP:CITE for information on this. A good template for website citations is {{cite web}}. Please use templates to format all of your in-line citations, because right now the article does not have a real coherent citation format.
•  Doing... Can the Destinations section get expanded? Does VA fly to North America at all? The section just seems a bit sparse.
• I would remove the lists in the Cargo and Retired section. See WP:LIST for more information on using lists. Usually one or two lists at the end of the article are fine, more than that is frowned upon. Fold them into prose instead.
• I like the images, adding interior and food images is a great idea. Keep it up.
• Y There are ref tags on Training and Maintenance sections. The Training section has one in-line citation and the Maintenance section has none, this needs to be improved.

References

• Y You still have at least one reference to a facebook page, Facebook is not an acceptable reference in WP.
• YFormatting of the references needs to be consistent, see above.

Overall

• You're making great progress. Keep working on the issues I've raised above and you should probably get a copy edit done.

Keep up the good work you're on your way! H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by SynergyStar

Greetings, and good job on improving the article! I also received the request for input. Looking at the history, it has improved considerably in the past months. I read the article and made a few small edits for spacing and capitalization, and added a picture. A few more suggestions (and I realize this is hard work):

• More copy-editing would help, suggestions:
  • YLead: "....is the national flag carrier of Vietnam, and was established as a state enterprise in April 1989. It has its headquarters..." => ...is the national flag carrier of Vietnam. It was established as a state enterprise in April 1989, and has its headquarters..." (sentence length)
  • History: "It’s first international destination" => Its first...(apostrophe)
  • Y Fleet: "In December, 2001, Vietnam Airlines signed a historic agreement between them and Boeing" => "Vietnam Airlines signed a historic agreement with Boeing" (simplify)

• YHistory section ends after 1996; there are references for later dates in the fleet section, maybe some context and what has happened since then could be added.
• Cargo fleet...based on the source and lead VN does not have 777Fs or A330Fs (especially since the A330F is in design/test phase); it actually uses its passenger 777s, A330s etc for belly cargo space.

Some editors came along and added ss to the name

• Miss World pageant, relevant info, but maybe it fits better in History rather than lead.

Keep up the good work! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quality input. Happy Easter - maybe that's a bit too late :) Sp33dyphil 03:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

---

List of compositions by Gustav Mahler

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I don't often do lists, but this is an exception. 2010 is Mahler's 150th anniversary year; I am developing the main biographical article with a view to its being TFA on 7 July, Mahler's birthday, but in honour of the occasion I am trying to get other Mahler articles up to scratch, too. This list strikes me as being useful and important. The aim is to make every line in the table as complete and self-contained as possible, without having to cross-reference; each line gives the name of a work, the year it was written, what kind of work it is, when and where it was first performed, and other relevant information of significance. I have used the system of grouping each line's references into a single column rather than dotting them around the table, which can be messy and disruptive. So please tell me how you think it looks, as a table. Many thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

The table in my opinion has not been implemented well and is hard to use. There's no option to change the column the rows are sorted by and if you look at any other list of compositions page, you will notice the predominate way of sorting works is by genre first then chronology. This I believe is correct since even I struggle to put dates to Mahler's works and thus makes it hard to search for a particular work. Centy – reply• contribs – 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Take a look now: this is a version organised by genre. What you say about Wikipedia composition lists is true, but they generally relate to composers who wrote across a wide range of genres and had a much larger output than Mahler's. Mahler's relatively small output was basically in two genres - song and symphony - and even those he tended to mingle. Another point is that chronological presentation allows us to observe the distinct phases in Mahler's compositional life; the music he wrote in the 1880s and 1890s is significantly different from what he wrote in the 1900s. Finally, whatever Wikipedia's custom may be, I find that most printed composer biographies list their subjects' works chronologically.

This link takes you to the chronological version. (Note: Link no longer operating. Chronological version can be recovered if necessary.) Reviewers can consider which form of organisation is most useful. That does not of course preclude comments on other aspects of the table which I would be pleased to hear. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better. Just to say there is no reason you cannot have two lists, one sorted by chronology and one by genre, where one is more detailed than the other. I mean take a look at List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven - his works are sorted by genre and then sorted again by opus number. Since we have no standard catalogue number for Mahler, chronology seems to work well in this role. I personally think your list sorted by genre can be the concise one of the two seeing as there is no need to repeat over and over again that his songs are songs with piano or orchestal accompaniment. Centy – reply• contribs – 14:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now prefaced the main list with a summary of compositions in chronological sequence. That I think should serve to meet all objections, but I would like to hear more opinions. I would also like to emphasise that the priority here is to make the list as useful as possible to readers of the Gustav Mahler biography article which is currently under development. I don't have immediate plans to submit this as a featured list candidate, though I'd like it to be of featured quality. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The list seems to me to be excellent. I've corrected four typos (but please check them!): Ablösong to Ablösung; Leidleinerdacht to Leidlein erdacht; iridische Leben to irdische Leben; and Rheinlegendehen to Rheinlegendchen. My only other comment is that you have not been consistent in abbreviating the word "volume" - sometimes you write "Vol." and sometimes you omit the full stop. (Beckmesser, anyone?) - Tim riley (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the typos, and for spotting the omitted full stops, Herr Merker. I'm still finding bits that need tweaking, so I'll keep looking. Brianboulton (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

While we're talking about full stops, you're inconsitent about including them both in the comments column of the boxes and in the references. In footnote 4 you're inconsistent in not including a space petween the "p." and the page number.

On the content, it might be useful to make it more explicit that the Mahler scholar Deryck Cooke you mention on and use as a source is the same man who made the first performing version of the 10th Symphony. I also wonder whether it is better to say that the work existed in draft form with some movements unorchestrated, rather than simply saying it was incomplete. It certainly was more complete than Bruckner 9 or Elgar 3, let alone Schubert 8.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Just a quick note - the link to Joseph Hellmesberger currently goes to a disambiguation page - assuming that you want it to go directly to the main article but not positive.

---

Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I had a recently-failed FAC on this article a little over a month ago. I've been working quite a bit since then in finding and incorporating print sources (mostly from 1989) to provide more outside coverage of this NES game in that I think it pretty much meets 1b of WP:FA?; the article has been expanded by about 14KB in size and about 5000 characters more of prose, including coverage of the game in 1989, coverage of the mobile phone version, and awards.

Before I take another crack at FAC, I'd like to see if someone can check the prose and see if there are any shortcomings or problems in there that I wouldn't be aware of. Also, I did just expand the lead from two to three full paragraphs; if it's a bit too large, let me know, and I can shorten it up a little.

Thank you, –MuZemike 23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• At FAC, the prose has to be brilliant or damn close. In Reception, I see "Nintendo Power" eight times in the prose—there's one paragraph with four of them. See if you can use "the magazine" or some pronoun more often.

Removed four extra mentions [3]. –MuZemike 16:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Walter tells Ryu of an evil demon in which "SHINOBI" defeated and confined his power into two "Light" and "Shadow" demon statues.—doesn't look grammatical. The "in" is needed for the power confinement, but doesn't sound right for the defeat. Maybe Walter tells Ryu of an evil demon in whichthat "SHINOBI" defeated and confined his power into two "Light" and "Shadow" demon statues., but then I'm not sure how "his power" would fit in (or whether it is necessary). I think it may need to be split to two sentences.

How about this? Walter tells Ryu of an evil demon that "SHINOBI" defeated and whose power was confined into two "Light" and "Shadow" demon statues. –MuZemike 16:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. --an odd name 17:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

More later, maybe. --an odd name 21:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Ashford v Thornton

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've recently expanded this from a stub and am considering whether to nominate it for FA. This is the famous "trial by battle" case, by the way. Speaking as a lawyer, I'd like to see trial by battle brought back, but that's just me.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I read it with interest. Two small points: the "boen" for "been" in a Lord Ellenborough quote should be corrected or marked with sic; and could you add when the last positive record of trial by battle was? Ucucha 23:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is "been". I cut and pasted from the google books plain text and an error carried over. I'll add the other one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix and addition. Ucucha 23:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Objections to evolution

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I tried listing this article for a [4], it was rejected swiftly. While I concede my nomination was premature, I can't agree it will take significant time to correct most of these issues.

I have fixed the dead links. I will list issues from the FAC below, please add others as you see them. - RoyBoy 04:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing of controversial/creationist statements

Valid concern. - RoyBoy 04:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Title of article

Tweak to reflect the idea that one does not object to Evolution, but to the various theories and ideas contained within. - RoyBoy 04:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this. To begin with, "evolution" refers not only to mechanisms, but also to the fact of evolution. That's the way it's used, both scientifically and in common usage. So it is opposition to "evolution", even if you're just talking about the mechanisms. But the article doesn't limit itself to that - it also addresses opposition to the dea that evolution happened - in this section, for example. Guettarda (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

U.S. centric

Entirely appropriate for the subject matter, however the dominance of the U.S. does not make objections (even if repeated) in other countries non-existent. Conceding it is U.S. centric does not make it a U.S. monopoly. Yes, there are objections to evolution in Britain, Australia and Asia, we should try to reference those. - RoyBoy 04:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's US-centric, which is appropriate since anti-evolution is US-centric. But it's not exclusively American. And the article reflects this. AiG is referenced. They were founded in Australia, and even after the AiG/CMI split, they're still run by an Australian. If we can find anything to broaden the scope, then it needs to be expanded, but even people like Harun Yahya still use the same arguments. Guettarda (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

All theories of evolution?

Do we list and expand upon all theories relating to evolution? Particularly pre-Darwinian and early competing theories, and the objections leveled against each. Or should we force a title change. - RoyBoy 04:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No. We follow the common usage of the word, not "every possible usage". Maybe things need to be made a bit more clear, but the comment your referencing was based, IMO, on a lack of knowledge about the subject matter. Guettarda (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

---

2009–10 Duquesne Dukes men's basketball team

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wrote this article as part of a university project, and I would like some constructive feedback as to how I may improve this article and prepare it for formal assessment.

Thanks, Daniel Kemp (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

Hey there, thank you for the efforts to improve articles and prepare them for assessment. It's a nobel task and I'll happily review the article and give some feedback on ways to improve it. In my review I will assume that you are just starting out and would like insight and direction on article structure and MOS compliance. If the review is too rudimentary then I apologize. I'm going to make suggestions that would help bring the article to GA status. This would be a good first assessment goal.

• See WP:LEAD, this will give you a good overview of what is supposed to be in the lead. Basically the lead is a summary of every point in brought up in the article. If you have written a good lead then I should be able to read just the lead and have a skeletal idea of what the article says. The body of the article then fills in the details. At this point your lead is one sentence. That's obviously not enough. For an article of this size at least two or perhaps three paragraphs would be an acceptable lead.
• The Duquesne Dukes image needs a Fair-Use rationale. Click on the image and you'll see several of these rationales for each use of the image in various articles. Take a look at WP:FU for information on using non-free/copyrighted images in articles. Editors need to justify using a copyrighted image. If you need acceptable language to use take a look at 2000 Sugar Bowl article. This is a Featured Article. Click on the logo at the top of the article. The language used in this rationale can be tweaked to fit your image. The reason I direct you here rather than just to copy one of the other Fair Use rationales on the Duquesne Dukes' image page is because the Fair Use rationale for the Sugar Bowl was reviewed as part of the article's FA assessment. As such you are assured that it is properly worded and complete. In otherwords if it's good enough for an FA it's good enough for you.

Preseason

• I went through a made a few edits to the "Preseason" section. If you compare it to the previous version in the history tab you can see what I did.
• One important thing to remember is consistency. If you link some cities you need to link all of them. If you link some schools you need to link all of them.
• I decapitalized (is that a word?) all the basketball positions, I don't think those are proper nouns, same with "freshman".
• In writing articles it is important to use an active voice. Using terms like, "he would go on to transfer to..." is not as good as just saying "he transfered to...." Does that make sense?
• Your referencing is very good, I'll speak to the format of your references later.
• In the recruits table there is a section for Overall Recruiting Rankings with a colon, but nothing after it except notes and sources. Is there something else that is supposed to go here?
• The Roster table looks good except I would not link to outside websites. If any of the players have an article on Wikipedia then link to them internally, the rest I would keep without a link. See WP:EL for thoughts on using external links, in short, use of external links in the body of the article is discouraged. You can also review WP:LINK for thoughts on both internal and external linking, it's a good source since there is so much linking opportunities it's sometimes hard to know when to and when not to link.

Coaching staff

• The first paragraph steers off into recent history that really doesn't apply to this season. It also repeats information stated in the previous section. One of the GA Criteria is that the article remain focused. I would remove this first paragraph except the part about who the head coach is a perhaps a short summary of his career, focusing on his career at Duquesne.
• It's also important to remove unnecessary detail. For example, Jason Byrd was in his third year as the basketball director isn't really important information. That he was the basketball director is fine, but for how long really doesn't make a difference unless there was a specific issue with his tenure. I removed this detail but look critically at the article and remove information that isn't really important to the subject. See WP:SS for writing in a summary style.

Regular season

• I'd like you to look at the 1997–98 Tennessee Lady Vols basketball team article. This article is a GA. Notice the structure, with several sections outlining the games. There is no requirement that all college basketball articles look exactly the same but it is a good idea, when aiming to get an article up to a certain level, to look at similar articles that have attained that level and model your article after them. I know as a reviewer I will do that when I am assessing an article.
• I would suggest rewriting this section using the structure found in the article above. Keep summary style in mind, no need to give too much detail, but you should give a basic outline of each game. Perhaps give a little more detail of key games or rivalry games and a little less detail for preseason/non-conference games with little impact on their season.
• There is no need to link dates like November 7th. This isn't necessary unless there is a specific significance of the date and then the link should be to the article about the significant event. For example September 11th.
• Another WP compliance issue is non-breaking spaces. If there is a number followed by a unit of measurement (inches, weeks, liters etc.) there should be a non breaking space signified by a   between the number and the unit of measurement. The reason for this is outlined in WP:NBSP so I won't go into detail. I fixed one place where I saw a need for it. Some GA reviewers hit on this issue others don't. Since on of the GA Criteria is MOS compliance I figured I'd bring it up.
• "Duquesne scored a dominant 47-point victory..." Watch using words like "dominant". This can come off wrong. It starts to stray into issues of bias. See WP:POV and WP:PEACOCK for thoughts on words like this. It just isn't really necessary anyway.
• "Despite the loss, the team went on the road to face Iowa on November 17th...." I'm confused, I thought the won the game prior to this game (November 13 against Nicholls State). Check the context on this I may have missed something. Also it doesn't make sense to say "Despite the loss, the team went on the road...." They would go on the road whether they lost or not right?
• I don't think you need to keep a running total on Saunders' string of double-doubles nor is it necessary to identify when he did not get a double-double. It gets repetitive and doesn't add to the article much.
• Watch use of abbreviations like IUPUI. Using an abbreviation is fine if it is spelled out the first time it is used in an article.
• Who did Duquesne play in Dayton Ohio in front of a crowd of 13,435? The article doesn't say.
• As I'm reading through this section I feel like your summary of each game is good but perhaps not enough detail. Some of the games are missing the final outcome, others are even missing the opponent.
• Are there any details on what the alleged NCAA rules violation revolving around Bill Clark was?
• "On the final play, Damian Saunders drove in before dishing it out to Melquan Bolding, who drained a 3-pointer to put the Dukes up by one with 3.5 seconds remaining."

Watch out for using sports terms in articles. "Dishing, draining, 3-pointer". These are terms that basketball folks will know but other people won't be familiar with. In writing it's difficult to walk that fine line between being informative and being interesting. This sentence sounds like a recap of the game by an ESPN analyst. Unfortunately it doesn't really work for an encyclopedia article.

• What was the outcome of the game against the Colonials? This isn't spelled out in the article.
• Who did they play on Feb. 11?
• I'd remove the detail of what channel (ESPN2) the Feb 21st game was televised on. Our international readers won't really care and it isn't really an important detail. The fact that it was a nationally televised game is enough.
• I would put the schedule table at the end of the article. It gives away their post season performance. Either that or I would move the Postseason section up to right after the Regular season section. That actually makes more sense. Then have the table and the statistics. That's what I would do.

Postseason

• "Unfortunately for the Dukes, those two teams were also in a tie." Why specify that it was unfortunate for the Dukes? It was also unfortunate for the Bonnie right? I'd remove "for the Dukes".
• "close until the Bonnies went on a 14–0 run" When in the game did this happen?
• "Damian Saunders posted his 20th and final double-double of the year, but a 5 for 21 performance from beyond the 3-point arc and 57.1% free throw shooting only exacerbated St. Bonaventure's 75% 3-point shooting and two players scoring in the upper twenties."

This sentence is poorly written. First off poor shooting on Duquesne's part wouldn't exacerbate good shooting on St. Bonaventure's part. I don't think you're using the word "exacerbate" correctly here. Since you don't have a free throw percentage for the Bonnies I would leave it out for the Dukes. Instead I would compare the 3-point shooting of the two teams as the story of the game.

• I made some prose edits to this section. Other than what is already said the section is pretty good.
• One section that is missing is something about the controversies faced by the team. Sprinkled throughout the article are mentions of NCAA rules violations, a suspension for robbery and then this final suspension of Clark for a "conduct" issue. Are there any credible sources that give more detail? I was left wanting to know more about these issues.

Notes

• See WP:CITE for information on referencing. It is important when using a website to use a {{cite web}} template (see WP:CIT for citation templates). This template requires the title of the article, the publisher (usually the website name like ESPN.com), and the accessdate (date you last accessed the website). Other good information would be the date of the article, the authors first and last name and the work (if it's a magazine it would be the title of the magazine). See the format of the references in the 1997–98 Tennessee Lady Vols basketball team article as an example of what I'm talking about.
• Be sure you are using credible sources. Blogs are suspect so make sure the blog is neutral and is supported by outside sources rather than someone's opinion. See WP:Verifiability for thoughts on the credibility of sources.
• You should probably add categories at the bottom of the article. See the 2009–10 New Mexico Lobos men's basketball team article as an example.

Overall

The article is well-written, I've mentioned some areas for additional information and I tightened up a prose a little bit. I think the article could use a thorough copy-edit by someone who is versed in grammar and prose issues. This article will be an excellent way for you to learn many of the MOS policies as it covers many of the major chapters in the Manual of Style. Please feel free to comment or ask questions about this review and I'll be happy to help out where I can. Good luck with the article and your future editing. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Bankers' Toadies incident

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm debating whether it's ready, or can be easily made ready, for FAC. Comments on all aspects of the article are of course welcome, but my two major concerns are as follows:

• The article is quite short. I believe that it is as comprehensive as it can be with respect to the incident itself, but I'm wondering if additional context would help fill it out and, if so, what sort of additional context.
• I believe that some awkward phrasing survives, and would welcome assistance in purging it.

Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

comments by NVO

Thanks for your comments; I think many of your points are excellent ones. I've responded to a few below. Steve Smith (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The investigation part looks too thin. Basically, it reads: Oct. X the case was made public, Oct. 3 police raided SC HQ, Oct. 27 the case was ready for preliminary hearing. That's all.

• Can you name the date when Duggan publicized the case?
• What, exactly motivated timely police action? Was there any partisan affiliation between police and the toadies (since we know there was political pressure against prosecution)? Maybe a massive media campaign?

• I think it was a combination of the police doing their job and them being part of the establishment, along with the "Toadies" and very much unlike the Social Credit wahoos. I'll see if I can find a way to make that clear.

• How did they and/or Griesbach identify Powell as the suspect? Unwin was quite a public figure, he had to fall one way or the other, but Powell?
• "Either trial judge William Carlos Ives[12] or a justice of the peace[13] countered by appointing.." is awkward. If sources cannot agree on the subject, may I recommend leaving simply "The judge countered by appointing..." and explaining the ambiguity and uncertainty in a single note.

• "Judge" wouldn't work, as a JP cannot be properly called a "judge"; I'll think on this one.

• The trial chapter, as I understand it, combines one preliminary hearing and two distinct final trials. If this is correct, perhaps it should be pronounced clearly because right now the three blend together (and there's only one date).
• Out of curiosity, what kind of "hard labor" did they face? "Hard labor" and three-month sentence sounds like an improbable combination. NVO (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what's improbable about it; can you clarify? Steve Smith (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just my understanding of what is hard - like felling trees in Siberia or draining swamps in French Guyana. Simply getting there takes months, and getting out is next to impossible. NVO (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Igbo people

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to improve it quality by getting someone to put some significant input into the article.

Thanks, Ukabia (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am always glad to see articles on important topics like this come to peer review. That said, this needs a fair amount of work before it would have a good chance of passing at WP:FAC. So here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The tool for diambiguation links finds 8 or so dabs that need to be fixed.
• Although there is some debate on this, having alt text for readers who cannot see the images is also a requirement for FAC. The alt text tool in the toolbox shows no alt text at all now - see WP:ALT please
• One of the biggest issues I had reading this article was a lack of context to help the reader not already familiar with the Igbo and their history - see WP:PCR Just in the Identity section for example, there is only one date (Olaudah Equiano's 1789 narrative) - without other dates the reader is not sure if this is before, during or after the slave trade period, for example.
• In the identity section I was a bit surprised not to read something about how many Igbo there are today, or where they are primarily found, or even how many speakers of the Igbo language(s) there are and their geographic ditribution. Does the Nigerian government identify people as Igbo? If so, how many and on what basis?
• Also in the identity section there are three sentences in a row with a ref to [28]. As long as they do not have direct quotations or extraordinary claims, it is OK to put on reference at the end of several sentences that all rely on the same source.
• In Etymology, define what words in foreign languages mean - "gboo"?
• Another example of missing context as well as organization that could be improved, is the Origin section. It starts with 4500 BCE, skips ahead to opinions in the 1970s and then jumps back to 5000 BCE. The first paragraph mentions many places, all of which seem to be in Nigeria, most or all in the southeast, but the paragraph does not mention in what country they are. To me it would seem best to start with the earliest dates and the farthest removed geography and then work forward in time and closer to mdoern day Nigeria. The main article here, while not perfect, does a better job of organization and providing context
• In the Nri Kingdom section again much is assumed that is not clear to an interested reader who knows little about the Igbo. Often when I write aboutthings I know a lot about,I have to be extra careful to explain details which I already know, but an average reader will not. For example, the Kingdom of Nri article clearly gives the dates of the kingdom in the first sentence - here they are never given and there are no dates until the second paragraph. Again geography is muddled too
• Watch for apparant self-contradiction within the article. If the Kingdom of Nri lasted until 1911 and is described as "The Kingdom of Nri was a religio-polity, a sort of theocratic state", but in the very next section, Traditional society, it reads "Traditional Igbo political organization was based on a quasi-democratic republican system of government." So which is it? Theocratic kingdom or quasi-democratic republic?
• Images are usually placed in sections that they have a relationship to - what is the relation between Paul Robeson and the slave trade? This needs to be clarified
• One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness. I would think the end of British rule and the independence of Nigeria would need to be mentioned in the history section (if they are I missed them)
• Watch for short (one or two sentence) paragraphs in the article, especially in the Culture section. These break up the flow and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• I did not check all the sources - most look OK to me, though I note the recent FAC worried that many books had only been looked at in snippet form on Google Books. Make sure sources meet WP:RS. Also note that Enyclopedia Brittanica is generally frowned on as a source.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Central Morocco Tamazight

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Featured Article status.

Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not an area of expertise so my input on actual content will be limited. I'll happily go through the article and pick out issues that I feel would come up at FAC. I recommend familiarizing yourself with User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, this will help with prose and grammatical issues that may crop up in your writing. It's been a big help to me.

Lead

• This sentence has a couple of issues that I want to bring up:

"Currently Berber languages are not official state languages in Morocco and Algeria, maintaining a secondary status, and are primarily spoken in the private sphere"

Watch for temporal terms like "currently", "now" etc. Usually the sentence will define the timeframe without needing this word. In this case the word "are" denotes present day so "currently" is unnecessary. I already removed this from the sentence.

How are you using the term "secondary status"? This isn't very clear from the context of the sentence. I recommend ending the sentence after "Algeria", and then explaining a little more thoroughly what status Berber languages have within the culture of these countries.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think you need "...as other Berber languages..." Instead say, "Tamazight was originally an unwritten language."

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here is another section with a few issues:

"Beginning in September, 2003, Tifinagh is used to teach children Tamazight in Moroccan schools, while the Latin script, which has a great deal of established writing, is preferred among Amazigh linguists and researchers. Arabic script is the predominant orthography for Berber literature in Morocco, and Islamists support its use, despite associations of pan-Arabism, although it does not have popular support."

Be sure to define technical terms like, "Amazigh", and "orthography". What is your definition of an "Islamist"? I think a more specific term would be better here. I see that Amazigh is defined in the classification section, perhaps a different term could be used in the lead?

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If the pan-Arabism critique is important then it should be in a separate sentence. The subject of the sentence, Arabic script, has nothing to do with this critique.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Again there are terms like "phonological", "lexical", and "syntactic", are there any wikilinks at least?

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• The lead usually doesn't have a lot of references. This is a style choice but the assumption is that the references will be repeated in the body of the article so you can leave them out of the lead. An exception would be highly controversial subjects. It's up to you but it may come up in the FAC.

Classification

• Usually you don't have parentheses () after a period. See:

"...although Central Morocco Tamazight speakers use them regularly and exclusively to replace local terms such as ašəlḥi or rifi.(Using <gh> for [ɣ] when embedding Berber words in English text follows the tradition set by French-language publications, even those written by Berbers.)"

Please consider reformatting this section, are the parentheses needed?

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The in-line cite #23 should go on the outside of the parenthesis.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I see a lot of parenthetical statements, (information in parentheses). Extensive use of parentheses is frowned upon at FAC.
• Plosives, fricatives and affricates? Remember you are not writing to an audience of linguists. Check WP:JARGON for MOS suggestions regarding jargon.
• Watch use of the word "primarily", this word can sometimes be overused and lose its meaning.

History

• There are some problems with this sentence,

"However, Berber languages continued to be spoken, and unlike the experiences of other groups indigenous to the Middle East, Arabic never became a 'native' language for the Berbers, despite its use as a lingua franca, due to the popular Berber culture and the weakness of the central power (makhzan)."

The subject is Berber languages yet the sentence strays into Arabic language, then back to Berber culture.

I would reword thus: "Contrary to other groups indigenous to the Middle East, Arabic never became a 'native' language for the Berbers, despite its use as the lingua franca. Berber languages continued to be spoken due to the popularity of the Berber culture and the weakness of the central power (makhzan)."

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What central power are you referring to? A central government or governing council? A centralized cultural structure? What is the makhzan? Is this a proper noun? If so it should be capitalized.

 Done I clarified this. Mo-Al (talk)

• One sentence paragraphs (stubs) are frowned upon at FAC, consider expanding or combining.
• The first sentence about the Sherifian sultanate is a run-on sentence. Please consider breaking up into at least two sentences.
  •  Done Mo-Al (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• "The French believed the Berbers to be closer to Europeans than the Arabs, and saw them as a possible ally against the Arabs, to be drawn into French culture."

The "...to be drawn into French culture" doesn't really have a connective aspect to the rest of the sentence, which is about how the Berbers were viewed by the French. The sentence should end after "Arabs", with a new sentence about what the French did to ally themselves with the Berbers. Does this make sense?

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• The French efforts to engratiate themselves to the Berbers pushed them away and spurred the Berbers toward adopting the Arabic language and culture? If so this should be explained. I took the statement about "Arab nationalism" to refer to Moroccan Arabs not Berbers. The Berbers didn't like the French and wanted to identify more as Arab than European. Overly simplified I know but something to that effect.

The source is somewhat unclear but I've tried to sort it out. Mo-Al (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• "As a result, most Berbers had to study and know Arabic"

Don't need "study and know" simply state "had to be fluent in Arabic". This tightens the prose a little bit.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• The tense in the last paragraph of the history section shifts from past and present. This is confusing.

I've tried to clear this up. Mo-Al (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• "However, its distribution remains highly uneven."

I'm not sure what the "its" is referring to, this isn't clear from the context. Is it referring to the language or Berberism, which is the subject in the lead sentence of the paragraph.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• The last few sentences of the history section discuss the "Berber" language? Is this synonymous with Tamazight? If so you should use Tamzight instead. If it is not then why have this information in the article? It shifts the focus away from the subject in my opinion.
• Why the image of the coin of Jugurtha? There's no reference in the article to Jugurtha that I can see, perhaps I missed something.

Geographic distribution

• "However, the highlands were affected by North African invasions, including, most recently, French occupation."

I recommend removing "including, most recently" and replacing with "and". Much tighter and improves the flow of the sentence.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is some duplication of information in this section including a verbatim copy of the first sentence of the second paragraph with a sentence in the lead, and a reference to a "smooth transition" between dialects, which is found in the Classification section, and references to locations of Tamazight in geographic regions such as the Middle Atlas mountains (also found in the Classification section). The article is a good length as is, consider removing duplicative information found elsewhere in the article (not in the lead). Look for more duplicative language in this section.

Status

• What is "...or through the administration"? What administration are you referring to? Please specify.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Most rural Berber children are monolingual, and must struggle to succeed in schools where the teachers do not speak Berber, and require them to learn both Arabic and French."

Multiple subjects in the same sentence, children and teachers. Do most teachers speak Arabic rather than Berber? If so break the sentence in two. A possible reword would be, "Most rural Berber children are monolingual. They struggle to succeed in schools where the teachers do not speak Berber, and require them to learn both Arabic and French."

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• It feels as though the article is straying into information about the Berber language as a whole rather than staying focused on the Tamazight dialect. This will certainly be caught in FAC, please take a hard look at this section and the entire article to make sure the focus stays on the Tamazight dialect. This isn't an article about the Berber language group as a whole. I'm not going to say much more in this section because I feel like it needs a complete rewrite to stay on topic. I certainly welcome disagreement on this assessment.
• Can more be said about the image of the IRCAM? What connection does it have to this section or to the article?

I added a line about its significance in the establishment of Tifinagh. I think more could be said, though I'm still not clear on what other significant things they have done. Mo-Al (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Orthography

• What is meant by, "though they lead the masses in Berber"? How did they lead the masses? Does this refer to speeches or classes they taught? It's an ambiguous phrase.
  •  Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• IRCAM - don't use abbreviations without first spelling out the abbreviation in the body of the article. I note that it is spelled out in the image caption in the previous section but it should be also expanded in the first mention of it in the body of the article.

This seems to be the case now. Mo-Al (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Same critique here of parentheses after a period and in-line citations before the end parenthesis rather than after it.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• "favouring"

Watch spelling consistency, most of the spelling is American English, here is an example of British English. Be sure the spelling is consistent.

I fixed this case... I'll keep an eye out. Mo-Al (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• The writing in this part of the sentence is a bit unclear: "...however, it is extremely popular for symbolic use, with many books and websites written in a different script featuring logos or title pages using Neo-Tifinagh." I'm not sure how to help rewrite it but it doesn't really connect to the rest of the sentence for me.

I changed this around. Mo-Al (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• "However, in Morocco, the king took a "neutral" position between the claims of Latin script and Arabic script by adopting the Neo-Tifinagh script in 2003; as a result, books are beginning to be published in this script, and it is taught in some schools."

Consider rewriting this sentence in a more active voice, "In 2003 the Moroccan King took a "neutral" position in the argument between the claims of Latin script and Arabic script and adopted the Neo-Tifinagh script. As a result, books are beginning to be published in this script, and it is taught in some schools."

I would also consider moving this sentence to the end of the section since you haven't really outlined the issues with the Latin and Arabic scripts. It's a bit premature to talk about a resolution to the argument when you haven't explained the rest of the discussion.

I've moved around some stuff in this section. Mo-Al (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• You may want to think about creating sub-headings for the three major scripts rather than simply bolding them.

 DoneMo-Al (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• INALCO - another abbreviation that should be spelled out.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The Arabic script traditionally has been used consistently by all Berbers to write their language...."

You can remove "consistently", it doesn't help the flow of the sentence and is unnecessary.

Phonology

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• I can't really speak to this section as it is outside my area of expertise.

Grammar

• Check linking, be sure you're only linking terms that need to be linked.
• In both this section and the Vocabulary section watch the one-sentence paragraphs. I understand that some of this is required given the subject matter but where possible combine these into cohesive paragraphs.

I've tried to improve this. Mo-Al (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall I feel like the article is very solid, it may seem like the suggestions above are a lot but they are intended to help move the article to FAC readiness. There are some prose issues, I haven't been able to bring them all up so a thorough copy edit of the article is in order. If you found the review helpful please consider reviewing an article here or at WP:GAC to help reduce the backlog. Good luck and happy editing. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 18:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated. I will try to address these issues over the next few weeks. Mo-Al (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Jhalkaribai

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as I want to get it checked it once by fresh and unbiased eyes for MoS, references, appropriate sections, comprehensiveness of the article, and any other suggestions that would help to raise this article to GA level.

This article can also come within the scope of other topics such as biography, military history, etc., but I have added it to social sciences and society because the importance of her image in sociopolitical scenario in North India.

Thanks, Shivashree · talk 04:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• For completeness, more details about her life are needed: death date, death of husband etc. See:
  • http://www.rediff.com/freedom/09jhalk.htm
  • http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020908/herworld.htm#2
• Also her biographies may provide these details.
• Her death day is celebrated as matyrs day On what date?
• Why is the French book given as a link, when it is not used?--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to reviewing the article.

• I will check the sites you provided and try to add some more information to the article this weekend (I cannot check them right now because of some technical problems).

Done. Not much info available other than a disputed date of year 1890.

• About biographies: Some of her biographies I read seem to be written without much research and study. A few of them state her date of death as April 4, 1857 (one year before the battle of Jhansi), others state it as April 4, 1858 (during the battle, which suites her image projected by BSP), and Vrindawanlal Varma (1951) states she died as an old woman (did not give an exact date). Hindi wikipedia notes the date of death as April 4, 1857.
• Martyrs Day: I found the reference to Martyr's Day in Badri Narayan's book (he too does not give the date). I have asked this question on Hindi Wikipedia. They already have an article about Jhalkaribai that was shown on Main Page in the past. I am waiting answer from them. (see this).
• French book: The French book in the references has a complete chapter about Jhalkaribai and importance of her image in socio-political situation of Uttar Pradesh. I wanted to use it as a reference for legacy section, but could not use it because of language problem. It can be moved in a separate section Further reading, but then there would be only one name in that section. Your opinion requested.

Thanks once again Redtigerxyz. I appreciate your experience on Wikipedia and your help will be greatly appreciated. Shivashree · talk 04:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

Thank you for taking the time to improve this article. I'll provide some comments to try and help bring it up to GA standards.

• I did some prose edits in the lead. It will be important to tighten up the prose. I noted several instances when too many words were used to say something that could have been communicated in a much simpler fashion. I also corrected some grammatical mistakes. Consider having someone do a thorough copy edit before submitting to GAC.

Thanks for making edits to the lead. It would be really helpful if you can check it once with fresh eyes for copyedit or ask someone to do so.

• One of the GA requirements is to have an image whenever possible. Is there a free image that could be inserted, especially in the info box?

I am searching for such image, but as the subject is historical and was not included in the mainstream history for a long while, it is not an easy task. I could find no good image of her searching on google images, flickr, etc. Hindi Wikipedia uses the image of postal stamp depicting her. I am afraid that we cannot do that because of non-free fair use rationale policy. I have left messages on the talk pages of a few users who seem to be from Bundelkhand who can take a photograph of her statue at Jhansi (which would be a photograph of 3D statue, hence public domain). I have got no response yet.

• I agree with Redtigerxyz that a date of death is very important. The article will be incomplete without this, even if it is a speculation with a reference of course.

I have added the year of death with the following note:

"When Jhalkari Bai fought as Lakshmi Bai". Tribune India. Retrieved March 26, 2010. There is a dispute about the exact date of death of Jhalkaribai. This article states "Jhalkaribai, it is said, , lived till 1890 and became a legend in her time." Though there are others such as "Virangana Jhalkaribai" (in hindi). Retrieved March 26, 2010., which quotes Mr. Nareshchandra Koli stating her date of death as April 4, 1857. Sarala (1999) notes that she died in the battle following her disguise incident suggesting the date April 4, 1858. Varma & Sahaya (2001) notes that she died as a very old woman without giving any exact date of death.

Please feel free to make any changes in sentence construction.

Life

• "Jhalkaribai was a daughter of a Kori farmer father Sadovar Singh and Jamuna Devi."

Here is an example of poor prose. Remove the word "father". It jumbles to subject. Instead say, "Jhalkaribai was a daughter of Kori farmers, Sadovar Singh and Jamuna Devi." Much simpler and to the point.

Done.

• Your vocabulary is very good, but there are a lot of little grammatical mistakes that must be fixed before it can pass to GA. I did some work in the first paragraph as an example.

Thanks for compliment about vocabulary. Frankly, I am not that much comfortable with sentence constructions in English, though I will try to fix the errors.

• "Jhalkaribai bore an uncanny resemblance with Rani (queen) Laxmibai."

Move this sentence to the next paragraph where you discuss the battle in which she disguises herself as the queen. Where it currently is located is the first sentence of the second paragraph. The first sentence of a paragraph is usually the subject of the paragraph, with the subsequent sentences supporting this subject. The rest of the second paragraph is about whom she married, her introduction to the queen and her start in the military. No connection to her resemblance to the queen.

• One sentence paragraphs (stubs) are discouraged. Is there any information on her past the incident of her disguise as the queen? This is a gaping hole in the article and will frankly make it difficult to get through GA Candidacy without a lot of explanation.

Historiography

• "Even the Indian authors did mention her." I think you mean did not mention her right?

done.

• The word, "mention" is used too often in this section. Please consider synonyms.

There were 9 "mentions" in that paragraph. I am trying to bring this number down. I have brought it to 6 now; I am looking for may be 3 or 4 if possible. The Merriam Webster give the synonyms cite, instance, name, and specify. Antonyms are disregard, ignore, neglect, pass by, pass over, and slight. If you can suggest proper usage of some of these.

• What social situation is demanding a reconstruction of her image? This could be expanded.

Legacy

• Why refer to her story as a myth in the second paragraph? It gives the sense that her acts have been exagerrated or at least fictionalized to a degree. Consider another word.

What about the word "legend"? Merriam Webster defines it as "a story coming down from the past; especially  : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable"

• If there is a death day celebration then it should be fairly easy to come up with a date of death.

As far as I know, it is celebrated on April 4 each year. I am looking for a firm reference.

Notes and references

• I created a new section for References, this is a more common format for citing material.

Thanks.

• Otherwise your references look good.

Thanks once again. I think my efforts deserve this comment.

Overall

• I think it would be good to explain a little bit about the socio-political situation that Jhalkaribai was operating in. You should answer the question why she was fighting? It's alluded to that India was fighting for independence but something more clear and spelled out would help the reader.
• As I said previously, more information about her life after the battle she is most known for will be important along with information about her family (kids?), and her death (date and circumstances).
• A copy edit is in order as well as an image if possible.
• I think overall the article is on the right track. It just needs some more expansion and fine tuning. Perhaps the sources that Redtigerxyz provided above will help. Thanks for your contributions and happy editing. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 20:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks H1nkles for taking your time for making a detailed review. I have made some changes and I am looking for some more references and an image. I will try to fix the grammatical problems, but please feel free to make the changes yourself or at least suggest me the changes (as you have already suggested a few in this review). Thanks once again. The article is work under progress yet. Indeed, it is on the right track, but it needs to go long before nominating it for GA. Shivashree · talk 03:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  

---

The Effect of World War I on Children in the United States

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… -I want further editing tips/scholarly advice -this is part of an educational assignment that requires a peer review!

Thanks, Donovank (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A brief one by NVO

What I suppose is now missing:

• Basic demographics. Set the scope from the start: How many children there were? Who are children (max age cutoff)? How did their number change through the war? Was there a significant change in birth rate? Change in infant mortality? Children per mother? Share of single-parent families?
• Health and healthcare. Perhaps this is more important than all zeppelins taken together. Did the war affect available healthcare standards at home? Did healthcare benefit from wartime experience? It should: war provided experience in mass treatment, which helped to contain outbreaks at home etc.
• Morale, attitude, social skills: how the generation of war-time kids differed from their parents.
• May I recommend looking into UNESCO "Children of X country profiles" for structuring the content.

I've noticed inconsistencies that just beg to ask questions...

• "Between the years 1870 and 1910," - how is it relevant to World War I? I'm sure there is plenty of stats for the war years, why go back to Civil War period?
• "Much of the sharp increase in this statistic can be attributed to the numerous positions that needed to be filled after the men started deploying for war" - did the Americans plan the Great War in 1910?
• "Women were needed in the factories because the men could no longer run the machines" - same Qs as above. If it's about 1910, it's irrelevant for this article. If it's about war years, say so. Then there's another Q: how could one-million-strong AEF deplete the economy so badly? Perhaps it's not about men and women but about absolute growth of the industries? Your section on "technologies" is better be removed at all: it does not convey the scope of changes, and it does not actually address technology. The Maxim machine-gun has been around for thirty years before the war. But the war perfected manufacturing technology, improved productivity etc...
• "Of the men who survived and returned home, post-traumatic stress disorder created a major impact on society ... post-traumatic stress was considered cowardice, and there were asylums throughout Europe housing men suffering from this condition. In some extreme cases, men were even shot for showing weakness." - Is this indeed about the survivors who returned home? Which country shot their retired soldiers for cowardice at home ? Which country set up asylums for post-traumatic syndrome ? Hell, there were millions left without eyes, arms and legs, who really cared about those who came back in one piece... May I recommend checking Dowswell's book against RS.
• "because millions of young men were deployed and killed, it was difficult for young women of the same age to marry" - France, Germany, yes. For the U.S. this statement needs some statistical backup and anyway it's not millions (Americans) killed. Yes, a few good men perished, but there was immigration, and the majority of immigrants were male. A simple calc shows that within 3 to 5 years immigration restored prewar male/female ratio (although very unevenly distributed geographically).
• "extreme nationalism and patriotism" - today these words sound differently than they did 100 years ago. They sound, at least, controversial. If, indeed, sources use these words, than they deserve an explanation - what did they mean by it? How did "extreme nationalism" of war-time U.S. differ from "ordinary nationalism" of pre-war years? How did it differ from extreme nationalism of, say, present-day Iran or other extreme cases?

etc. NVO (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A very brief (and nearly uselss) one by Buggie111

• I'd say add more images, maybe a diagram of <18 age enlistments across the U.S. or another pic of a kid, and provide alternate captions for them. I'd give a longer one if I was not in a rush. Buggie111 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Sentence spacing

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is well sourced and detailed so far. Also, as it addresses a topic of some controversy on the Internet, it could become a more-frequented page in the future—especially if some of the 70+ Websites devoted to this topic start linking to this site as a well-researched resource (some already have). Thus, would like to make sure it receives input from more than one major source - myself.

Would welcome comments on its length/size. I think it is acceptable, as I have summarized a lot in most sections (believe it or not, I have a lot more relevant material). WP:Article Size states: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose." The article is at 41 kb and 6,149 words of readable prose. So, although I welcome comments on the size, I would caution against using the current "total size" as the sole indicator of length.

Other areas I would welcome comments in:

1. Should the "Style guides" section be split into a separate article? I separated the "history" section and summarized, but not sure if the "Style guide" section is notable enough to merit its own article. If it could meet WP:N, what would the article be called? Also, it might be better left in this article since people going to an article on "sentence spacing" may well want to determine what their particular style guide says on the topic. As an encyclopedia, that's reasonable. The question is if it should be in this article, or a separate one.

2. Controversy. I summarized this, as it could be a separate article as well. I'm just not sure that this topic would be better off split into multiple article.

3. History. I moved the history to near the end at the beginning of this project (my involvement anyway). From experience, most people don't visit this page for the history, they want to find out whether to hit the space bar once or twice at the end of a sentence. In that sense, I wrote the article with the intent to "get down to business" and put the bottom line up front. Also, the history flows better immediately in front of the "digital age" section, which definitely doesn't belong near the front. Was that the right decision?

4. POV issues? In some cases, the article uses strong language - such as calling the double-space "obsolete" for most uses. It may seem strong, but many of the sources used even stronger language, stating that it was "absolutely incorrect" or wrong in all cases. These were reliable typographic sources, which are the most relevant to this topic. Since some grammar guide and other sources stated that the double space might be used on a typewriter (which almost no one uses anymore), or, in a very few cases, with a monospaced font (although many sources stated that single spacing is best even with a monospaced font today), I decided to settle on "obsolete" instead of "wrong" or "incorrect." "Obsolete" might seem POV to people though. The only way I see out of that is to try to directly quote sources. Since I have a ton of sources, and there are many wording variations, that could be problematic - and long. Anyway, I tried to stay NPOV, but in some cases it might seem POV. In many cases, it's just what the sources are stating (and I didn't cherry pick). However, I'm still interested in comments on POV here, since it will have to withstand accusations of POV in the future.

5. Images? This is a tough one. I could create some more images (like the one included), but not sure what would be useful here. Pictures of style guides and early printing machines are probably better on those specific Wikipedia pages. I'd like some ideas though, since the page is light on images (although the total size might indicate this is better left alone so mobile devices don't short-circuit when hitting this page).

Thanks, Airborne84 (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Adrian Boult

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've gone as far as I can go with it, I think, without a steer from Wiki-colleagues. User:Ssilvers has nobly given it a copy-edit, and input from anyone else will be gratefully received. Thoughts on whether GA should be its next destination would be helpful, too. Thanks, Tim riley (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Here, for starters, are some comments on the first few sections.

• Lead
  • Slight lack of prose flow in first paragraph. Consider: "After his appointment as director of music for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in 1930, he established and was the founder-conductor of the BBC Symphony Orchestra. This orchestra set standards of playing in London which were rivalled only by the London Philharmonic Orchestra, founded two years later."
    • Yes, better. Done.
  • "Manoeuvred out of the BBC by a rival in 1950..." Perhaps omit "by a rival" to stop people immediately thinking "who?" (and being disappointed to find out that it is the completely forgotten Stuart Wilson). Or you could make it neutral by saying: "Forced to retire from the BBC at the age of 60 in 1950, ..."
    • Point taken. Have reluctantly gone for the vanilla version.
  • "principal conductorship" and "chief conductor". Should the terminology be consistent?
    • Yes. Done.
  • The letters LPO should appear in brackets after the first mention of the London Philharmonic Orchestra.
    • Done.
  • "He" should not begin a paragraph. Hence, third paragraph, "Boult was known..."
    • Done
  • Comma alert: there is a tendency to over-use commas. I've zapped a couple from the lead, but a general checkover might be useful.
    • A besetting sin of mine. I'll give the whole thing a going-over for rogue commas.
• Early life
  • I find this slightly awkward phrasing: "He was educated at Westminster School, in his free time from which he attended concerts..." This could be: "He was educated at Westminster School in London, where in his free time he attended concerts..."
    • Yes – done.
  • "His biographer, Michael Kennedy, wrote..." I think the literary convention is "writes"
    • Done.
  • Boult's three precepts: the first two are stated clearly, but the third is not. Perhaps it's the phrasing; should it be "and finally, the effect of music made utterly without effort" ?
    • An earlier editor’s prose, but I have changed as suggested. I have the complete text of the paper, and this rephrasing represents it justly.
  • The chronology of Boult's education is a bit confused. When did he attend the Leipzig Conservatory? Mentioning his doctorate at this point is surely premature - it reads as though he went to Leipzig after his doctorate.
    • Have moved the mention of the DMus to the chronologically appropriate spote. The BMus doesn't sit comfortably anywhere and I have just left it out, de minimis. Leipzig dates added.
  • Suggestion: perhaps The Ring would be better expressed as "the Ring cycle."
    • Done
• First conducting work
  • List of composers in second line: Wagner should have been linked at first mention. Perhaps Schumann, and certainly Wolf, should have their first names (Bach, Mozart, Wagner well-enough known, Butterworth's already given)
    • All done except for Schumann, who seems to me definitely in the surname-only league.
  • "some of which were subsidised by his father and others..." I would remove "and others" - it mucks up the syntax.
    • Indeed. Done.
  • "Among them was the revised version..." Should this be "a revised version"?
    • It should. The first of three, I think. Done.
  • Do we have the date of the Planets premiere? Was it a complete performance?
    • Date added. I'm sure it was complete. There were two incomplete public perfs in 1919 and 1920, but I have not seen any suggestion that the Sept 1918 première under Boult was incomplete. We know there was a choir, so Neptune was included (it was omitted in the 1919 and 1920 perfs).

I'll be back to give more. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is wonderfully helpful. I look forward to your further comments in due course. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Pleasd to be of help. If it's OK by you, I'll wait until you have dealt with Jonyungk's comments below, before continuing, to avoid duplication of comments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's more

• Birmingham
  • We have two "appointments" in the second line. Hard to reword convincingly; How about: "but his participation in the next season was prevented by his appointment in 1924 as conductor of the Birmingham Festival Choral Society. This led to his becoming musical director of the City of Birmingham Orchestra..."?
    • Done.
  • "which position he held" would read smoother as "a position he held..."
    • Done.
  • "During his Birmingham years, this post kept him in the eye of the London musical world, and in 1930 he returned to London to take up the post of director of music of the BBC in succession to Percy Pitt." First, he only had the post towards the end of his Birmingham years; secondly it might be clearer to say "this new post"; thirdly, as I understand it he had been teaching at the RCM all the time he was in Birmingham, so in what sense was he "returning" to London? Also "to take up the post" gives the impression the job was lying around waiting for him. Someone must have offered it to him; it would be good to be precise about this.
    • On reflection I have blitzed the sentence. To judge by Kennedy’s book it was a case of "out of sight out of mind" in the London musical scene of the day, but the point is peripheral.
• BBC Symphony Orchestra
  • Small point, but I think Reith was "Sir John" by then.
    • He was. Done.
  • I suggest that, for clarity, you add the words "under the BBC's aegis" (or similar) to the end of the first sentence. As I understand it, the BBC Symphony Orchestra didn't exist before Boult's arrival, so perhaps "...bring the complement of the newly-formed BBC Symphony Orchestra to 114 players..." would clarify further.
    • Done.
  • "1930 Proms" - first mention, I would recommend spelling it out.
    • Done.
  • Do the dots in "B.B.C." in the quote warrant a [sic]? (I love these)
    • Behave!
  • "Reith, being told by his advisers..." → "Reith, having been told by his advisers..."
    • I've expanded the para, as the content is, I think, relevant and interesting.
  • "During the 1930s, the BBC orchestra..." Should the orchestra be given its title? Or perhaps, simply "the orchestra"?
    • The former, I think. It hasn't been named for a couple of paras.
  • Most of the composers named in the third paragraph have already been linked. Do you need to link them again?
    • Earlier links are in the lead. The practice in other articles seems to be to repeat at first mention in the body of the article, but I'm wholly biddable on this.
  • Guest conductors collage: the caption should identify Strauss as Richard Strauss
    • Done.
  • I don't think that everyday expressions like "especially well received" need be in quotes. There are a few other similar instances which might be de-quoted (including the "outstanding" at this paragraph's end.
    • Both done.
  • "in order" is frowned on in featured prose; quick delete
    • Whoops! Done.
  • "At the end of the war, Kennedy records, Boult "found a changed attitude to the orchestra in the upper echelons of the BBC and had to fight hard to restore it to its pre-war glory." A brief mention of the reason for this changed attitude is necessary.
    • Done. Reith – whose idea the BBCSO had been in the first place – had gone by then.
• London Philharmonic
  • Tryptich (Elgar, Mahler, Beethoven): could an image expert look at the licensing for this? I guess it's probably OK, but these composites can be tricky
    • Will do. Should be okay, I think, as all three images are public domain.
  • Thebom should be identified as a mezzo-soprano
    • Done.
  • Paragraph 3 - Richard Strauss again
    • Done
  • The list of guest conductors at the end of para 5 is a bit too long - maybe trim to the most distinguished of the names?

Done.

• • "Leningrad" should be pipe-linked to St Petersburg
    • Done.
  • As you give the composers for the other Moscow works, perhaps it should be "Holst's The Planets.
    • Done

A little more to do, then I'm finished. The article is most informative and makes good reading. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is of the greatest help – thank you. Tim riley (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

These are my final comments:-

• Later years
  • (per earlier point): I don't think "fallow" or "second eleven" are really worthy of quote marks
    • Done.
  • "...and resumed recording for EMI after a six year break." I assume this also was in 1965, but it would be as well to clarify this.
    • Done.
  • "Having recorded much British music, Boult was encouraged to record the orchestral music of Brahms." Slight non sequitur, but more importantly, encouraged by whom?
    • By EMI (Christopher Bishop in particular), but on reflection I don't think this sentence is needed, and I have blitzed it.
  • Much of the information in the second paragraph (his pre-1960s, his 1940s excursions into Ravel and Busoni, his pre-war Berg) doesn't seem to belong in a section entitled "Later years". One possible solution would be to put this information into a footnote at the end of the sentence about the width of his discography, and resume the main text at "It was a disappointment..."
    • Done.
• Musicianship: not much to comment on here, because Jonyungk has trodden the path before me, but a couple of tiddlers:-
  • Pedant's comment: earlier in the article, Boult ran his RCM conducting classes from 1919 to 1930. Now it's 1916-1930
    • Pedantry most gratefully received. Typo (1916) now corrected.
  • In the list of those influenced by Boult I can't help observing that Tippett is from an earlier generation than the others, also that he was primarily a composer, while all the others are conductors. The list might be better without him.
    • Good point. Done.
• Recordings: at the end you refer to "a 1959 Franck Symphony" and "1958 Dvořák Cello Concerto". Obviously I know what you mean, but some readers may think that the years refer to the works rather than the recordings. Also, I'm not convinced that César Franck qualifies for the surname-only club.
  • Clarified recording dates. I used to give Franck his full name, but I grinned at, and took note of, this comment from another editor a little while ago: "just Franck will do: it's way past high time we stopped using his full name as if he were some contemporary and/or obscure composer."

That ends my comments. A great effort, I hope you will consider giving it a shot at FAC (as I believe you could have done with Barbirolli - it's never too late!) Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am greatly in your debt for all the above. The article is much improved thereby. I think I will give it a shot at FA: the Barbirolli article seemed to me to be borderline, but this one has a bit more specific gravity, I think. Meanwhile, I await the call to do the necessary for Gustav Mahler when you are ready. - 08:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jonyungk comments

Lead

• Beginning two sentences in a row with "after" reads a little odd.
  • It does indeed. Done.
• Forced to retire from the BBC at the age of 60 in 1950, Boult was immediately invited to take on the chief conductorship of the London Philharmonic (LPO), which had declined from its peak of the 1930s. I know what you're saying here but it sounds awkward. Would it sound smoother if the second part of the sentence read, "Boult took on the chief conductorship ..."?
  • It would. Done

Early life

• Cedric Boult was a successful businessman connected with Liverpool shipping and the oil trade; he and his family had "a Liberal Unitarian outlook on public affairs."[2] What exactly is a Liberal Uniterian outlook? A brief explanation would help non-British readers.
  • Oh dear, this is a minefield! Liberal – as in politically Liberal – is probably self-explanatory, but Unitarian is tricky. It was (perhaps still is) a branch of the Christian church with unorthodox views on the Trinity – but more to the point, in that period, in that part of Britain, Unitarians were frequently well-to-do and were famous for their philanthropy. I can't put all that into the article (and it's POV anyway). Perhaps I should omit the Unitarian and stick to Liberal?
    • Or simply add, "and were dedicated to philantrophy".
• At Christ Church, Boult originally read history but switched to music, in which his mentor was Hugh Allen.[3][5] A similar problem here: does "read" mean "studied"? It's a little confusing when compared to the next time you use "read".
  • Please picture an Anglo-Saxon blush crossing my cheek. How parochial one's prose can be. Yes, at English universities "reading" a subject means that it is your principal study. I have changed this to "studied"
• In 1909, he read a paper to the Oriana Society entitled Some Notes on Performance, in which he laid down three precepts for an ideal performance: observance of the composer's wishes, clarity through emphasis on balance and structure, and finally, the effect of music made utterly without effort. Two points. First, by read, do you mean "presented" as in a doctoral presentation or "submitted"? Especially since you previously used "read" in a different context, it's a little comfusing for non-British readers. Second, "finally" seems unnecessary.
  • Please see preceding blushes. In this context "read" means what it says. Now changed to "presented".
• Boult graduated with a pass degree in 1912.[8] What is a pass degree? Is that like a Bachelor's Degree?
  • Truth to tell I'm not sure what a pass degree was at the Oxford of a century ago. It was certainly of lower rank than an honours degree, but whether undergraduates had to do any work to get it or whether it was dished out merely for being there, I know not. Boult later (1914) got an honours degree (in music) but I have not mentioned that, as there was no convenient place to put it. Do you think it would help if I put a note saying (which is certainly true) that a pass degree was the lowest class of degree awarded by the university?
    • It would avoid any confusion.
• Boult admired Nikisch "not so much for his musicianship but his amazing power of saying what he wanted with a bit of wood. He spoke very little", a style consistent with Boult's opinion that "all conductors should be clad in an invisible Tarnhelm which makes it possible to enjoy the music without seeing any of the antics that go on."[9] Would this sentence read better split into two?
  • It would. Done.

First conducting work

• Should "Zeppelin" be linked?
  • I believe links are not encouraged within quotations, but have slipped one in. It can always come out again if anyone objects.
• In his spare time he organised and conducted concerts, some of which were subsidised by his father, aiming both to give work to orchestral players and to bring music to a wider audience.[14] Would this read better: "...with the aims of giving work to orchestral players and bringing ..."?
  • It would. Done. You have no idea how much grief this seemingly innocuous sentence has caused me. I am so grateful to you and Brianboulton for rescuing me.
• In contrast to this theatrical work, he also took on an academic post. Do you need the first part of this sentence? Seems like this was a simple addition of work rather than a contrast or contradiction.
  • Done.

Birmingham

• Boult programmed as much innovative repertoire as practical, including music by Mahler, Stravinsky and Bruckner, although any departures from the familiar repertoire depressed the box-office takings, requiring subsidies from private benefactors, including Boult's family.[24] This sentence feels a little long and awkward. Is there to rephrase or split it?
  • Done.
• While with the Birmingham orchestra, Boult had the opportunity to conduct a number of operas ..." Why not just say "Boult conducted"?
  • The point I am trying to make is that this was a big deal for Boult. All his life he longed to conduct more opera but hardly ever got the chance. I'd prefer to leave this as drawn, or thereabouts.
    • Not a problem.
• In the same sentence, ... chiefly with the British National Opera Company, for whom he conducted Die Walküre and Otello. Is it "for whom" or "for which", since you are referring to a corporation?
  • Done

BBC Symphony Orchestra

• The Observer called the playing "altogether magnificent" and said that Boult "deserves an instrument of this fine calibre to work on, and the orchestra deserves a conductor of his efficiency and insight."[34] With all the "ands" in this sentence, this sentence feels lankier than it should. What about replacing the first "and" with a semi-colon and "it said"?
  • I am afraid of the Semi-Colon Demon who comes to torment Wikipedians who dare to use that punctuation mark. I have redrafted to eliminate an "and" without risking the Demon's wrath.
• British premières including Alban Berg's opera Wozzeck and Berg's Three Movements from the Lyric Suite,[37] ... The second "Berg's" seems extraneous? Also, should "Three Movements from the Lyric Suite" or "Lyric Suite" be linked?
  • Done.
• The beginning of the fourth paragraph needs a transitional phrase for the material so smoothly move from the end of the third paragraph. Was it the excellence of the orchestra under Boult that attracted guest conductors? Saying so (if this was true) would give such a transition.
  • It was indeed true (and well documented). I have so amended.
• During this period, Boult accepted some international guest conductorships,... Could this be the beginning of a new paragraph, rather than a continuation of the previous one?
  • Done
• For many years, Boult had been a close friend of the tenor Steuart Wilson and ..." This paragraph feels jumbled, with its mention of the fallout from the divorce on Wilson, then the lack of fallout on Boult. Is this information necessary? If so, could it be incorporated more smoothly into the paragraph?
  • The fallout sentence is there for two purposes. First to set the scene for Wilson's later vengeance, and secondly – truth to tell – as a segue into the sentence, which I couldn't otherwise attach seamlessly, about the Coronation. I'd rather leave this, I think.
    • I can see your point. What about adding a transition to this information: "The enmity it provoked in Wilson, however, had repercussions in Boult's later career,[47] especially as the stigma attached to divorce in Britain in the 1930s which affected Wilson professionally (for instance, the cathedral authorities barred him from performing at the Three Choirs Festival) did not affect Boult, who ..."

More to come. Jonyungk (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is all top-notch stuff! Thank you so much. I look forward to more when convenient to you. – Tim riley (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Glad to help out. Jonyungk (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuing ... BBC Orchestra (continued)

• Boult strove to maintain standards and morale as he lost key players: between 1939 and the end of the war, forty players left for active service or other activities.[1] Should the colon here actually be a semi-colon?
  • Have split into two sentences. Not too staccato, I think.
• This move, made as a favour to the composer Arthur Bliss in order to provide a suitable war-time job for him ... You don't really need "in order".
  • Done.
• This move, made as a favour to the composer Arthur Bliss in order to provide a suitable war-time job for him, later came to be Boult's undoing at the BBC.[49] In these years he made recordings of Elgar's Second Symphony ... Nothing is wrong with these sentences per se, and I know you are foreshadowing Boult's demise at the BBC with the first sentence. There still needs to be a transition between these two sentences to make things less jarring. Maybe adding "Meanwhile" to the beginning of the second sentence would be enough.
  • Done
• At the end of the war, Kennedy records, Boult "found a changed attitude to the orchestra in the upper echelons of the BBC and had to fight hard to restore it to its pre-war glory."[1] Does this sentence actually belong to the paragraph that follows it, since it refers to the post-WWII era?
  • I see what you mean. I've now tried it in both paras, and I think it sits more happily in the first.
• In 1948 Steuart Wilson was appointed head of music at the BBC, the post previously occupied by Boult and Bliss, and used it ... And used what? I would guess the privileges of rank, but it would be good to say so.

London Philharmonic

• After it became clear that Boult would not be able to retain his position with the BBC ... This reads a little lumpy. Removing "be able to" might smooth things out.
  • Redrawn.
• Boult was well-known to the orchestra, having been among the musicians who came it its aid in 1940.[54] This sentence comes as a surprise since you do not mention Boult's efforts in this regard earlier. How did he come to the aid of the orchestra in 1940? Answering this question briefly would help.
  • Info added in footnote – better there, I think, than in the main text.
• The need to earn money obliged the orchestra to play many more concerts than its rivals. In the 1949–50 season, the LPO gave 248 concerts, compared with 55 by the BBC Symphony Orchestra, 103 by the London Symphony Orchestra, and 32 apiece by the Philharmonia and Royal Philharmonic orchestras.[55] Good information here, but how successful were the concerts in raising funds? A brief mention at the end would be good.
  • Alas, I cannot find this information. We know the LPO survived (and still does) so this huge workload must have raised enough money to keep the orchestra afloat.
• The symphonies they played were Beethoven's Seventh, Haydn's London ... Which London symphony, as there are 12 of them? I know you have it linked, but mentioning the symphony number would help.
• A less happy aspect of 1952 was the acrimony surrounding the dismissal of Thomas Russell from his position as the LPO's managing director. This is a very lumpy sentence but there may be no way around it. What about "A less happy aspect of 1952 was the acrimony surrounding the dismissal of managing director Thomas Russell"?
  • Pruned thus: A less happy aspect of 1952 was the acrimonious dismissal of Thomas Russell as the LPO's managing director.
• Boult, as the orchestra's chief conductor, stood up for Russell, but when matters came to a head Boult ceased to protect him, and, deprived of that crucial support, Russell was forced out. The sentence itself is clear but feels a little long. Would splitting it help?
  • It would. Done.
• Boult had not wished to go on the tour because flying hurt his ears, and long land journeys hurt his back, but when the Soviet authorities threatened to cancel the tour if he did not lead it, he agreed to go.[64] Same thing here: an otherwise fine sentence feels long.
  • Done

Later years

• Nevertheless, he was invited as a guest conductor to Vienna, Amsterdam and Boston.[68] Would this read better if rephrased "invited to guest conduct in Vienna ..."?
  • Trimmed.
• In 1964 he made no recordings, but in 1965 he began an association with Lyrita records, an independent label specialising in British music, and made his first EMI recording for six years.[68] Not so sure about the last part of this sentence. Do you mean that the recording for EMI was his first in six years, or that it would be his last for six years?
  • Rephrased.
• Celebrations for his eightieth birthday in 1969 ... Since you use a number for the 21se anniversary of the LSO, should you use a number for "eightieth" as well?
  • Very true. I'll check the whole article for consistency.
• Having recorded much British music, he was encouraged ... Since this is the beginning of a new paragraph, "Boult" instead of "he"?
  • Done
• Having recorded much British music, he was encouraged to record the orchestral music of Brahms, whose Third Symphony filled a spare recording session in August 1970 and led to a series of recordings of Brahms, Wagner, Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven.[72] I know you hate the semi-colon demon, but somehow splitting this sentence would render it less awkward.
  • Split into three and mildly redrawn.
• Not only did he conduct seven of the nine Mahler symphonies well before the Mahler revival of the 1960s,[73] but he also programmed Ravel's complete ballet Daphnis et Chloé and Ferruccio Busoni's rarely-staged opera Doktor Faust in the late 1940s, and held Berg's Wozzeck to be a masterpiece, even if he preferred the more tonal final section.[74] Same here as in the previous sentence mentioned—this sentence becomes more awkward the longer it gets.
  • Yes indeed! Split into three.

Musicianship

• 65 years later, in an obituary tribute ... Since this is the beginning of a sentence, "65" should be spelled out.
  • Done
• Grove's Dictionary similarly said of him: It would be nice to know who wrote the Groves entry and use that name instead.
  • Done
• Another feature of Boult's music-making was his care for balance. This sentence sounds redundant the way you phrase it now. What about "This care for balance was an important feature of Boult's music-making", or something like that? This way, the sentence acts as a transition to the rest of the following paragraph.
  • Much better. Done.
• The trombonist Ray Premru wrote forty years later ... Are you going to spell out two-digit numbers or use numbers? You should be consistent.
  • Very true. Am checking all number formats in the article.
• As no such classes had been held before in Britain, Boult "created its curriculum from out of his own experience. … The quote would read better as "from ... his own experience" or "... out of his own ..."
  • The latter, I think. Perfectly well represents what is meant and is easier on the eye.

Recordings

• His recordings fall into three main periods. Should be "Boult's" as this sentence begins a new paragraph.
  • Done
• His last period, from the mid-1960s, sometimes referred to as his Indian Summer, was once again with HMV, where, with his regular collaborators the producer Christopher Bishop and the engineer Christopher Parker, he made more than sixty recordings, re-recording much of his key repertory in stereo and adding many works to his discography that he had not recorded before.[95] This is a very long sentence. Better split?
  • Split into three. Much better.
• All these recording have been reissued on CD. "Recordings" instead of "recording"?
  • Indeed. Done.
• In the core continental orchestral repertoire, Boult's recordings of the four symphonies of Brahms, and the Great C major Symphony of Schubert ... Should the Great C major Symphony be linked?
  • It's linked earlier, in the LPO section. I think that's probably enough, but this second mention is several sections later, so a repeat link is not out of the question.

Hope this helps. Jonyungk (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed, and I'm most grateful. Thank you very much. – Tim riley (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

---

The Political Cesspool

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article currently has Good Article status, and has undergone two previous peer reviews and two FACs (neither of which were successful). Since then, however, I've significantly improved the article with new content from a variety of different sources.

The reason it failed the second FAC was because it relied too heavily on the Anti-Defamation League as a source. Because of this, I've been expanding the article recently with new content representing a wider range of sources, also making the article more comprehensive than it was before. I nominated this article for another Peer Review because I'd like to know: is there anything else I should do before I send it back for another FAC?

Thanks, Stonemason89 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting but still has prose and Manual of Style issues that will not survive FAC. I fixed a few small errors, and I have several suggestions for further improvement.

Foundation and history

• "in the words of cofounder Austin Farley" - It's clear from the preceding sentence that he's a cofounder, and we already know his full name. Tighten to "in Farley's words"?
  • Fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• "Prior to joining the show's staff, Frith had worked for a number of other radio stations including... ". -Tighten to "Before joining the show's staff, Frith had worked for other radio stations including... "?
  • Fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• "because the staff said they" - Since "staff" is singular and "they" is plural, perhaps "because staff members said they" would be better.
  • Fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• "It was initially broadcast on AM 1600 WMQM on Tuesdays and Thursdays." - I think it would be very helpful to add the geographic location of this and all of the other stations in the article. That would give a more clear sense of the regions the broadcasts reach and who might be listening. I realize that you've said "Memphis" in the lead for this particular one, but I'd repeat that here in the main text as well and add the missing locations of the other stations to the main text.
  • Done. I removed the mention of KANC from the article after being unable to find out where it is or was located; a quick Google search shows there appears to be no evidence of a station with those call letters existing or ever having existed. It's possible that the station is now defunct, or that it was a typo on the part of the TPC staff. So I've removed KANC altogether, at least for now. The other stations have had their locations added. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I think that adds interest and important information. Finetooth (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• "a number of other radio stations including AFRTS" - Abbreviations like this should be spelled out and abbreviated on first use, thus: American Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS).
  • Fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• "As of August 2009, Jess Bonds and Goeff Melton are no longer affiliated with the program. Art Frith... ". First names are normally used only on the first instance; these three should be "Bonds, Melton, Frith". Ditto for similar situations in the article. I see many such situations.
  • Fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I still see quite few of these. For example, "James Edwards attracted about 200 white counter-demonstrators to the Confederate Park vigil. In the aftermath of the city park controversy, show affiliates James Edwards, Austin Farley, Jess Bonds, and Bill Rolen received the "Dixie Defender Award" from the Sons of Confederate Veterans." Maybe the "James" is helpful here at the beginning of the first sentence, but why not strike the others since they've all been listed in complete form at least once before; i.e., "In the aftermath of the city park controversy, show affiliates James Edwards, Austin Farley, Jess Bonds, and Bill Rolen received the "Dixie Defender Award" from the Sons of Confederate Veterans"? Finetooth (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. I also removed another extraneous mention of Farley, which had appeared later on in the same section. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Primary host

• I think it would be helpful to include a brief explanation of American Third Position Party and Stormfront in the text of this article. Otherwise readers must click away from your article to find out why these party affiliations are important. They will naturally wonder what the "third position" is and whether "Stormfront" is related to storm troopers or something else. Just a few words of explanation would suffice in each case. It might also be useful to give similar brief explanations of other parties and organizations mentioned in the article. This might require more citations, I realize, but the organizations' self-descriptions (condensed) might be all you'd need in most cases.
  • Stormfront was already described as a "white nationalist and supremacist website" in the lead. I added a similar description of it into the body of the article as well. As for American Third Position Party, I've added a brief mention that the A3P is a white nationalist political party that advocates a form of economic nationalism known as Third Position. Is this enough, or do you think further explanation is necessary? Stonemason89 (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I think this is fine. Finetooth (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Guests

• "in July 2008; during that appearance, he discussed his financial newsletter and promoted his book.[21][19][22][23][24][25]" - The refs are normally arranged in ascending order when a group of them appear together like this; i.e., 19 should come before 21 in the list. Also, do you really need six sources to support this claim?
  • Out-of-order ref (19) removed. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I found two more instances of out-of-order refs, and fixed those as well. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• "and British National Party leaders" - Needs the abbreviation on first use; i.e., British National Party (BNP). Ditto for other abbreviations in the article.
  • Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement of principles

• Here I would suggest compressing rather than expanding. I'd paraphrase rather than quoting so much, and I'd turn the list into straight prose. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details.
  • I'm not sure how to condense this without sacrificing valuable information (and making the article less comprehensive--1b--in the process). Stonemason89 (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Now that you've removed the links, I'm inclined to agree. Finetooth (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Nothing inside a direct quote should be linked, according to WP:MOSQUOTE. Any links inside direct quotes anywhere in the article should be unlinked.
  • Fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

• Watch out for overlinking. Southern Poverty Law Center and Stephen Roth Institute are linked twice each in quick succession. One link per article is often enough for most things. It's OK to link something once in the lead and again once in the main text sometimes, but I'd avoid linking anything more often than that without a good reason.
  • The reason why I link a lot is because this is a potentially controversial topic, which means that people often reflexively remove statements that don't have inline citations attached to them. So there are some cases where duplicate links may be necessary; still, if I see any that I think can safely be removed without causing controversy, then I will do that. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I meant wikilinking rather than citing. The wikilinks aren't what satisfy WP:V since Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself. To head off well-intentioned removal of unsourced claims, you might add an in-line citation right after the claim or at the end of the sentence in which the claim appears. Finetooth (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the misunderstanding. I've re-added some of the inline citations that I removed before. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • What appeared to be duplicate links to the SPLC and the SRI were actually links to two separate SPLC and SRI articles, respectively; this seems legit, in my view, so I don't see a problem with these two sources. However, I did remove some duplicate links to the ADL and the Commercial Appeal. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of "Controversy and criticism", the first two SPLC links are identical, and the Hatewatch is linked to the same SPLC page. Why would a reader want to visit the same page three times in quick succession? Finetooth (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • Fixed. I also removed a redundant wikilink to White nationalism from the "Primary Host" section (there had previously been two in quick succession). Stonemason89 (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

City park demonstration

• "Sharpton also said in an interview that his objections to the park were not related to race, but to Forrest's leading an army against the United States." - Not sure what this refers to. How is Forrest Park leading an army?
  • The "Forrest" who led an army is Nathan Bedford Forrest, not Forrest Park. Is there a way I could possibly rephrase that sentence to make it more clear? Stonemason89 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    • How about "Sharpton also said in an interview that his objections were not related to race but to the actions of Lieutenant General Forrest, who led an army against the United States"?
      • Thanks, I think that will work. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Radio stations that air the show"

• I'd turn this list into straight prose too.
  • Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• "micro1650am is a 100 milliwatt FCC Part 15 station, and as such it has no call letters." - I'd rewrite this to start the sentence with a capital letter. That means moving "micro1650am" to the middle of the sentence somewhere.
  • Fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

References

• Make sure the citations are as complete as possible. Citation 18, for example, should include the name of the author, Liz Spikol, which is easy to find. Ditto for Max Blumenthal for citation 19.
  • Done. While going through the refs I noticed that two of them ("home" and "official") pointed to the same page, so I removed this redundancy as well. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• What makes Media Matters for America reliable? What makes VDare.com reliable? Dot-coms, personal opinion pages, blogs, and social networks often fail to meet WP:RS.
  • I've had several other people review this article before and no one found any problems with using Media Matters. As far as VDARE is concerned, that website is normally not a reliable source, however in this case, the article linked to is only being used to showcase Jared Taylor's opinion of the show. Since the VDARE article was itself written by Jared Taylor, this falls under WP: SELFPUB, which allows otherwise questionable sources to be used as long as we are only using them to provide information about the sources themselves. In other words, Jared Taylor is a reliable source for Jared Taylor's views. At least, that's my interpretation of WP: SELFPUB. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I've made this even more clear by adding the author's (Jared Taylor's) name to the citation, to make it clear this is a case of SELFPUB. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Finetooth (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've left a few comments on the Fat Freddys Drop peer review; I don't have much experience with peer reviewing, but I contributed what I could: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Fat_Freddy's_Drop/archive1. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comment: This is looking better. I've made a few further comments above in response to your most recent request. Hope this helps. Also, thanks for helping with a review. As you can see, demand for editing almost always runs ahead of supply. Finetooth (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again! Stonemason89 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• • I think I'll take it from here. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    

---

David Lewis (politician)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to bring it to FAC, and that there were concerns with the writing last time it was there.

Thanks, Abebenjoe (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's a minor point but it seemed strange to me that the section on Rhodes Scholarship and Oxford makes no reference at all to the Rhodes Scholarship. Maybe mention it in passing around Lincoln College and/or change the title to de-emphasise it. FunkyCanute (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment FunkyCanute. I believe most of the information about him being selected for the Rhodes Scholarship is located at the end of the McGill section, since it seems to flow with that section. The title reflects why he was at Oxford, but I take your point, I'll add something in the first sentence or two that his Scholarship allowed him to be at Lincoln College or something to that effect.Abebenjoe (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I elected to move the Rhode Scholarship paragraph, that dealt with his selection, to the main section dealing with Oxford while he was on the scholarship.Abebenjoe (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It works well there FunkyCanute (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out.Abebenjoe (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you should reference the lead section and infobox. You can use the same refs from the below. I think there really should be more refs. Can you review List of vegetarians too? Kayau Voting IS evil 13:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the article. In fully-formed articles, introductory paragraphs do not need footnotes, so long as the information in them is footnoted properly in the body of the article. The same goes for the InfoBox. When the article failed FAC, it wasn't due to references, but writing style. The article has been revised, and copy-edited to take into account the FAC criticisms. I'll take look at your list.Abebenjoe (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is very good, seems comprehensive, well-supported, well-organized, professionally written. I found it quite illuminating. In a few places toward the end, I think it would be helpful to include just a bit more background about the Canadian political system. I mention a couple of specifics below, and I make quite a few small suggestions related to prose and the Manual of Style. Overall, this seems to me to be about ready for a return to FAC.

Lead

• "As the United Steelworkers of America's legal counsel in Canada, he helped them take over the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers." - USW should go in parentheses here on first use of United Steelworkers. To avoid the awkwardness of the possessive, maybe "As legal counsel for the United Steelworkers of America (USW) in Canada... "? This sentence is also the place to introduce the Mine-Mill shorthand for the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers since you use Mine-Mill later in the article.

The Bund and Jewish life in the Pale

• "Svisloch was located in the Russian Empire's Pale of Settlement, in what is now Belarus. - It's considered good practice to avoid bumping links together; readers can't tell where one ends and the next begins. Recasting often solves this problem. Suggestion: "Svisloch was located in what is now Belarus, in the Pale of Settlement of the Russian Empire.
• "3,500 of Svisloch's 4,500 residents were Jewish." - The Manual of Style advises against starting sentences with digits. Maybe "Of Svisloch's 4,500 resident, 3,500 were Jews."
• "The Bolsheviks reached Svisloch border in July 1920." - Missing word? "the Svisloch border"?

Political involvement

• "The Oxford newspaper Isis noted Lewis' leadership ability at this early stage in his career. In their February 7, 1934 issue, while Lewis was president, they wrote of the club... ". - Since "newspaper" is singular, shouldn't this say, "In its February 7, 1934, issue, while Lewis was president, Isis wrote of the club... "?
• "If he were to stay in England, he likely would have been a partner in a prominent London law firm associated with Stafford Cripps... " - "If he had stayed in England" rather than "if he were to stay in England"?

Make this your Canada

• "The book also outlined the history of the CCF up to that time and explained how the party's decision-making process." - Delete "how"?

1945 elections

• By April 1945, the CCF were down to 20 percent nationally, and on election day they received only 16 percent." - "Was" rather than "were"? "Its candidates" or "the party" rather than "they"?
• "Lewis ran in Hamilton West instead of an open Winnipeg riding that had elected CCF... ". Wikilink riding?

Fighting Communist influence

• "Over the next twenty years, a fierce and ultimately successful battle was waged by Millard's United Steel Workers of America (USWA) to take... ". - (USW) rather than (USWA) to match the abbreviation used earlier in the article?

• "It was not until the CCF became the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the IUMSSW/USWA war was over... " - Same thing. It's confusing to encounter IUMSSW when Mine-Mill was used earlier. The front slash is not so good either. Better would be "and the Mine-Mill–USW war was over".

Private labour law practice

• "He became the chief legal advisor to the United Steel Workers of America's Canadian division... ". - Here I'd use USW's instead of spelling it out again.
• "and battles with the Mine, Mill union" - Mine-Mill for consistency.

Leadership succession crisis

• "Lewis and the rest of the new party's organizers opposed Argue's manoeuvres, and wanted Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas... ". I think this is the first mention of Douglas. If so, wikilink Tommy Douglas?

1962–1971

• "Lewis decided to run in his home riding of York South, which was held provincially by the NDP's Ontario leader, Donald C. MacDonald." - Did MacDonald choose not to run for re-election? Probably I'm simply confused here by the phrase "was held provincially" since later the article says that MacDonald was pushed out in 1970.

I replaced it as follows: " Lewis decided to run in his home riding of York South, which was concurrently held provincially, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, by the NDP's Ontario leader, Donald C. MacDonald." I hope that clears it up for people not familar with Canadian politics.Abebenjoe (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• "It took extra effort on Stephen's and Caplan's parts to convince it that David was a legitimate Jewish voice, and that he would not harm their businesses." - "It" is singular, but "their" is plural. Maybe "convince community members that David was a legitimate Jewish voice and that he would not harm their businesses"?
• "Lewis' first term as MP was a short one, as Diefenbaker's minority government was defeated in the April 8, 1963, general election. - Would it be helpful to explain in a footnote (or briefly in the text) why the defeat of Diefenbaker's government would have ended Lewis' term? Foreigners will not necessarily know much of anything about how the Canadian system works.
• "The October 1970 Quebec FLQ Crisis put Lewis in the spotlight, as he was the only NDP MP with any roots in Quebec. He and Douglas were opposed to the October 16 implementation of the War Measures Act." - Ditto here for outsiders to Canada, its government and history. Although it's fine to link War Measures Act, it would be really helpful to add something to the article itself about what war the government had in mind.

Leader of the NDP

• "divided the convention along Waffle/Establishment lines" - The front slash is almost always ambiguous. Maybe just ending the sentence after "convention" would be better. The two camps are made clear in the preceding sentences.
• "as had his involvement in most of the CCF/NDP's internal conflicts during the previous 36 years" - Ditto here. I'd suggest "most of the internal conflicts between the CCF and the NDP during the previous 36 years".

Removed the forward slash, and replaced it with "and". The CCF and the NDP were never in conflict with each other, because the NDP is the CCF's child, after the CCF formally closed down and became the NDP in 1961.Abebenjoe (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Other

• The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. (Whether you need them at the moment for FA, I'm not sure; the requirement seems to be in flux.) WP:ALT has details.
• Many of the citation templates embedded in the article have empty parameters that are unlikely ever to be filled. It makes things a bit tidier to remove them. This does not apply to the infobox, which has unfilled fields with potential for filling, but in the main text, if an article has a single author, for example, there's no point in leaving a blank coauthor field.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. We have a perpetual supply of articles and a perpetual shortage of willing and able editors. Finetooth (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for reviewing the article. You have provided some very useful commentary that should improve the article. I should be able to review a few other articles in the near future.Abebenjoe (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Went through the article and implemented 99% of your recommendations. Thank you for taking the time to give such insightful comments.Abebenjoe (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Edmonton

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I hope to eventually get this article up to FA status. This is the second peer review I have opened for this article, and i feel that i closed it to soon so i will leave this one open longer. Two other users that have also been improving the article are 117Avenue (talk · contribs) and Hwy43 (talk · contribs) Thanks, Kyle1278 02:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Niagara

• Alt-text is needed.
• "The hadrosaur Edmontosaurus is named after the city." → Not mentioned anywhere else in the article (see WP:LEAD); also seems too specific of a detail for the lead.

Done

• "...the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor..." → an en dash is needed (Calgary–Edmonton)

Done

• I'd break up that paragraph below the climate data table. Moving info on Edmonton's latitude to the "Geography" section and incorporate the amount of sunshine into the "Climate" section.

Done

• Having the measure of precipitation in the climate data table is somewhat redundant as you already have measurement for rain and snow.

Done

I disagree, the monthly amounts are listed elsewhere. 117Avenue (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• The first part of the "Politics" section seems somewhat more relevant to being in the "History" section.
• How is Edmonton represented in the government on the national level? The provincial level?

Working...

• There is "citation needed" tag that would have to be taken care of before going to FAC.
• The GDP, in the "Economy" section, is from 2007. Is it possible to update this?

If someone could help me with this one it would be greatly appreciated i am not the best withe economic stuff.Kyle1278 01:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Edmonton's current poet laureate is Mr. Roland Pemberton a.k.a. Mr. Cadence Weapon." → Why is this important to the city? Important enough for its own section?

Done

• "...immediately ahead of Mississauga, Charlotte, Tijuana, and Calgary among cities..." → I'd mention where these are located if they are not in Alberta.

Done

• Are coordinates for CFB Edmonton necessary?

Done

• It might beneficially to make the "Religion" section a subsection of "Demographics", as the two are closely related.

Done

Hope this helps. A good model article for an FA you might to look at is Hamilton, Ontario. A copyedit would also be a good idea. You might want to consider reviewing an article in the backlog, which I found this article. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Kyle1278 02:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Lily Cole

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Lily Cole has been a GA for a while and now I'm just looking for a bit of feedback on what more I can do for the article directed at a possible future FAC. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Maria

Interesting article, and what a lovely young lady. Knowing that your intended goal is FAC, here are some things I would suggest:

• The lead is somewhat skimpy, especially on personal details. To better fulfill WP:LEAD, I would suggest including her place of birth and early life, possibly even before the fact that she was discovered by chance, and a little more on her educational history, since that encompasses an entire section on its own. Currently there is also no information about her charitable work, or her distinctive red hair. Lots of stuff to pick from here to help boost the lead.
• I see a couple points throughout where single quotes are used instead of double quotes: 'only girl', 'Model of the Year', etc. I know it's common English practice, but the MOS prefers double quotes.
• The main problem you may have during an FAC, I think, would be in regard to the prose. It becomes choppy in places, especially where simply listing career achievements. The latter sentences in "Magazines and fashion shows", for example, are particularly listy; she did this, appeared on that, then did this, etc. You may want to combine these stand-alone sentences and vary them structurally/stylistically, so they aren't so "samey".
• Marks and Spencer (for whom Cole modelled at the time), however, stated that it "stood by Lily"[32], arguing she "is a popular, high profile, model who is very much in demand, and this is one of the key reasons why we have chosen to work with her" -- This sentence is problematic, very wordy, and has such a breadth of commas that it's difficult to read in places. Also, is "modelled" a British spelling?
• Speaking of commas, they are somewhat overused throughout the article for my tastes. This, for example: In November 2009, it was announced that Cole would feature, topless, in the 2010 edition of the well known can very well simply read "would feature topless in the 2010 edition" without any issues.
• Watch the repetition of "It was announced", "In [year]" and similar phrases; I have a tendency to overuse such phrases as well, but variety is the spice of life, etc. :)
• Cole played the lead female role of Valentina, the teenage daughter of Christopher Plummer's Dr Parnassus (the title character) whom Parnassus has promised to The Devil (Tom Waits) upon her 16th birthday,[47] in the 2009 film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, directed by Terry Gilliam and scripted by Gilliam and Charles McKeown. -- Another long, difficult sentence. While I see the attempt to vary the sentence structure here, perhaps the film should be named upfront? The following sentence is just as long and confusing.
• At the premier for The Imaginarium..., Cole was pictured wearing thigh length brown pinstripe boots with matching blazer and hotpants next to director Terry Gilliam. -- I'm not sure what "was pictured" refers to; photographed? If so, perhaps try "was photographed next to director Terry Gilliam wearing thigh length..."?
• I'm not so sure about referring to the film as The Imaginarium.... Is that how the critics refer to it? I would think Doctor Parnassus would be the logical short-form, but if that's what the majority of critics use, then ah well.
• Is there any way to crop the film promotion image? It's gorgeous, but my eye goes straight to the cameraman in the background.

I hope these comments help. Like I said, the only thing I see holding this article back is the need for a copy-edit, especially in regards to sentence structure, in order to ensure the prose is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Best of luck! María (habla conmigo) 15:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised the prose came up- I copyedit a lot myself, but I just kind of picked the article up, rather than writing it from scratch. I definitely give it a good copyedit and I have a habit of overusing commas, so I'll take a few out. Thank you very much for your time, I really appreciate the constructive criticism! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak

Good job so far! I agree that the lead needs to better summarise the article. Just a couple of things I noticed:

• The citations need a little more consistency. Some are missing publishers, in some cases, newspaper titles aren't italicised. Article dates & retrieval dates aren't consistently formatted either.
• "She gained a First in her examinations" - it's not explicitly clear what this means, do you think people unfamiliar with this honours degree system will know what that means?
• I see some information has recently been added to the charity work section which will need copyediting.

Good luck, --BelovedFreak 13:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time! I hadn't thought of the first two, but now you mention it, it seems blindingly obvious! I'll try to work on that later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

---

List of tallest buildings in St. Louis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was recently an unsuccessful FLC, and the main concern was the reliability of sources. I'm definitely willing to find more reliable sources, but I also want suggestions on further improvements. Thanks,  fetchcomms☛ 20:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mostly the type of review I do doesn't apply to lists, but I have a few comments:

• St. Louis as 59th largest city needs a footnote explaining that it is an independent city which skews comparisons to other US cities and that St. Louis comprises the 18th ranked metropolitan area.

• The Eagleton Courthouse is listed as number 3 but the note say it was the tallest building in the 2000's, yet number 1 and 2 were built in the 1980's???

• One City Centre: Might want to note that it is no longer a shopping mall, current wording seems like it is just no longer the largest.

• Ballpark Village: LOL

If you are going to go back to the Old Courthouse in the historical list, why does the lead not cover this history. I guess I am not sure how leads should work in lists, but I would think they would overview all of the subsequent lists in the article. Otherwise I guess I would expect this kind of list to have pictures as part of the table.--BirgitteSB 00:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Adding note.
• It was the tallest one built in the 2000s, that is to say, no new buildings in the 2000s are taller than it, but that does not mean it is not shorter than older buildings.
• Adding note as well
• Well... it might happen... :P

I discussed a few items on the historical list, like the Wainwright Building and Railway Exchange Building. I'll see if I can add the Old Courthouse, as it seems rather significant.  fetchcomms☛ 00:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Fat Freddy's Drop

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this article as close to featured quality as possible. I've searched through every source I could think of (local NZ papers, journal articles, etc), so I think it's a pretty comprehensive article on the topic, but let me know if you think otherwise. Is the language too informal? Does it trail off and become a boring collection of facts in the "True Story" and "Boondigga" sections? Any comments will be appreciated. —Sebquantic (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Lead section:

• "Originally a jam band formed in the late 1990's of musicians from other bands in Wellington..."; "formed...of" is not grammatically correct. "formed...from" would be better.

• "Fat Freddys Drop is known for their improvised live performances; songs on their studio albums are versions refined over years of playing them live in New Zealand, and on tour abroad." Mixing the singular and plural forms ("Fat Freddys Drop is..." and "songs on their studio albums) is somewhat confusing.

Live at the Matterhorn and Singles, 2001-2004:

• "An established group from Kaikoura named Salmonella Dub—who one member described as the "forerunner for Fat Freddys"—provided the band opportunities to play in front of larger crowds in New Zealand and neighboring Australia.[7][6][23]" Generally, references should be in order; place 6 before 7, rather than 7 before 6.

Photos:

• The "Fat Freddys Drop group photo" and "Miramar peninsula" photos should have Alt text.

Article name:

• If the band's name is spelled without an apostrophe (as note 1 says), then there is no reason why the article name should be spelled with one. I suggest using the "move" tab to change the name accordingly.

Hope that helps. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

---

List of vegetarians

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FL. It has the hugest list of references in town, and it would be great to be an FL, though it's a numbered list. My too biggest concerns are: 1) it runs incredibly slowly, even in Google Chrome and more so in IE and 2) its citation format.

Thanks, Kayau Voting IS evil 13:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Runs well on both Chrome and Safari. Citations seem fine, though I question why the notes use page number, and not some other means to distinguish them, like "a", "AA", "i."? Obviously, in the note, the page number(s) should be present.Abebenjoe (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a pretty complicated problem to solve, since it might be hard to find where the ref's text is. By the way, if it runs well on Chrome then perhaps it's my internet connexion. But, it runs even slower on IE, so it's still too difficult to run on IE (IE7, at least.) Kayau Voting IS evil 14:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not a FLC regular. Though biggest concern is the Comprehensiveness (completeness) of list and its bounds. All countries are not covered. Wikipedia:Systemic bias might be an issue. All notable individuals even from Category:Vegetarians by nationality are not covered. I suggest the article into country wise and focussing on one country for a FL nomination.
  • This is a dynamic list, so it's not supposed to be very comprehensive. Also, the people in the cat may be unreferenced, so we can't possibly add them all to the list. BTW, be careful of your usage of the word 'all'. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• I unsure about Buddha being a vegetarian. His last meal was famously pork or boar dish.\
  • If I remember correctly, there is a 'disputed' tag next to him. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • IMO, you need to add "disputed" tag or explain with a note. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• The references need page numbers, which all books do not have. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've tried to do that, but then Betty Logan said that would be unnecesary as we have the rp system. The page numbers are noted next to the name so I hope that's OK. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is certainly an ambitious undertaking, and it might compete for the "largest number of citations on Wikipedia" if there were such a thing. However, it's not nearly ready for FLC. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

• I've never seen this particular way of designating page numbers in the in-line superscript instead of in the Reference section. I'm not sure the meaning of the numbers will be clear to most readers; it's not obvious, for example, which citation the page numbers refer to. More familiar would be to list the longer works that are referenced multiple times by creating a "Works cited" list that includes the complete bibliographical information and then using a short in-line reference between a pair of ref tags; e.g. <ref>Coetzee, pp. 63–65</ref>. See Frank Dekum for an example of what a "Works cited" list looks like and how it relates to the short-form citations.

• Would it be helpful to add a brief definition of "vegetarian" and a brief definition of "vegan" to the lead?

• I don't think the color coding is very helpful because the colors are arbitrarily associated with different groups of people rather than having an intuitive relationship. Until a reader memorizes the key, he or she has to keep scrolling back to the key at the top to see what the colors represent, and this is annoying. Would it be better to eliminate the key and simply add (author) or (scientist) or whatever after each person's name? Then, for example, "Pamela Anderson" could become "Pamela Anderson (actress)". This way of listing would have the added advantage of being more precise than the key, which in essence says "Pamela Anderson (film, stage, TV, or radio person)".

• The 607 citations pose special problems in addition to WP:Linkrot. The biggest problem is that many of the 607 citations are malformed or incomplete. Citations to web sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if these are known or can be found. Another problem is that some of the cited sources may not satisfy WP:RS. What, for instance, makes citation 18's vegetarianteen.com reliable?

• At 144 kilobytes, the page is slow to load. You might consider splitting the vegans off into a secondary list or doing something else to ease the navigation problems inherent in such a long article.

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page show that the images need alt text and that something like 20 of the links in the citations are dead. WP:ALT has details about how to write alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. The dead links will need to be fixed or replaced to pass FLC.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll fix the linkrot as soon as I can - it's not that difficult, anyway - and the definition too. (Means one more ref. Mmmm...) For the first point, well, to be honest, me neither. When I was back from my WikiBreak, it was just, er, like this. :) As for the slow to load, please see the last section of Talk:List of vegans. Again, thanks! Kayau Voting IS evil 23:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Gadget850 comments

• {{Rp}} is well used and documented at Wikipedia:Footnotes
• The color coding just doesn't work for me. The number of colors mean they are not memorable— you have to keep switching up to the legend to figure out what they mean.
• The use of {{legend}} makes the names small and the template was not intended for lists. Consider using {{mem}}— custom variants can be requested on the talk page
• FL should include a synopsis overview of each entry, including notability. See List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents) for an example

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comment

• Thanks Gadget850. I don't recall seeing {{Rp}} in action before, but you are right. There's more than one way to the woods, as they say. I'd like this arrangement better if a colon appeared between the preceding note number and the page numbers so that it would be more obvious that the page numbers were connected to that note number and not the following note number; e.g. [8]:(pp63-65)[9]. I guess the brackets serve the same purpose, but the brackets at this level of magnification are hard to distinguish from parentheses. Using {{legend}} in the citations may be making the brackets smaller than normal; I'm not sure, having never used this particular template. Finetooth (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Bournemouth Airport

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached the point where it is only updated/expanded on the announcements of new information from Bourneouth Airport and its airlines. It has enough references for its length and nothing about the article strikes home about desperately needing improvement.

Thanks, Cm1989 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Cm1989

Finetooth comments: This reads well and is broad in coverage. However, it lacks in-line citations for many of its claims, and many of its existing citations are incomplete. This means that the article, however readable, does not comply with WP:V. Finding sources for material added by other editors but left unsourced can be time-consuming and tedious, but an article that doesn't meet the verifiability guidelines has no hope of promotion.

• Large parts of the article are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as any direct quotations, sets of statistics, or any claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged.

• To avoid a fragmented layout, it's generally a good idea to eliminate one-sentence orphan paragraphs and very short sections either by merger or expansion.

• The lead should be a summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb for the lead is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. This lead says nothing about the 1940s, aircraft manufacture, expansion, or Steve Fossett, and it includes information about awards that don't appear in the main text.

References

• Many of the references are incomplete. For example, citations of web sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and most recent access date, if all of those are known or can be found.
• Newspaper names should be in italics.

Other

• The dab finder at the top of this review page finds five links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
• The alt-text tool shows that the images lack alt text meant for sight-impaired readers who depend on machines that read the text aloud.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Philip the Arab and Christianity

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hey, thanks. This article took on some harsh criticism in its GA candidacy on its style. The main areas of concern are on the clarity and focus of the text.

Thanks, G.W. (Talk) 06:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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

---

South Park (season 13)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Nergaal and I plan to pursue an FAC for it. I believe it's well sourced and comprehensive, but would like a thorough prose and grammatical review before I nominate it. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't this article currently up for GT nomination? Lemme guess, another FT? —Terrence and Phillip 08:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Very solid and informative. Here is a list of (mostly) nitpicks:-

• According to MOS (see WP:LEAD, "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs". You have five.
• Unnecessary repetition of the year 2009 in first sentence
• It should be pointed out somewhere that the "season" was two groups of seven episodes separated by a six-month gap. How such an arrangement can be said to constitute one season I have no idea, but I am not cognizant in this area.
• Lead paragraph 3: Avoidable repetition of the words "thirteenth season".
• The proper form appears to be "The Walt Disney Company" not "Walt Disney Company"
• "generally positive to mixed reviews" is a bit of a double tentative. Probably "mixed reviews" is enough.
• Emmy award: in all the references I have seen, the words "for Programming Less Than One Hour" are parenthesised.
• "gets the B.J." This is an encyclopedia, so don't be coy. Spell out what he gets.
• "...although nobody recognizes this and give credit to Barack Obama for the recovery of South Park's economy." "Give" is awkward here; should be "gives" to match "recognises", but that doesn't sound right either. So I'd reword, either as "and credit is given to..." or "nobody recognizes this and everyone give credit to..."
• "Their performances more dramatic storylines and monologues than actual wrestling and stunt work, which nevertheless attracts a large audience of rednecks who believe the action is real" Is there a word missing after "performances", e.g. "contain", and "which nevertheless attracts" should be "but nevertheless attract"
• "She secedes her president title to Cartman" You secede from things. I think in this case the word is "concedes"
• "it was announced the series would be renewed for at least three more seasons and extending the series through 2011." Replace "and" with a comma after "seasons"
• "Parker and Stone wrote and produced the thirteenth season' episodes" Is this is a typo for "season's episodes"?
• "The thirteenth also continued..." I assume this should be "The thirteenth season also continued..."
• "...World Wrestling Entertainment in particular, particularly highlighting..." Note the repetition
• "Cartman expressed anger about long lines full of minorities and park employees speaking Spanish rather than English." Unclear. Is he expressing anger about two things, i.e. long lines (?) full of minorities AND about Spanish-speaking park employees?
• "an charity single"?
• "...the South Park boys set up for possible wrestlers for their professional wrestling league" The two close "fors" make for clumsy phraseology.
• "The episode "Fishsticks" gained a particularly large amount of attention during the thirteenth season." Last four words unnecessary.
• "reaired" looks like a made-up word, and looks all wrong, too. You might get away with "re-broadcast"
• West's hurt feelings are dealt with in the "Critics" section and again in the "Celebrity reactions" section. Maybe keep it in one place?
• The sentence beginning "The episode was scheduled to air in Spanish..." is too long, too many subclauses, needs to be split into two.
• Use of hyphens for ndashes in the "Pretty much everyone..." quote.
• "The season received the lowest viewership..." I'm not sure about "viewership" rather then "viewing figures", but in any event it should be "its lowest"
• "In February 2010, "Whale Whores" was nominated for a Genesis Award in the television comedy." Something missing from the end of the sentence ("category", "section"?)

Please contact my talkpage if you wish to discuss any of these issues with me. Otherwise, good luck with the article wherever you take it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Wolf: A Journey Home

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know what work this Good Article may need to get it ready for a featured article candidacy, other than trying to address the Orphan tag.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I added one link at 1997 in literature, but I'm not sure if that's enough to remove the tag. At any rate, is there a reason why the author doesn't have her own article? Even if it were a stub, that would be three articles to link to this one. María (habla conmigo) 17:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Alas, 'Asta Bowen really isn't notable. She wrote this novel, and one other barely noticed non-fiction book. Mostly, she seems to live a pretty quiet, private live and is just a regular person. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Some one also added a link from Wolves in fiction and I added it as a further reading on Wolf reintroduction. Hopefully that should be enough. It is a pretty hard one to find good links too.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This reads well. I caught a few proofing errors and fixed them and noted a couple of others below, and I have a few other suggestions for improvement. Good job overall.

• I'd suggest adjusting the alt text to include the words printed on the cover: "A yellow book cover, with the title, "Hungry for Home: A Wolf Odyssey", written in a prominent serif-font along the top and the author's name, Asta Bowen, at the bottom. Above the author's name, is an oval with a wolf lying in a grassy field with a forest visible behind it." Or something like that. The existing alt text has a typo ("in on").

• I added a link from Wolves in fiction to this article. I think it would be fine to remove the tag since that makes three new links that have been added recently. I've never seen this tag before and did not know that incoming links could be an actionable issue. Is it?

Lead

• "after becoming outraged over the continued poaching of wolves" - Wikilink poaching on first use?

Plot

• "specifically the aging lead that Marta favored and refused to hunt herself" - Word missing after "lead"?

Development and publication

• "sans the one pup that escaped" - Maybe "except" instead of sans since it is more familiar to readers.
• "Using radio collars, biologists were able to track each of the pack members from their release to their eventual fates" - "Each" is singular, but "their" is plural. Maybe "... able to track the pack members from their release... "?
• "The pups born to Marta and Greatfoot were born in Spring 1990 in Ninemile Valley... " - Repetition of "born". Maybe "Marta and Greatfoot's pups were born... ". Also, spring should be lower-cased.
• "When Marta's radio collar went silent, authorities searched for her body for weeks until her broken radio collar was found in a creek." - Re-cast to avoid repeating "radio collar"?

Aftermath

• Wikilink Thanksgiving?
• "One, Camas, escaped after waking up from the tranquilizer earlier." - Do you mean "waking up early from the tranquilizer"?

Reception

• " feeling that she allowed "her sympathies distort reality" - Is the word "to" missing from this direct quote?

References

• "You'll Howl With Thier Pain in This Mostly True Tale" - "Their" is misspelled in citation 2.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good review (as always) :-) Adjusted the alt text and thanks for the link. I believe the general idea is if absolutely nothing links to an article, is it really that notable? Or something like that. Rest done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

---

August Strindberg

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to see it reach a higher quality level, and if it doesnt, what the article needs to be get a higher rating.

Thanks, Phaeton23 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Maria

This article is certainly important, and one that should be top of the Theatre-related to-do-list. Because so much work is necessary, Peer Review may not be too helpful at this stage of development. I'm afraid it's not ready to go beyond B-class at the moment, so here are a few things to concentrate on:

• First and foremost, the article requires many more additional references from reliable, academic sources. Seeing as how there is a list of such works to pull from under the "Sources" section, that would be a good start. Every paragraph should have at least one citation, although more than one would obviously be better. Cite well and cite often.
• The lead section should be expanded to provide a summary of the article in full, per WP:LEAD.
• The "Legacy" section has only one sentence; with such an influential figure, there should be multiple paragraphs! What was his effect on the Swedish theatre? International theatre? Other playwrights? What about his continuing effect in today's age? His most performed/influential works? Etc, etc.
• The "Writing" section is barely four paragraphs long, with not a citation in sight. Eek! Since this is what Strindberg is known for, his plays should take up a huge part of the article. His writing style, genres, common themes, character development, intricacies -- all of these and more should be discussed at length, considering the subject matter. While some of these details may be present in some form throughout the lengthy biographical section, it is in such a "Writing" section that this information should be concentrated.
• I'm not a fan of galleries, simply because they take up too much space. However, consider cutting down the gallery dedicated to his paintings; 20+ seems like overkill.
• I suggest moving a bulk of Strindberg's bibliography to a separate article (August Strindberg bibliography) and only listing the main works here.
• Kill the "In popular culture" section with fire. A majority of the facts listed are nothing but trivia, and such sections are depreciated at WP:GAC and WP:FAC.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Like I said, however, this article has a long way to go, but it's a worthy cause! María (habla conmigo) 13:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Highway 401 (Ontario)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just finished rewriting most of it. Wanted to get a second set of eyes on it.

The Highway 401 subsection of the History has not been rewritten as of the time of this posting, and I am aware that the km in the Exit list are only listed for half of the exits.

Thanks, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Niagara

• Is there a reason / policy for why this article uses a specific type of infobox instead of the standard {{Infobox road}}.
• "...carried an average of X vehicles over them daily in 2006." → I guessing "X" should be number.
• "Due to the lack of engagement..." → What does the term "engagement" refer to in this context?
• "...nickname Carnage Alley." → I do not believe "Carnage Alley" shouldn't have a link to a section further down the page.
• "...western side of the Greenbelt," → "Greenbelt" links to disambig page, I think the link should be pointing to Greenbelt (Golden Horseshoe).
• "...as Toronto's international airport," → Why not just say "Toronto Pearson International Airport"?
• The first instance of "MTO" should be written out (currently the third instance is written out).
• "...brought Mitchell Hepburn into office as premier." → Link "premier"; people unfamiliar with Canadian politics probaly won't know this term.
• "... German Autobahns - new "dual-lane divided highways", separated by a depressed grass centre crossing short distances between major cities - modified..."
  • Em dashes (—) should be used instead of hyphens (Note: no space should be before or after the em dash).
• Add conversions for "kilometres per hour" to "miles per hour".
• "Macdonald-Cartier Freeway" should have an En dash (Macdonald–Cartier Freeway), as should "Windsor-Essex Parkway".
• I wonder if the list of service areas might be pushing it, in terms WP:NOTTRAVEL.

Very comprehensive and well written, shouldn't be too hard get it to FA. Consider reviewing an article from backlog, as that is how I found this article. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To address some primary concerns, there has been lots of discussion between myself and several other road editors. The standards vary from country to country, and we've sat down recently to attempt to convene them. The reason why the service centres are included is because the information on their closures and reconstructions is of importance to drivers. These are also government facilities with an intertwined history that run 24/7, so drivers rely on them and I feel as an encyclopedia we have a duty to provide that information. If they were just gas stations on the freeway I'd agree. As for the infobox, there is no standard road infobox. Nearly every country uses its own. In this case, Ontario uses its own because it has a cleaner appearance, and works better with the situations encountered in Ontario. Finally, I chose not to use Toronto Pearson whenever possible because it doesn't sound right in a sentence. The common usage is the old name for it, Pearson International Airport, but it would seem almost misleading to use that. Instead I leave it to the article on the airport itself to take care of identifying it further.

That jumbo aside, I'm implementing the rest of the suggestions, save one that leaves me wondering: "Add conversions for "kilometres per hour" to "miles per hour".". I'm certain I've done this everywhere, could you point out where I've missed it?

Thank you :) ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, road infoboxes vary alot between countries, but between Canadian provinces, it seems Ontario is the only one that uses its own infobox. I made a mock-up of an infobox for the 401 just to compare and did find advantages and disadvantages to it (the standard infobox automatically places a Macdonald–Cartier shield next to the 401 shield; but it seems to use an entirely different of shields for the junction list). I won't press the issue but it may come up in an FAC (or it might not).

An idea I had for the service areas was to put them into the exit lists (as the information provided is similar). The speed conversions you missed is here: "...case of "excessive speeding" (driving 50 km/h over the limit, or over 150 km/h on 400-series highways."

Something I forgot to check before, but I'm happy to see it is present; alt-text does not need to be surrounded by quotes. Other things I just noticed are: that you spell out "Highway" and "Autoroute" but not "Interstate" and there is an instance where the date is written in a "dmy" format (24 August 2007) when the rest of the article uses "mdy". ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping it doesn't, but if it does I'll press the "and it's standard according to whom?" argument. The main reason Canada uses it is because the Canadian roads project was started by the US Roads Wikiproject, and automatically assumed its conventions from the get-go. The MC shields aren't replaced anymore, which is the sole reason that I haven't put it in the article.

I've spelt out the first instance of I-xx. They were initially spelt out, but another editor changed them to the common abbreviation. I've had odd things happen with alt text. Sometimes it just doesn't show, period (an example is the plaque image in the Highway 401 subsection, which shows up without alt text using the alt checking tool). The other fixes have been implemented. I'm still debating with myself whether or not to fore go WP:GAN. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a line break in the alt text in plague photo that caused the problem (personally I wouldn't transcribe what the placque says in the alt text, or in the caption; I'd just summarize it and maybe put the full text on photo's page as part its description). I think you could get away with skipping GA; it would save alot of time if your goal was FA. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Russian interregnum of 1825

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I love these questions: "why do you want to work for Big Corp, Inc.?". Right now, dear Corporation, I want you to work for me! All comments are welcome. Warning: it's a long article and perhaps heavy in the "background" and "aftermath" sections.

Some notes on the use of sources: where possible I tried using the earliest reliable secondary source, preferably in English. Thus there's a lot of references to Korff's 1857 book; I could just as well cite contemporary sources but since they derive the facts (not opinions) from the same 1857 source, it takes precedence. Where Korff omits important facts, a later RS comes in etc. Opinions and judgements, on the contrary, are quoted to 20th century sources. As for citing various conspiracy theories listed in "Historiography" section, the question is still open.

Thanks, NVO (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is quite interesting and generally well done, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The alt text does not really meet WP:ALT. The alt text is NOT supposed to identify the person in the image, just describe him or her, but most of the current alt texts identify the person (the job of the caption). Also one image seems to be missing alt text all together. See the alt text tool in the upper right corner.
• The automated tips also finds some words that use both American and British English spellings - pick one and stick with it.
• While I understand the rationale to use the Korff reference as the primary source for the article, there may be those who disagree with this at FAC. WP:RS says in part However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field.
• There are many places in the article where there are small typos or missing words or other places that need polished. I will try to point some out here (not a complete list):
  • Would it make sense to identify the author of the quotation in The "Imperial secret involving the very existence of the Empire" [1] backfired with a dynastic crisis that placed the whole House of Romanov at peril.?
  • Missing word? Military governor Mikhail Miloradovich persuaded [the?] hesitant Nicholas to pledge allegiance to Constantine, who then lived in Warsaw as the viceroy of Poland.
  • Make clearer it is the Times of London here? As The Times observed, the Russian Empire had "two self-denying Emperors and no active ruler".[3]
  • Just plain awkward sentence Confusion and irrationality of the interregnum prompted historians and fiction authors to challenge the mainstream version of events outlined in Modest von Korff's Accession of Nicholas I (1857).
  • I would refer to Juliane by that name throughout. As it is, calling her Anna is confusing: Constantine and his legitimate wife Juliane of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, baptised in Orthodoxy as Anna, separated in 1799. then she is referred to as Juliane in the next two sentences, then at the start of the next paragraph and sentence she is referred to as Anna, which is just confusing. Constantine divorced Anna [Juliane?] in absentia on April 2...
  • Missing word? [Their?] Love affair that began in 1815 compelled Constantine to divorce Juliane and marry Joanna.[5]
  • I think the usual idion is "cut out of the loop" not this: Alexander's usual speechwriter Mikhail Speransky was cut off the loop.[14]
  • Verb tense? could not for cannot here? Filaret feared that a document locked in Moscow cannot influence the transfer of power to the successor, which would normally take place in Saint Petersburg, and objected to Alexander.
  • I would make clearer that these were all in St Petersburg: The tsar reluctantly agreed and ordered Golitsyn to make three copies and deposit them in sealed envelopes in the Synod, the Senate and the State Council.[15] Provide context to the reader
  • Another unclear sentence Riasanovsky analyzed the claims that Alexander deliberately framed Nicholas into a legal trap, and concluded that there is no evidence of foul play.[23] I am really not sure what this means
  • Slid (not slided) in After the end of the Napoleonic Wars the Russian economy, ravaged by the Continental System[24] and Napoleon's invasion, slided into a continuous economic crisis.
  • Quotations often read better if they are attributed and put into context - for example, "This was more than a crisis: it was total bankruptcy."[26]
  • Should south and north be capitalized here? I would also make it clearer which Union is meant In January 1821 internal conflicts between the radical South and the aristocratic North led to the dissolution of the Union [of Prosperity].[37]
  • Missing words [On?] September 13 [O.S. September 1], 1825[45] Alexander left Saint Petersburg to accompany [the?] ailing Empress Elizabeth to spa treatment in Taganrog, then a "rather agreeable town" with eight to nine thousand inhabitants.[46] Golitsyn pleaded [with?] Alexander to publish the secret manifest of 1823 but the emperor refused: "Let us rely on God. He will know how to order things better than us mortals."[47] I also think it would help to somehow locate Taganrog in a phrase
  • More missing words? Their relations [had?] considerably improved since the death of Alexander's illegitimate daughter Sophie Naryshkina in June 1824.[50] [Their?] Reunion in Taganrog, according to Volkonsky, became the couple's second honeymoon[49]
  • Needs a ref The disease consumed Alexander and on November 29 [O.S. November 17] it seemed that he was in terminal agony. Only then did Diebitsch and Volkonsky notify the court in Saint Peterburg of the inevitable.
  • Word choice? At the moment of Alexander's demise, Constantine and Michael stayed [were?] in Warsaw,[59] [and?] Nicholas and Empress Maria in Saint Petersburg.[60]
  • Does this follow WP:ITALIC? "Diebitsch promptly dispatched a courier to His Majesty Emperor Constantine in Warsaw; ..."
• OK, I will stop there - try and get someone to copyedit this.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I fixed some of the simpler omissions and removed pr paraphrased some of the quotes. As for the use of the 1857 source, you might be right, but I'm not aware of a comprehensive work on the same subject apart from Korff and Schilder (1890s). Subsequent research brought very few new hard facts. NVO (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Dhaka Residential Model College

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am going to nominate it at for Good Article. I would like to get a review of the whole article, please let me know whether is there any problem with the article that. Help the article to be consummate.

Thanks, Tanweer (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dhaka Residential Model College/archive2.

---

Descent into the Depths of the Earth

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working to build it up to GA quality at least. I think it's only a few steps away from a GA - a bit more in the lead, a bit less of reception for sure - but anything you can think of to push it along, let me know.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the lead you refer to the "D" series without really explaining what the "D" series is. I assume it is the books referenced in the first paragraph but it isn't very clear and leaves the reader to speculate. Better to list the books in the "D" series and then call it what it is commonly referred to.

D&D in the plot summary, be sure to spell out abbreviations first before using them.

In the last module in the preceding series G series,

Bad prose here, two uses of the word "series" in three words. Try rewording.

Usually only link words once in the lead and once in the body of the article. Player characters is linked twice in the first two paras of the Plot section, please check throughout the article.

The description of the drow is late in the plot summary though the drow are mentioned several times before the description. Consider moving this description up to the first time the drow are mentioned.

Are the drow a proper name? Should it be capitalized? I see where it is capitalized once but not elsewhere.

There is minimal referencing in the plot section, is there more that can be added?

The entire Publication history section is full of duplicative information found either in the Plot section or within the Publication history section itself. Please read through it and look to condense and remove duplicative information. It's ok to mention the information in the Lead and then once again in the article but no more than that is necessary unless it's a very complex or long article.

Why is Queen of the Spiders bold in the Reception section? Also what is this and why is it first mentioned here?

"The series has been received with considerable praise. They were reviewed by Don Turnbull for British RPG magazine White Dwarf #11, who gave them 10/10. He compared them favorably to the G series of modules, which he also liked."

Watch tense agreement, the subject is "The series" which is singular, therefore the following sentences should refer to the series as singular rather than plural. "They were" - "It was" and "them" - "it". The sentences that follow this should also be looked at for the same fixes. If you want to say, "the series modules" then that creates a plural subject, but to keep it as "the series" it implies a singular unit, like "The Lord of the Rings" series. Does that make sense?

"Turnbull did lament that the module was designed for parties of a high level, making them difficult to use with a group of lower level characters."

Same issue here, subject - "the module" is singular there for "them" should be "it".

"He recommended using miniatures because some of the battles involved so many characters and monsters, and placing them on a grid."

This sentence is a fragment. What about placing them on a grid?

What are psionics? This isn't explained in the article and the writing assumes the readers know what this word means.

You state twice that it has received considerable praise, once generically and then a second time for its scope and scale. Consider using a different phrase or removing the second mention.

"This module was received with considerable praise for its epic scope and detail.[17] The D-Series modules were given an extensive overview review by British RPG magazine White Dwarf wherein it cautioned Dungeon Masters that running this module was unlike any they had run before.[19]"

This "paragraph" needs to be significantly expanded. The second sentence really says nothing about its epic scope and scale.

Why is Lawrence Schick linked in the references when it is a red link already linked in the article? Doesn't make a lot of sense. More to come. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 18:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about something. The article is about D1-2 but not D3, which is entitled "Vault of the Drow". Yet when I search for this Vault of the Drow I am redirected to this article. Is there a separate article named something different for D3? Or should this article be about D1-3? Please clarify for the readers.

In the references you cite Descent to the Depths of the Earth twice, is there a reason for this or can it be combined?

See WP:CITE. When citing books it's good to give page numbers for where the information is found. I hesitate to give advice on referencing only because there are so many different ways to do it, but the important thing is that you do it consistently. I see one book ref w/ a page number, #6, none elsewhere. What I do is put the author's name, year of the book and page number as the in-line citation, which then shows up in a Notes section. All other references (websites, magazines, journals, etc.) go in the Notes section as well. The References section is then reserved for the full citation of the books. See Olympic Games as an example of an FA using this format. Again it isn't what format you use that is important it is picking a format and sticking with it consistently.

• Overall you're headed in the right direction. The lead needs to include the Reception, also I would trim the Reception section. The Publication history section looks like it was written in chunks without really reading the entire section. There are multiple redundencies that need to be removed and combined. The issue with D1-2 or D1-3 needs to be addressed as this is confusing, it seems like the article should be about all three modules in the D series. Check the prose issues I mentioned above as well as some linking stuff. I fixed some of it but I think a good run through on the linking in the article is in order. Make sure you are consistent throughout the article. For example is it Drow or drow? Also you link Gygax's name several times in the references section but not every time. Look for inconsistencies in the article and try to bring uniformity to your presentation. This completes my review, if you found it helpful please consider doing a Peer Review here or participating in the GA Review process to help reduce significant backlogs. Thanks and good luck! H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 20:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from RJHall:

• The lead does not adequately summarize the body of the article; particularly the Plot and Reception sections. See WP:LEAD.
• The first instance of "drow" in the plot section is not linked, but it is linked later. I'm unclear why "Drow" is capitalized in in some places but not others. The word drow should be defined early in the Plot section, rather than waiting until the last paragraph.
• "...adventurers follows the drow into these passages to eliminate them and the threat they pose..." Eliminate the passages or the drow? Might be ambiguous for some readers.
• What's a "rogue monitor"? Please clarify.
• What's "league after league"? Is this the same as League (unit)?
• I think you need to explain "astral gate" for the non-gamers.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Goodison Park

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see neutral feedback.

Thanks, TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

My first impressions are positive. The article seems comprehensive, and sourcing wise it passes the Inglis test. Brief comments from a quick run through:

• There are a few run-on sentences that need splitting or rewording (try saying "It has hosted more top-flight games than any other stadium in England and has hosted the maximum possible number of Premier League games as Everton have never been relegated from that division." aloud)
• Later in the history there are a number of one or two sentence paragraphs, which disrupts the flow. Achieving a narrative feel can be damn hard, but fortunately there is some good advice at User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Achieving_flow.
• I'm not convinced of the need for the fair-use images given that there are several free use images in the article.
• External links should not appear in the prose.
• A graph of average attendances could perhaps be included, like the one in Portman Road.
• Before the all-seating regulations were introduced some fans would climb up and watch a football game from the church rooftop. - misleading, makes it sound like it was specifically prohibited by the Taylor Report or something.
• As Goodison is a ground featuring Leitch architecture, it might be worth seeing if your local library has a copy of Engineering Archie, a book about the structures he created, for source material.

Hope this helps. If you would like further comments drop a note on my talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Though I am not a soccer fan I enjoyed reading this article. Two tiny pedantic questions about consistency within the article:
  • Orrell or Orrel? Both are used. (Having grown up in Orrell Park I have a prejudice in favour of the former.)
  • St Lukes or St Luke's? Better with the apostrophe, I'd say.

I've corrected two typos ("Eveton" and "leveled"). Sorry not to be able to add anything more substantial. - Tim riley (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want positive feedback about how to improve this list. I'm a new editor who has put a lot of time into revamping this page, so I'd like to see what I did wrong and what I did right. I'm also a member of the organization for which this list is related, so I'd like to see if I was able to keep my personal bias in check.

Thanks, NYCRuss ☎ 21:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Recent featured lists no longer start with this list of..
  • Fixed NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• The crest needs a fair use rational for use on the alumni page.

• Any idea how Alpha Kappa Alpha rationalized their use on their similar page? NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Alpha Kappa Alpha went through FL a few years ago - standards have tightened since then, particularly regarding fair use images.

• The image of the crest has been replaced. NYCRuss ☎ 22:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Colony shouldn't be italicized, you should get a good copy edit for the intro (WP:GOCE).

• I removed the italicization and got a good copy edit. The person performing the copy edit re-italicized the word "colony" "group". Is this the beginning of an italicization war? NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Moving the emphasis from the word colony to the word group looks better to me, but grammar isn't my forte which is why I recommended getting a good copy edit.

• The column widths vary from section to section, see about making this fixed.

• Should be done by the end of the weekend. NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endash should be used between dates.

• I thought that endashes were being used. If not, please point out an example of where a fix is needed. NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I went through and fixed the ones I saw.

• Thanks! NYCRuss ☎ 22:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Headers need to be fixed per WP:HEAD ("Journalism and media", not "Journalism and Media")
  • Fixed NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• WP:CREDENTIAL for the names in military service.
  • Fixed NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Also some of the names redirect - fixing the credentials above will help with most of this I suspect but otherwise you might want to fix the sortname template like so {{sortname|Robert Wadsworth|Lowry|Robert Lowry (hymn writer)}}

• Mostly fixed. Some of the redirects go to non-bio pages, as there are no bios for the individuals on Wikipedia at this time. Is that OK, or should the links be removed? NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's ok for now but if you want to take it through FLC you're probably going to have to argue for inclusion if you don't plan on making articles.

• Do you mean inclusion of the redirect, or inclusion of the person being listed without a Wikipedia bio article? NYCRuss ☎ 20:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• The latter. Per WP:WIAFL redlinks are allowed (Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.) it does not say what proportion can be red linked and I am assuming that redirects will be treated as a redlink if noticed.

• I'll either remove those without the Wikipedia standard of notability or create articles. Might just be stubs, but they will be sourced. All redirects, that I can find, will be eliminated by the end of this weekend. BTW, are there any tools for locating redirects? NYCRuss ☎ 22:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Stubs are good. This highlights redirects User:Dschwen/HighlightRedirects.

• All men listed now have their own article, even if some are stubs. NYCRuss ☎ 11:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• For Members of the United States Congress and others spell out the state name rather than abbreviating it.
  • Fixed NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Using WP:CITESHORT would be beneficial.

• What pages that use shortened footnotes are good examples? NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Recent FA Mary Rose uses CITESHORT, current FLC recently promoted FL List of Washington & Jefferson College alumni uses it as well.

• This should get done this weekend. Do you think that a shortened footnote for the fraternity directories that reads "Grand Catalogue (1985) p.38" would be acceptable? NYCRuss ☎ 22:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• That would be perfect (just add a space between p. and the number). --ImGz (t/c) 22:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I converted everything using the {{Citation}}, {{Cite web}} and {{sfn}} templates. NYCRuss ☎ 20:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Under the headings you have descriptions like "Members have served in the following positions with the U.S. government: President of the United States, Attorney General, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of the Army (2), Postmaster General, Director of the Peace Corps (2), FDIC Chairman, and United States Ambassador (7)" having these are rather superfluous. If I've made it that far down I'm already reading the list and don't need a summary right above that particular section. However I would incorporate these into the lead check out List of University of Central Florida alumni, List of United States Military Academy alumni (academics), and List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government for recent FA's and how they summarize some of the alumni in the lead.

• Fixed NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• You might want to consider condensing Original Chapter (chapter should be lowercase btw) and Original Chapter Host Institution. (eg. Pennsylvania Kappa)

• Since the column widths will be fixed, this is needed to free up space. This should be done by the end of this weekend. NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• The hatnote isn't needed. It's unlikely that somebody would end up at that article when searching for the Phi Kappa Psi article and if they did you have the article linked on the first sentence.

• Fixed NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The list is looking good so far and a lot of this is just cosmetic work that I am seeing initially. I'll go through it again once you've addressed these issues. --ImGz (t/c) 15:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• You should probably add {{Dynamic list}} to the article. Anyway I'll go through the article again sometime tonight or tomorrow for more suggestions. --ImGz (t/c) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to add more yesterday but my day was a bit nutty.

We all have those days :) NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Watch for stray punctuation at the end of the notability descriptions.

• Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hadley, Tulloss - I would remove the comma between the school and the date range.

• Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wilson and several others throughout the entire list - I would use the full date range (1913–1921 not 1913–21).

• Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Jackson Turner - capitalized use of president for consistency.

• Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Astin - Actor is such a short notability description, has he acted in anything worth mentioning?

• Of course he has, and his entry is now expanded. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Walker - Clueless needs to be italicized.

• Done. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Aiello - Capitalize broadcast, also since that's the only station listed I would replace the comma with "at".

• Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Drantch - Spell out Virginia.

• Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Crane - Which cartoon?

• Now mentioned. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Huck - I'd change this to say 'Former chairman..' rather than having (retired) at the end.

• Huck that! J/K, it is fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• McMahan - Co-Founded should be Co-founded.

• Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Miles - Capitalize serves, suggest using 'Former chief executive'.

• Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yang - I don't believe Yahoo! needs to be italicized.

• No longer italicized. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wilson - I would clarify that he was the President of the United States.

• Clarified. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Barr - Use 1968–1969, I would changed "U.S. Representative (Indiana) (1959–1961)" to "U.S. Representative from Indiana (1959–1961)" same goes for each subsequent use of this format.

• I'll add the "from" along with a link to the specific state congressional delegation over the weekend. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Done. NYCRuss ☎ 14:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Watson - Spell out Indiana.

• I missed that one! It is now fixed.NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sennewald - Link 4 star general?

• I'll flesh out his notability sometime before the end of the weekend. 4 stars probably does not need to be mentioned. The proper title of "General" in the U.S. means 4 stars. Less than that is a Lt. Gen., Maj. Gen. or Brig. Gen.
• Gen. Sennewald now has a better statement of notability. NYCRuss ☎ 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Merritt - Capitalize dean.

• Done. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Dakich - Capitalize former.

• Capitalized. NYCRuss ☎ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

--ImGz (t/c) 18:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything is looking good. GrapedApe brought up most of the issues that were going to be my third round of critiques. Just a few more things I can see:

• Book references should spell out Company so it's not "Co.." formatted.

• Fixed! NYCRuss ☎ 20:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• You have several entries duplicated (Wilson, Bloomberg, Palmer, etc). This list is pretty large so you might want to pick the category the person is better known for and delete the duplicates, but it's up to you and I'm not sure how FLC handles duplicate entries so it might be perfectly fine.

• Yeah, we'll see what they say. If I have to reduce to one entry, I'll do it.NYCRuss ☎ 20:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall it's quite a list and great work on it! --ImGz (t/c) 19:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! You've been a great help! NYCRuss ☎ 20:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I am a little worried about comprehensiveness (completeness) and the bounds of this list. To be complete as per current title, the list needs 112,796 members listed, which is not feasible. If the List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers covers only notable members, how do you decide who is notable and who is not (and to be dropped)?

• About a literal interpretation of the title, I agree that it is not accurate. However, this seems to be the standard way to title such pages on Wikipedia. I could be wrong, but addressing this seems more like a policy issue than an issue with this page as things stand. NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Concerning notability, I'm not sure that I have an answer. The best solution seems to me to mirror Wikipedia's standards for notability as it relates to the creation of biographical pages. NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• The major reference used the Grand Catalogue's last edition is dated 1997. What about members after that?

• 1997 is the most recent edition in my apartment. They are usually revised about twice a decade, and a new edition was released last year. In addition, the Fraternity's magazine can be used to cite notable members. NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:GrapedApe's Comments and Suggestions

• I'm not sure everyone knows what a "colony" is when you mention it in the opening sentence. Can you link that to some definition somewhere, or cut it?

• Definition is linked. NYCRuss ☎ 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• The lead seems to have a lot of roundabout mentions of a single individual ("one of the few U.S. Presidents to win a Nobel Peace Prize"/"Father of the U.S. Air Force" /"a Heisman Trophy winner"/"Father of College Basketball Coaching"/"a Major League Baseball Commissioner." If it's a single person, just say that person's name. Like "U.S. President Woodrow Wilson" or "Billy Mitchell, Father of the U.S. Air Force." Reading the lead shouldn't be a guessing game.

• Done. NYCRuss ☎ 22:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• In the Lead: "The arts have seen"/"The business world has seen"/"The world of law has seen." Try to vary the sentence construction a bit.

• I reworked this, but I'm not sure if I went far enough. NYCRuss ☎ 22:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also, clarify whether it is a social fraternity or a service fraternity. I think most Americans would know that there aren't any women members, but you might want to note that.

• That's already mentioned in the first sentence. Does more need to be written? NYCRuss ☎ 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think the entire "On being a Phi Psi" section should but cut. 1) The Creed of Phi Psi is presumably copyrighted, and Wikipedia can only accept public domain works. In articles, it is OK to quote things, but not the entire creed 2) It's inclusion approaches "boosterism" and might violate the rule of neutrality 3) It creates a lot of blank space in the article. 4) Dud's quote doesn't really add anything to the article.

• Agreed. It is cut. NYCRuss ☎ 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Cut any alumni with redklinks. Or else create articles for them.

• That's the current plan. I cut a bunch. I still have six redirects left that I believe can be turned into at least sourced out bio stubs quickly. One of them, Burton Y. Berry, already has an article in the German Wikipedia. Any idea how we can get that translated into English? NYCRuss ☎ 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• No more redlinks, and no redirects for the names of the alumni. NYCRuss ☎ 11:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think the "name" column could stand to be a bit bigger.

• I've been struggling with that, but I did widen it tonight from 78px to 90px. NYCRuss ☎ 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think the "Original Chapter" column should note the college, rather than the chapter's greek letter designation. For most people, "Pennsylvania Beta" doesn't mean anything, and you have to hover over the link to learn what school that was.

• I had separate columns for the chapter and host institution. At ImGz's suggestion, I consolidated these, as it was necessary to do so after the widths were fixed so that all of the table align. The advantage to using the chapter name is that it tends to occupy less column space, and issues over host institution name changes, whether from mergers (W&J), or just straight changes (Gettysburg College was Pennsylvania College, George Washington University was Columbian College), are avoided. The advantage to the host institution, of course, is that it is less cryptic. There is also the issue that WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities specifies the use of the chapter name, and that the two FLs use chapter name. I don't mind changing to the host institution, but I'd rather have the issue settled before any more changes are done. NYCRuss ☎ 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• The columns for "Theology" don't match up.

• Please double check this, as it looks fine to me. I created that section today, and initially screwed up the formatting. You might have looked at it during the few minutes when things were askew. NYCRuss ☎ 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• The notability column there is about a 2/3rd the width of the other ones.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing that. What browser are you using? NYCRuss ☎ 01:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the image of Jefferson College should be in the lead, rather than a picture of Wilson in Congress. Tha picture of Congress seems to imply (unintentionally) that "Congress is dominated by Phi Psis." There are a good many Phi Psis in Congress, but that's not supposed to be the point of lead images. Especially since the purported focus of the image, Wilson, is barely visible.

• Agreed, although I'm not crazy about the Jefferson College picture for this page because it is a building and this list page is about people. I need to get a picture from my fraternity, and figure out how to get it on without violating Wikipedia's rules. NYCRuss ☎ 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• What about this one:File:Greek Swingout 1922 at W&J College.jpg? As a bonus, it's a picture from the founding institution.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• That's a very cool picture, although not exactly what I had in mind for this page. I think that I'm going to scan a picture of Phi Kappa Psi's founders from a 1902 book and upload it by the end of this coming weekend. NYCRuss ☎ 11:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would change "U.S. Representative (Indiana)" to "U.S. Representative from Indiana." I just think it looks better.

• This is done, although the entire title is now linked to the state delegation list. NYCRuss ☎ 14:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• The image File:Rcrane.gif is fair use and shouldn't appear in this list.

• Removed. NYCRuss ☎ 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Overall a really good job. I was skeptical about whether this could be done well, and you did it very well! I have not checked the notability language or the citations. (Full disclosure: I was a member of a different fraternity).--GrapedApe (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'll address the other points that you made over the weekend. NYCRuss ☎ 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Portrait of a Woman (Rogier van der Weyden, Washington)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
c 1460 painting. I would like some direction and detached input.

Any feedback appreciated, Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: The peer review link on the article's talkpage has not been activated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian, I move the article after making the PR request. Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article looks carefully researched, and is deeply interesting, gently instructive rather than didactic. I haven't finished reading it yet, but thought you should have my comments (mostly nitpicks) on the Description section. I have added a further note on image captions.

• Description section
  • "...other works by Rogiers..." Why the "s"?

    - Done Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • "quite self-possession" should probably be "quiet self-possession"

    - Done Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Last sentence, first paragraph, not cited.
  • Unnecessary use of commas: "The woman wears an elegant, low-cut, black dress..."

    - Done Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • "...the then-fashionable Burgundian style, which emphasise..." Must be "emphasises", since "style" is singular.

    - Right. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I'd have thought "veil" was an unnecessary link, as a familiar word.

    - Yeah, removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Lorne Campbell would be better described as an art historian than as a "writer". Could be redlinked?

    - I can do up a stub in a day or two. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • "this position is likely an artistic device used to continue the flow of the diagonal line of the veil's inner-right wing." Uncited statement.
  • "Rogier often indicated the social position of his models through his rendering of their face and hands." A brief explanation of the relevance of this statement to this painting would be useful.
  • "Her eyes gaze downward in humility, contrasts with her relatively extravagant clothes." Grammar wrong; perhaps "in contrast to". Also, "humility" is a common word not needing a link. Ditto "piety" in the next sentence

    - Done Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • "...some art historians have speculated." In this usage, "speculated" is transitive and needs an object clause. "Conjectured" would do, however. (Sorry to be a pedant, but the intransitive form of "speculated" has a different meaning, i.e. gambled)

    - No worries! Done Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Image captions: These tend to be very long and detailed. MOS, through WP:Captions, says: "More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting", and I certainly found this to be the case here. Some of your captions are more like mini-essays—should I be reading these before the section text, during or after? The diversion of attention was vexing, and I suggest that you try to make your captions more succinct, perhaps by transferring essential text from the captions to the main text.

I will look forward to reading and commenting on the rest of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian, thank you for these observations, look forward to responding. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ham comments: This is a very good article, and I only have a few comments:

• The Art Manual of Style (which is only for guidance) discourages this sort of title: "If the title is not very specific, or refers to a common subject, add the surname of the artist in brackets afterwards". As this isn't the only Portrait of a Woman by Rogier I would suggest Portrait of a Woman (Rogier van der Weyden, c. 1460) or Portrait of a Woman (Rogier van der Weyden, Washington). VAMOS says nothing on disambiguation by date (an omission it might be good to address...), but I would think it easier for a knowledgeable person to identify the painting from the location than from the date.

  Note the now blue link. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The painting was not titled by Rogier..." Would it be anachronistic to assume that paintings were usually given a title by their artists at this time? I'm thinking of the Arnolfini Portrait et al.

  Have clarified in the notes. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The identity of the sitter is unknown, although some art historians have conjectured." You've already said that her identity is unknown in the lead, so might Some art historians have speculated about the identity of the sitter be better? (Sorry to change Ceoil's wording, but it is then in the intransitive, and I'm not sure how you'd put it with conjectured.)

  Reworded. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The high quality of the painting was shown clearly when it was hanging in London alongside the very similar National Gallery's workshop painting for a few weeks in the 2000s, as the London information display caption freely admitted." Would it be better to introduce the workshop painting, compare the two (citing the 1986 source), then add at the end (as the least important fact) that the paintings were very briefly hung together (with a source from the 2000s), where this comparison could be made by visitors? Perhaps the painting could also be moved down from its current position to the Gallery, closer to the text where it is discussed?

Yeah, that will probably be the route I'll go with. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Other than that, keep up the good work! Ham 12:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ham. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with Portrait of a Woman (Rogier van der Weyden, Washington) myself, especially as the date is approximate & views might differ, but the location won't change. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Winter Olympic Games

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to prep it for FAC. I need specific recommendations for prose improvement, and MOS compliance. I also need input on what to do with the History section. The three options are to strip it down to a single section on the origins of the Winter Games, or keep a brief summary of each Games but much less than what is currently in the article, or finally keep it as is. No consensus was reached when the issue was brought up at the Olympics project, impartial input would be invaluable.

Thanks, H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is very good in most respects. You are right to be a bit concerned about the prose and MOS. I made a fairly large number of minor changes to punctuation and low-level prose problems as I went, and I have further prose suggestions. I did not think the History section was too long; on the contrary, it seemed interesting and necessary. On the other hand, my eyes glazed over in the Commercialisation section, which I thought included more detail than necessary; I think it could be compressed. I really like the map showing the locations of the Winter Olympics. The tables look good. If you disagree with any of my proofing changes, please revert them.

Lead

• "They feature winter sports held on snow or ice, such as alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, figure skating, and ice hockey." - This may seem nitpicky, but I always try to put modifiers and things modified together within sentences. Suggestion: "They feature winter sports such as alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, figure skating, and ice hockey that are held on snow or ice."
• "These sports along with Nordic combined, ski jumping, and speed skating have been competed at every Winter Olympics since 1924." - I don't think "have been competed" is a correct use of the verb "to compete". Suggestion: "These sports along with Nordic combined, ski jumping, and speed skating have been part of every Winter Olympics since 1924."
• "The first Winter Olympics were held in Chamonix, France in 1924." - Comma after France.
• "The Winter and Summer Games resumed in 1948 and were celebrated on the same year as the Summer Olympics until 1992." - Maybe "held" instead of "celebrated"? And "in the same year" rather than "on the same year"?
• "This has allowed outside interests, such as television companies and corporate sponsors, to influence various aspects of the Games." - Tighten by deleting "various aspects of"?
• Consider linking boycott? "Boycott of" rather than "boycott at"?
• "Nations have also used the Winter Games to their own political ends". - "for their own political ends" rather than "to their own political ends"?
• "The next Winter Olympics will be hosted by Sochi, in 2014, making it the first time a Russian city will host the Winter Olympic Games." - Repetition of "host" and "Winter Olympics". Suggestion: "In 2014 Sochi will be the first Russian city to host the Winter Olympics."

Done. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Early years

• "The Nordic Games were organized by General Viktor Gustaf Balck. They were held again in 1903, a third event was held in 1905, and then every four years there after until 1926." - I'd combine these. Suggestion: "Originally organized by General Viktor Gustaf Balck, the Nordic Games were held again in 1903 and 1905 and then every fourth year thereafter until 1926."
• "The 50 kilometre cross-country event was officially contested but ended early when the temperature rose to 25 °C (77 °F), which caused significant problems with snow and waxing conditions." - Tighten by deleting "was officially contested but"? Or does "officially contested" have a specific meaning?

1964 to 1980

• "Despite being a traditional winter sports resort, warm weather caused a lack of snow during the Games and the Austrian army was called in to bring snow and ice to the sport venues." - Since warm weather isn't a sports resort, I'd re-cast this sentence. Suggestion: Although Innsbruck was a traditional winter sports resort, warm weather... ".
• "Originally, the 1976 Winter Games had been awarded to Denver, but in 1972 the voters of Colorado, the state Denver is located in, expressed unwillingness to host the Games through a state referendum." - Tighten along these lines: "Originally the 1976 Winter Games had been awarded to Denver, Colorado, but in 1972 Colorado voters passed a referendum declining to be hosts"?
• "The 1976 Games also featured the first combination bobsled and luge track in neighbouring Igls." - It might be good to add, briefly, what Igls refers to. A town?

Done. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Commercialization

• "By the Grenoble Games, Brundage had become so concerned about the direction of the Winter Olympic Games towards commercialization that if they could not be corrected, then he felt the Winter Olympics should be abolished." - "Direction" is singular; "they" is plural. Suggestion: Change "they" to "it".
• This section seems a bit long and repetitive to me. Could the last paragraph be greatly shortened, perhaps, and combined with the paragraph above it?

Done. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Images

• The photo of the statue of Sonja Henie may violate copyright law in Norway. Some countries such as the U.S. have copyright laws that do not include what is called "freedom of panorama". You can check Commons:Freedom of panorama to see what you think, but it appears to me that this image does not belong on the Commons.

Done. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Thanks for reviewing other articles at PR; I have noticed that you've done quite a few recently, and that is very helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your customarily excellent review. I'll employ your suggestions and I appreciate your edits. It's a lot easier for me to see prose and MoS issues in other people's work but it's hard for me to see them in my own. I am trying to shift my reviewing efforts from GAC to Peer Review because I don't always have the time to see a GA review through from start to finish and I enjoy the peer review process. It's also helping me learn what it takes to move from GA to FA. GAC is in such need though so I'm probably not permanently retired. You likened reviewers to Sisyphus and that is so apropos. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 04:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments – Made a rare visit to PR and found this article. I decided to check the references, and most of them look fine. The bibliography appears exhastive. There were a few nit-picks here and there, which I will detail so they don't come up at FAC.

• Reference 18 is to Britannica, a fellow encyclopedia which may not be the strongest possible source for an FA. Try finding an alternate.
• In reference 67, the external link to the site's home page as the publisher should probably be removed, just leaving the publisher's name.
• Reference 78 is from a newspaper and should be formatted as such.
• Reference 96: I've never heard of the World Anit Doping Agency. :-)

Can't wait to read this one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the comments yes I learned from the 1956 Winter Olympics FAC that Britannica is frowned upon as a credible source. So I'll have to swap that one out. "Anit" doping agency oh my, thanks for catching that and the rest. I'm a little scared to put this one at FAC due to the large amount of content, it will have many areas where it can fail. But if we never try we never succeed so expect it there and ready for your very thorough and expert review soon. Thanks again. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 03:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

---

A Rugrats Passover

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take it to FA soon. It is currently a GA and has gone through a copyedit. Any comments on prose, content, or anything at all would be very helpful before I nominated it.

Thanks, The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 00:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Definitely a full review coming tomorrow (great timing, Passover starts Monday night!), but here are some quick comments:
• No period in the lead image caption as it's a fragment (MOS:CAPTION)

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• A couple of links I disagree with; I noticed cell phone and pop culture. I suggest some sort of link audit.

• I've unlinked about every ambiguous link I could find. Tell me if it's audited enough. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• What makes rugratonline.com ([5] reliable?

• Other than being a source of reference for this published book, it's also won an assortment of awards and is featured on the company's website. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• In the references, I think Klasky-Csupo should lost the hyphen to match the linked article's title

• I'm still unsure why, but  Done nonetheless. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Consider using {{Cite press release}} for references 22 and 40.

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Is the title of reference 29 (Cox) missing a colon?

• No, why? The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

These are just rapid fire comments, more to come. Mm40 (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get back, here are more comments. Mm40 (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• The first paragraph should mention the year the episode was first broadcast somewhere

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• The first two sentences of the second paragraph are sort of monotonous. I'm not sure if there's a way to reword it, though.

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• There shouldn't be a comma after "conceived in 1992"

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "when writer Germain" – his name is given two sentences earlier

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "by mooting a" I've never heard "mooting" before. I'm all for using fancy words, but I think a simple "wrote" or "thought of" works best here

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nickelodeon is linked twice in the second paragraph

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Jewish" is linked on the second mention and not on the first

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

• the Pickles family are gathering" → "the Pickles family is gathering" or "the Pickles family gathers"

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "they should use for the Seder"

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• The article has both "pharaoh of Egypt" and "Pharaoh of Egypt" (note the capitalization)

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The episode now pictures Tommy" I think "then" would be better than "next"

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• You can unlink shepherd and specify "plagues" to Plagues of Egypt

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "leads out her remaining army" why is it remaining?

• The Plagues lost her some soldiers. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Production

• Is there a better picture than the one of Hollywood, such as one of the people involved in writing the episode?

• No writers, but I've added an image of Melanie Chartoff, who voiced both Didi and Minka in the episode. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "regular episodes of the series generally" there's redundancy in "regular ... generally", so you can take out the latter word

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Let My Babies Go!: A Passover Story" the colon should be removed to match its article (note that this change also needs to be made in the Legacy section)

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Themes and Reception

• I don't think you need a link for nonreligious

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• In what time slot was the episode originally broadcast?

• No sources to confirm it, no; but it was definitely at night, as it was nominated for a Primetime Emmy. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest merging these two sentences: "...4.8% share of American audiences. This made it the sixth most-watched..."

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "as Nickelodeon's most-viewed only in 1997" why "only"? It's not that long a time, only two years (are you planning on making the Thanksgiving article?)

•  Done and yes, eventually. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why, specifically, did Keller "hate" the episode?

• He doesn't say, he just says he hates it. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "episodes featuring characters Boris and Minka" you can take out "characters", particularly since it's used later in the sentence

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I would leave "comic strip" and "picture book" unlinked, but it's up to you

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• What year was "Harold's Bar Mitzvah" broadcast

•  Done (1997) The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not fond of reference 37 being after the em-dash. I would prefer a comma: "David N. Weiss, who had recently converted to Judaism,[37] and J. David Stern"

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

References

• The New Yorker should be italicized in reference 2

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• In reference 37 (Hannah Brown), what does the number on the end mean? If it's a page number (which I assume it is), you should add "p." or something similar before it

•  Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all I can find, at this point. Another very nice article, and thanks for the memories. Mm40 (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and it was my pleasure. :D The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Heat sink

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made a major revision of the article.

Most of the article is new except the following sections: 3.3 Firestopping and fireproofing, 3.4 In soldering. "Firestopping" does not have any references and soldering only has one. The aforementioned are not my area of interest.

There were only two references in the original article. And those references were not applicable to the parts specific to heat sink, as far as I can remember.

The rest of the article is "new", well referenced and, in my opinon, logical. I had initialy put the section "4 Methods to determine heat sink thermal performance" in the beginning of the article, but decided that some people are not interested in that. So, to keep their interest, I put it at the end of the article.

I still want to add the following, but want to wait on peer review the changes made so far before putting more effort into it.

• Something about emmissivity of surfaces (their effect on the performance of heat sinks)
• More on LED heat sinks
  • The articles that I have referenced to are good, but I need to sort out the copyright issues. See "Image use under "Copyright designs and patents act 1998" in editor assistance.)
• Heat sink testing
  • Same issue as previous.
• Bypass flow
  • Same issue as previous. Need photos of literature...

Anyhow.

Thanks, Dtc5341 (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I made some minor tweaks to the intro, such as removed the in-line disambiguation already taken care of by the hatnote. while the intro introduced what is to be discussed in the article, this should in the form of a summary not explicitly with statements such as: (Such-and-such will be discussed in this article...) See: WP:LEAD.--Supertouch (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have revised the introduction. Dtc5341 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes by NVO

(NB. I'm a wafer designer by my first trade although in the last twenty years I only indulge in tube stuff as a hobby.)

Lead: controversial statements.

• "a finned metal object". Not necessarily finned. The device may be bolted or clamped to a perfectly flat enclosure wall.
  • Change to "object". 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• "The term heat sink is never used in a heat transfer text book". Usually it is (example: Advanced thermal design of electronic equipment) - or did you mean some specific college course?
  • Most academic books (e.g. Incropera, Mills, Cengel) that discuss that discuss heat transfer generally and not specifically for electronics cooling like your reference. A reference that I use, Sergent and Krum, ... I do not know what they say. It is reference able quote. Will rewrite though. 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Updated this section to refer to specifically text books which discuss heat transfer in general and not specific electronics cooling. Dtc5341 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Basic sink heat transfer

• If you define heat sink function as a process that ultimately dissipates energy into a fluid medium, perhaps you should clearly say that the article excludes cooling in vacuum (satellites, tube plates) or the conditions where fluid medium exists but is physically too far to be of any worth.
  • Will include radiation and mention vacuum. Dtc5341 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Conclusions of this section are valid only for continuous energy flow. It must be clearly stated. Short pulses and short duty cycles are a different world where "parallel universe" actually makes sense.
  • No it does not make sense. What you are talking about is the thermal transient capacity of a heat sink. A short pulse still dissipated energy into the object (heat sink) and then into the surround air or fluid medium. The energy is still there and does not disappear, nor does it go to a "parallel universe". Transient energy balance. Ein - Eout = dE/dt or something like that. 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This article discusses specifically heat sinks to air. Energy dissipated into a block of copper still is conducted in the material. Dtc5341 (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Air always flows upward" - please emphasize that this is relevant only for stationary devices (not vehicles). It is not obvious right now.
  • Will rewrite. 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Have rewritten. Dtc5341 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Fourier was a French mathematician (1768 -1830) who made..." - redundant, there's Joseph Fourier.
  • Corrected. 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Design factors

• "Copper is .. around 4 to 6 times more expensive" - remove price comparison, prices are too ... fluid. :)
  • I agree that the price comparison is "fluid" but it a "fact" that at this moment in time, aluminium is cheaper than copper. Copper is quite expensive to mine and is not environmentally friendly mining process. Please refer to http://www.basemetals.com/ where at the 26 March 2010, 10:14 CEST, the price of copper is 7490.5 USD per metric tonne, while for aluminium it is 2200 USD per MT. So, not 4 but 3.4. The point that I am trying to make is that the copper price, market dependent ofcourse, is more expensive than aluminium. I will keep the reference, but add that it is market dependent. Will add some historic data from London Metal Exchange for the last 5 years. 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Updated. Dtc5341 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• "A pin fin heat sink is a heat sink that has, well, pins on its base" ... "street talk" - refactor appropriately for an encyclopedia. Same concern for most of the text: it reads like a recording of a spoken lecture, at times patronizing.
  • I have change the street talk to "It is generally considered that the more surface area..." 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Removed the ",well,". 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Kordyan [1] has compared the performance..." - are you confident that the cited statement can be taken for a general rule? "straight fin heat sink of similar dimensions" - please confirm that indeed they meant "dimensions" and not surface area. Sounds counteintuitive.
  • I will add the specific dimensions of the heat sinks in a table form to the article. And the point that the author (Kordyban) is making is that although pin fins have a large surface area, it can not be effectively used if there is too much flow resistance in between the fins. Very little flow results in low heat transfer coefficient, higher average local temperature of the air and the net result is a heat sink that performs poorly. 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Opening up the fins: Increases the hydraulic or effective diameter." - what is it, in plain language?
  • I will have to get a method of explaining this. Will get back to this. 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• "The net result is a heat sink that has a lower thermal resistance than a straight fin heat sink." - needs a common metric ("of the same surface area", "same mass", "same overall dimensions"). I suspect they meant "of same surface area and the optimal profile for each type, regardless of overall dimension".
  • Put in a quallifier. 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Engineering applications

• Section heading "Attachment methods" disquises the fact that all listed methodes are for consumer microprocessors only. If you don't plan to discuss other uses (like industrial power switches or UHF transmitter devices) then I'd recomment removing this heading.
  • True. But if you look at the section that it is in, it is in the Processor/mircoprocessor section. Look at the structure of the article in the table of contents as shown below. I do not hide this. 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

3 Engineering applications 3.1 Processor/Micro processor cooling 3.1.1 Attachment methods 3.1.2 Thermal interface materials 3.2 Light emitting diode lamps

• • I have changed the heading to "Attachment methods for the processor and mircoprocessor market". 83.163.169.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Firestopping and fireproofing

• I recommend removing the whole section. The fact that pass-through pipes decrease efficiency of a firestop is irrelevant to the function declared in the lead or in "Basic heat sink transfer section." Stick to electronics; you cannot possibly list all thermodynamic issues of the world in one article.
  • Want to wait a bit before deleting this section. It is not my work, but it also does not have good (any) references. Dtc5341 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing

• I recommend discussing design rules for heatsinking (i.e. "Heatsinks are Bad, Fans are Far Worse") considering reliability and design life.

Regards, NVO (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have noted the changes requested and will during the first half of this week make corrections. Dtc5341 (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Spinningspark

Nice job, I do not have time to do a detailed, picky review, but overall I get an excellent impression of a good article. The major omission would seem to be that the applications still concentrate heavily on processor heat sinks. Heat sinks on mechanical machines are hardly mentioned, although this is a common application on all sorts of machines, including motorcyles. In fact, a heat sink does not necessarily consist of a finned lump of metal, in terms of heat engines it can be a large pool of water. Even in the field of electronics I do not see mentioned the very common practice of providing small heat sinks for power transistors. Dummy loads will also usually require them.

I also picked up in a few places the article reading as if it were teaching students not to make mistakes in their design and directly addressing the reader. This is not the right tone (or purpose) for an encyclopedia: state the facts in a passive voice and leave the reader to draw conclusions. Again, I have not produced a detailed list for you but I made one or two edits on this score.

Once again, nice job, that is more than a x4 expansion and nearly qualifies for DYK, quite an achievement for an article as big as 11kB. SpinningSpark 08:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Athletic Bilbao players

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review; would appreciate help with the lead and other comments.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• General point on article title: The title you have chosen suggests a complete listing of the club's players, but the list is limited to those with 200 or more appearances, a fact only established in the note just before the table, and then not explained. The title needs amending, possibly to "List of notable Athletic Bilbao players", and there should be a rationale for the cutoff point of 200.
  • This is custom for "List of X players". Rationale not expected as it is an arbitrary cut-off.
• Prose points
  • "Athletic official policy is signing professional players..." should be "Athletic official policy is to sign professional players..."
    • Done
  • The word "Still" which starts the next sentence is redundant. Begin the sentence "In recent times this policy has been somewhat relaxed, and players..." etc
    • Done
  • The information about Telmo Zarra's 333 goals belongs with the rest of the information about him, in the fourth paragraph. It is out of place here.
    • Done
  • "...between 1914 and 1916 as Athletic won the Copa del Rey three times". Suggest comma after "1916", and "when" instead of "as". Thus: "...between 1914 and 1916, when Athletic won the Copa del Rey three times".
    • Done, good one.
  • "the very first" - "very" is unnecessary
    • Done
  • "hat-trick" needs explaining or linking
    • Done, wl
  • "Today the La Liga top-scorer is declared the Pichichi in his honour." Is he "declared" the Pichichi, or is that the name of the trophy he receives? Also, rather than saying "today",which is inspecific as to time, it would be better to say "Since 1928-29..."
    • Clarified.
  • "In 1928 Athletic joined La Liga in its inauguration year, and has currently (as of March 2010) played for 82 years in the Spanish top-tier." Another misplaced sentence, which ought to be merged into the last sentence of the first paragraph.
    • merged.
  • "until he retired in 1955" → "before he retired in 1955"
    • Done
• Citations: at present, very few of the facts in the lead are cited to sources. This needs attention
• List: This is generally well presented. A few points:-
  • What is the significance of the date 15 March? Was that the end of the last La Liga season?
    • date it was last updated. I've removed 15 Marchm so it says 2010.
  • It is not clear what club records are held by the players highlighted in green. Where is this information to be found?
    • note section.
  • Captaincy column: is it the case that no player with 200 or more appearances has ever captained the club? I find this almost unbelievable. Am I misunderstanding something?
    • Sorry, I'm awaiting information on this, I meant to include this in the PR req.
  • Image captions refer to "caps". I thought international, rather than club appearances, were awarded caps.
• Images: I recommend that you move one of the images, preferably Iribar, to the lead as a lead image, raised to 300px. I've tried it - it looks good.
  • • okay

That's about it. Please ping my talkpage if you have any questions relating to this review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Beyond Good & Evil (video game)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Because there's a bounty on this article, David Fuchs, Zxcvbnm, Bridies and I have been working on the cult classic to Featured Article status. So please give your suggestions on improvement. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have never played this game, which might make me a better reveiwer in some ways. While what is here is decent, I think this needs a fair amount of work before it would be ready for FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead seems pretty short and sparse for the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not get much sense of what makes the gameplay unique from the lead, for example.
• Per WP:LEAD, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However, I really can't find much in the article on the sequel despite this in the lead "A sequel, Beyond Good & Evil 2, is currently in development." There is more on this at the Beyond Good & Evil 2 article that could be incorporated here. I also would avoid words like "currently" - it would be better to say "A sequel has been in development since YEAR..." or "As of 2010 a sequel is in development..."
• Three of the four images need alt text for readers who cannot see the article - see WP:ALT and the alt text tool in the Toolbox here
• The external link checker tool finds two problem links - I tried to access both and neither was available.
• There are a few places that seem to need references - for example the last paragraph of Gameplay and first paragraph of Reception have no refs, and much of the second paragraph in Setting and characters also lacks refs. There are also a few sentences at the end of referenced paragraphs which do not themselves have refs, like Christophe Héral has worked on numerous film and television works throughout his career, and his only video game titles to date are Beyond Good & Evil and its sequel. and at least one "citation needed" {{Fact}} tag.
• As someone who has not played the game and does not play many such games, I may be more aware of jargon and things that are not explained clearly or placed into context for the reader. So for example, in Jade's main tools are her Daï-jo combat staff, a melee weapon; discs for a ranged attack; and a camera.[3] I think it would help to link melee weapon and provide a link or brief explanation for "ranged attack" (which I am not sure of the meaning of). Much later boss fight needs a link too.
• The language is generally decent but needs polish in spots - for example should the name of the (space)ship be italicized in "Traveling around the world is accomplished via a hovercraft, also used for races and other minigames, and, later, a spaceship, the Beluga, which can store the hovercraft on board."? Or ...push or bash in doors and objects,... is just awkward. More examples follow.
• See if passive constructions can be rewritten using active voice. So for The architecture of the city around which the game takes place was designed with a rustic European style. could the name(s) of the designer(s) be used instead? Ancel and Morin used a rustic European style for the design of the architecture of the city around which the game takes place. (still a bit rough, but you get the idea). Shouldn't the name of the city be given too?
• Since the adjective "Hillyan" has already been used, would Jade and Pey'j are looking after children of Hillys orphaned by the DomZ. read better as Jade and Pey'j are looking after Hillyan children orphaned by the DomZ.?
• Would "job as a photgrapher" work better in When Jade runs out of money to run the shield that protects them, she finds a photography job, cataloging all the species on Hillys ...?
• This just seems awkward The game was originally shown at the 2002 Electronic Entertainment Expo, where it received negative reception.
• Avoid needless repetition - these two sentneces could be combined, for example: The soundtrack of Beyond Good & Evil was composed by Christophe Héral. Héral was hired by Ancel to compose the soundtrack of Beyond Good & Evil due to his background in film, which Ancel was looking for. could be merged into something like The soundtrack of Beyond Good & Evil was composed by Christophe Héral, whose background in film was what Ancel was looking for. or perhaps Ancel was looking for a composer for the Beyond Good & Evil soundtrack who had a beackground in film; he hired Christophe Héral... (could you add more specifics on what Héral had done in film before this?)
• The Audio section does not talk about recording the dialogue. I would imagine the original game was in French, or was it in English? Could information on this be found?
• Another awkward sentence On Metacritic, which assigns a score out of 100, the game has scores [ranging?] from a low of 83% for the PC version [to?] and 87% for the GameCube and Xbox versions, based on 26, 33, and 40 reviews respectively.
• So I think this needs a copyedit (there are rough spots I did not explicitly mention). The French and Polish versions of this article are both FAs - if anyone can read those languages, there might some useful iformation / ideas there too.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Franck Ribéry

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is capable of receiving good article status based on the edits I have done over the past week.

Thanks, Joao10Siamun

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, and generally well-done. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye toward GAN.

• I would avoid currently in the first sentence of the lead and instead use the actual date or "as of 2010": Franck Bilal Ribéry (born 7 April 1983) is a French football player currently playing [who has played] for Bundesliga club Bayern Munich [since 2007]. or perhaps Franck Bilal Ribéry (born 7 April 1983) is a French football player currently playing for Bundesliga club Bayern Munich [as of 2010].
• In the first three sentences of the second paragraph of the lead I would add some years to help provide context to the reader.
• I would also avoid currently for his brother's team, and try to add some years for his marriage and the births of his daughters, if known.
• More context to add here: After a seven-year stay, he joined professional outfit Lille, who were playing in the second division. I would add the year he started and probably clarify that it was the French second division
• Wording - "the player"?? how about just "him"? While at Lille, Ribéry excelled athletically, but developed academic and behavioral problems, which led to Lille releasing the player.[10][8]
• I would clarify that CFA is the fourth division and add a word Ribéry only made four appearances in his debut season as Boulogne, who were playing in the CFA, [but?] earned promotion to third-tier Championnat National.[11]
• It is not clear to me what the "Division d'Honneur" is - can this be linked or explained?
• I think a copyedit would help the article's chances at GAN - another example is Ribéry only spent half a season at Metz, but impressed earning the UNFP Player of the Month in August 2004. either take out "impressed" and change "earning" to "earned" or say who he impressed.
• Awkward and probably should be split into two sentences After stalemate negotiations on an extension, in January 2005, Ribéry relocated to Turkey joining Galatasaray on an initial loan deal with the Instanbul-based outfit having the right to pay Metz €2 million to make the move permanent. perhaps something like After negotiations on an extension ended in a stalemate, in January 2005 Ribéry relocated to Turkey. There he joined Galatasaray on an initial loan deal; the Instanbul-based outfit had the right to pay Metz €2 million to make the move permanent. The style tends to use verb + ing a lot where past tense might work better.
• I just do not understand this sentence - Ferarri, yes, but Scarface no (and the link to Scarface is a dab): While playing for the club, Galatasaray supporters nicknamed him Ferraribery, in reference to his quick acceleration with the ball at his feet and also Scarface, due to a large scar located on the right side of his face.[17][18][19] Is the Turkish name for Scarface somehow related to Ferrari? Needs more / better explanation
• Make sure all references meet WP:RS - what makes meeting-lille.com a reliable source, for example?
• I would look at all verb + ing constructions, but here is one that definitely needs to be fixed: The day after announcing his move, Galatasaray officials and manager Eric Gerets blasted the player for betraying the club and also announcing [announced] their intent to ask FIFA to probe the situation.[22][20]
• Tweaks In response to this, the Turkish club announced their decision to challenge FIFA's ruling by appealing to the [international] Court of Arbitration for Sport [(CAS)]. Since CAS is used in the header, it need to be explained in the article.
• Another awkward sentence: Upon his arrival, Ribéry was handed the number 7 shirt and made his debut on 30 July 2005 in a 2–0 defeat to Bordeaux collecting a yellow card.[24]
• The MOS says to provide English units as well as metric - {{convert}} does this nicely The goal, scored from almost 35 meters out, was later voted the goal of the season by supporters.[29]
• Identify this as Spansih (just as the other is as Italian) and La Liga outfit Deportivo de La Coruña.
• Spot the unneeded word (hint it has "ing" in it): owever, despite the offers, Marseille declared the player off limits with Ribéry having nearly four years left on his contract remaining.[31]
• Can the natures of his injuries be made clearer in the 2006–07 season section?
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example € is linked five times in the article
• Watch WP:Logical quotation - unless you are quoting a full sentence, the punctuation goes outside the quote marks - see for example ...Zinedine Zidane, has called Ribéry the "jewel of French football."[1] (should be the "jewel of French football".[1])
• There are a fair number of places that need references - generally if sentences follow refs, but have no refs of their own, they also need a ref. For example this needs a ref He was also named the French Player of the Year for the second consecutive season. as does the last four sentences of the second paragraph of the "2008–09 season" section.
• There are a lot of FA articles on football players that might be good model articles for this one - a model article gives ideas and examples to follow. I would definitely get a copy edit. The facts seem to all be there, the pictures are nice, and the refs seem decent.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

---

The Pirate Bay

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I feel this article is on good track. There's a couple of things that could be better molded, though, that would help push this article to FA status.

• The raid section could be cut down a bit, due to the fact that there is already and existing article about this subject that is linked to.
• The legal issues section may be able to have some "fluff" taken out of it, per the reason stated above.
• The project chanology image doesn't seem to fit very well, although I under the purpose of having it. I'm afraid that removing to may cause some problems amongst other editors, but I'd to get an opinion on this.
• Perhaps a new page for TPB blocking should be created so as the shorten the list a bit on the current page.

Overall, I feel this is a rather well written, well composed article but it has a few things here and there that I think should be looked at.

Regards, -Cam^T|C 12:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting but not yet approaching featured quality. If I were re-reviewing for Good Article status, I could not pass it in its present state. I would at the least ask for repairs to the references and to the lead. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

• The lead is well-written but is not a true summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead says nothing about "Technical details", "Projects", "Blocking", on "Incidents", for example. WP:LEAD has details.

• The article seems to lack a coherent structure. It might be helpful to add a chronological "History" section just below the lead and use it to summarize the main events. Then the subsequent sections would be seen mostly as elaborations of the main events. That would give the article a kind of coherence that I think is needed. It might also help with decisions about how much material to use in each elaboration; the more important the historic event, the more full the elaboration. Since the article is in some sense a breaking news story with a continuing history, a chronological History section would make it easy to append new information in a timely and coherent way. Information such as "Funding" and "Technical details" that might not be chronological, could appear near the bottom of the article. Although the first half of the "Website setup" is probably of general interest, the technical details might not be and perhaps could be reduced to a note in a Notes section.

• The first paragraph of the "Website section" is only half-sourced; if the one source given in the middle of the paragraph is meant to cover the whole paragraph, it should appear at the end rather than in the middle. Ditto for similar situations in the article. The second paragraph of the "Website setup" section is unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as for every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned.

• Conversions such as 35,000 SEK to US$4,925.83 should be rounded for readability. I'd suggest rounding this one to "about US$5,000". Ditto for other conversions in the article.

• The first sentence of the "Funding" section says, "The prosecution estimated in the 2009 trial from emails and screenshots... ", but nothing in the main text before this mentions a trial. This problem could be fixed by arranging historical events chronologically.

• In the "Support campaign" section, the external link to filesharer.org should should be removed. If you want to use it, you should create an inline link to a citation in the "Reference" section. However, the url seems to be dead.

• Generally it's good to either expand or merge extremely short paragraphs or sections to avoid a choppy layout.

Images

• Be sure to check the image licenses to make sure the claims are verifiable. For example File:Fredrik Neij - 2006-06-03 (Jon Åslund).jpg links to itself rather than to its source. A fact-checker will not be able to tell from this whether the Creative Commons license is valid or not.
• Images should be placed within the section they illustrate and should not normally overlap two sections.

References

• Quite a few of the citations are malformed or incomplete. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found.
• Generally blogs and personal web sites are not reliable sources per WP:RS. For example, what makes Ernesto at Torrent Freak (citation 15) a reliable source?

Other

• The tools at the top of this review page show that the images need alt text, that some of the citations have dead urls. WP:ALT has details about alt text.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

---

2008 Giro d'Italia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…my intention is to get it to FA. This article very nearly follows the style of the FA 2009 Giro d'Italia, and I'd love to know if there are any rough patches in the prose or anything else that needs fixing before an eventual FAC.

Thanks, Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Here are a few suggestions and ideas for improving the article. I've only done the first half at the moment, due to time pressures:-

• General points
  • Three disambiguation links need fixing. Use the toolbox in top right of this page to identify.
    • Done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Three external links (18, 29 and 61) show up on the tool as dead, though as far as I can see they are working. Get others to check these.
    • VeloNews changed their website recently. The links are correct and live, but the heuristics always show up as odd on the checklinks tool. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Points from lead
  • "...won by Spaniard Alberto Contador of Astana." Clarify that "Astana" is a cycling team, not a country or other geographical location.
    • Done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Contador first took the race lead after the race's second mountain stage, to Marmolada..." Omit unnecessary repetition ("race's"). The table of stages doesn't mention Marmolada, incidentally.
    • WP:CYCLING convention is to use the names for stage descriptions that the race itself used. The Giro referred to this stage as ending at the Passo Fedaia, which is the major mountain pass at Marmolada (you'll notice that the link in the stages table is to [[Marmolada|Passo Fedaia]]. Should I change this in the lead to refer to Passo Fedaia, then? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "...who participated in a breakaway in the sixth stage which won sufficient time that he was able to hold the race leader's pink jersey for more than a week." Rather awkwardly put; suggest: "who participated in a breakaway in the sixth stage which won him sufficient time to hold the race leader's pink jersey for more than a week."
    • Done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Team CSF Group-Navigare appeared to perform quite well in the race..." You need to introduce this team as the winners of the team classification. I don't understand "appeared to perform quite well"; if they were the winners they obviously performed well. This phrasing should be replaced with a more positive statement.
    • Two of their riders, accounting for four stage wins, the mountains jersey, and their top two overall placings, have been revealed to be major dopers. They "appeared" to perform well in the same way that Floyd Landis "appeared" to perform well in the 2006 Tour de France. If you take away what their riders did not legitimately win (and, no, they haven't been stricken from the record book (yet), but there's ample citeable critique that these wins are dirty), their performance was basically nothing.
  • "In August..." Be more specific. If you don't have a date, at least give the year.
    • Well, it's August 2008. I figured that was implied by this article being about an event from a specific year. But done, all the same. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Though no definitive positive tests have yet come to light..." This statement needs to have a time reference, e.g. "Though no definitive positive tests had come to light by March 2010..." - and will need to be updated if/when they do. Also, would "positive results" be more accurate that "positive tests"?
    • Done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Teams: should you explain why certain ProTour teams were initially omitted, and why two were later given entry?
  • RCS originally excluded High Road and Astana for failing to meet their particular standards (I forget exactly what they are - something to do with quality of the squad that would be sent, and professional ethics...I can easily find this again), but I'm not sure there's any particular reason, other than public outcry, why they changed their minds. NGC Medical was omitted simply because High Road and Astana were later added. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Race preview
  • "Both Di Luca and Contador were noted to have..." Why not, simply, " Both Di Luca and Contador had..."
    • Done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "...chose to skip the race in order to better prepare for the Tour de France" - "in order" is redundant (and likely to be picked on in a FAC review)
    • Done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Six stages were classified as flat and thought of as likely to be contested by sprinters." Why "thought of as"? Who's doing the thinking? Best left out, I think.
    • Done, though I can see someone later down the line chiding me for phrasing that like it's my own opinion. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "famously won" reads like editorial opinion. In the interests of neutrality I'd omit "famously"
    • Okay with "notably?" Winning nine stage is one race is a jaw-dropping achievement, and I think the prose should, in some way, speak to that. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "...did not plan to start this Giro because of a lack of preparation owing to influenza and bronchitis." Probably better to say "enter" than "start". And "because of" and "owing to" shouldn't appear in the same sentence. Thus: "did not plan to enter this Giro, because influenza and bronchitis had hindered his preparation" (or something similar)
    • Done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "This was later firmly cemented by his suspension from the sport, and termination from his Team Milram resulting from his controversial doping case from the 2007 Giro." This is another complex sentence that doesn't read smoothly. I'd change this to something like: "He was later suspended from the sport, and his contract with Team Milram terminated, as a result of his involvement in the 2007 Giro doping case" - with links and pipes where appropriate.
    • Done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "due to a positive doping test" → "after a positive doping test"
    • Done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Route and stages table: It might be useful if you added a column to the table which indicated the overall race leader at the end of each stage. I know this information is given below, but bearing in mind that Contador's name doesn't figure in the table, this would give a clearer idea of why he finished the overall winner.
  • This has been discussed and proposed at WP:CYCLING several times, and each time there's been general consensus against it. Yes, the other wikis do it, but we've always thought it to be redundant, not only to the table but also to the prose (which the other wikis are much worse at than us). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please give me a call on my talkpage when these have been addressed, and I'll come back for the second half. Brianboulton (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'll get to these within 24. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 08:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Or rather, I would have had a massive windstorm not knocked out my wireless internet. Grumble... Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the rest of my review

• Race overview
  • "still-imposing" - opinion?
    • Changed to the fact that 231.6 km was still the second-longest stage in the race. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to avoid the "...Russ. Russ..." combination?
    • I don't know how. The two sentences are much too long to be joined as one (they're both already pretty long). Would four or five really short sentences be better? I wouldn't naturally go that way. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What is "bonification"?
    • Bonus. Seconds reduced from the rider's time in the overall standings. Does this need to be explained further in the article? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You use the low numerals "7" and "6", but later you use "seventh" and "eighth" for the ordinals (also, "4 seconds" appears later)
    • Fixed. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "They were collectively separated..." The word "collectively" is superfluous
    • Done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "He led the classification after every stage except stage 2 and stage 8, which were both won by Riccò, gaining him the mauve jersey for one day on two separate occasions." Mid-sentence triple-use of "stage", followed by an ambiguous "him". Suggest; "He led the classification after every stage except the second and eighth, which were both won by Riccò who thereby gained the mauve jersey for one day on two separate occasions."
    • Done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "taking the white jersey from Visconti when he lost the overall lead" - surely, the words "when he lost the overall lead" are redundant?
    • Actually, they're not. Visconti lost the pink jersey when he lost the overall lead. He just happened to lose the white jersey the same day. This contrasts with, for example, the 2004 Tour de France, when Thomas Voeckler held the yellow jersey for the race lead and the white jersey for the youth classification at the same time. Days later, when he lost the yellow to Lance Armstrong, he still held the white for several days thereafter, before eventually losing it to Vladimir Karpets. If Riccò hadn't been young enough for the white jersey, Visconti probably would have held the white jersey for a little while even after losing the overall lead. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Five teams repeated as stage winners" Does this mean "Five teams won more than one stage"? You don't name these teams, yet later you do name the teams that won one race each.
    • They're all named above. Or at least they should be. This sentence is meant as summary. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What is a "morning escape"?
    • In cycling, several riders (usually around three to seven, but sometimes only one rider will be a breakaway, and oftentimes late in a stage race breakaways of 20 or more riders will occur) will break away from the peloton early on and ride most (or occasionally all) of the day ahead of them. The reasons for this are many, and diverse enough that this happens in every road race. It's relatively rare that a stage win comes from a morning break (it happens maybe once or twice in a three-week Grand Tour), so it merits mentioning. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "...failed to be at all competitive" - suggest "at all" is unnecessary.
  • "...and were thus declined invitations." I think you mean "denied"
    • I think they're snyonyms..? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Doping
  • "Riccardo Riccò, a double stage winner and the best young rider, tested positive for Mircera during the Tour de France, and was subsequently expelled with his team Saunier Duval-Scott." Advise clarify "the 2008 Tour de France" and "expelled from the Tour, together with..."
  • "but Sella, Priamo, and Riccò's results..." Better exprssed as "the results for Sella, Priamo, and Riccò...", otherwise you need to say "Sella's, Priamo's, and Riccò's" which reads awkwardly.
    • Good catch. They do not, obviously, share possession of race results. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "six to seven riders" → "six or seven riders"
    • My wording matches the source. 2008 Giro: Six to seven possible CERA positives Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "...the presumptive positives will be compared to values stored at an anti-doping lab in Lausanne, Switzerland, with those results known and names of riders announced within months." This statement explains the position as of now, but will soon be out of date. It needs to be time-specific in some way.
    • Actually, it doesn't describe the situation right now. It describes the situation from October. Updated. I don't like the "as of April 2010" construction, though I grudgingly understand why it's necessary. Once these riders are revealed, I'm going to update this article first thing. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Classification leadership
  • "cyclists got points" → "cyclists received points"
  • "The stage win awarded 25 points, second place awarded 20 points, third 16, fourth 14, fifth 12, sixth 10, and one point less per place down the line, to a single point for 15th. In addition, some points could be won in intermediate sprints." Suggested rephrase: "Each stage winner was awarded 25 points; second place was worth 20 points, third 16, fourth 14, fifth 12, sixth 10, and then one point less per place down the line, to a single point for 15th place. Additional points could be won in intermediate sprints."
  • "The fourth was the young rider classification which awarded a white jersey." Suggest reword: "The fourth classification, in which a white jersey was awarded, was for young riders. This was decided..." etc
  • "There were also two classifications for teams. The first is..." Tense change ("were ... is"). When discussing individual classifications you consistently used the past tense, so the "is" should be "was" (and follow through in the rest of the paragraph). Also, wouldn't "There were also two team classifications" be a neater start?
• Final standings tables: A note should indicate that these only display the top ten.
• Minor classifications
  • "Other less well-known classifications were awarded during the Giro..." "during the Giro" is implied and need not be included. Also, are classifications "awarded"? Maybe rephrase.
  • I got lost in the first paragraph of this section. Is the "Expo Milano 2015" the name of a minor classification, and should it be in quotes? Is the information about what the equivalent classification was called in previous years really relevant? It tends to over-complicate matters.
  • As someone who doesn't follow cycling, I find it difficult to understand the reasons or some of these minor classifications. Apart from points, what did the winners of these classifications receive? Were there trophies, cash prizes, etc? Perhaps a few more words of explanation would be helpful here.

That's my review. I hope the comments and suggestions are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Human rights in Hong Kong

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've did quite a bit of editing on this page and I hope I can get some helpful comments to make it a GA. Any comments are welcome, but my primary concern is whether it is easy to understand and whether it has a broad enough coverage.

Thanks, Craddocktm (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is certainly broad in coverage and generally clear. The specific examples illustrating the various legal situations are good, and I find them much more interesting than the abstract legal language of the laws themselves. If I were working on this article, I'd try to think of ways to render the abstractions in everyday language to make them more accessible to the average reader. For example, it seems to me that the "Bill of Rights Ordinance" section, which is quite technical and dry, could be cut in half and made less dry.

• Quite a few paragraphs lack sources. A good rule of thumb to pass the WP:V test is to cite at least one source for every paragraph as well as any direct quotes, sets of statistics, or claims that have been challenged or are apt to be challenged.

• The punctuation should precede the ref numbers, not the other way around. In the lead, the order is incorrect for citations 5 and 7. Ditto for any similar situations in the article.

• The Manual of Style advises against repeating the main words of the article title in the heads and subheads. For this reason, I'd truncate "Human Rights Protection Framework" to "Protection framework". Ditto for "Human Rights under International Law". I'd change this one to "International law".

Bill of Rights Ordinance

• "However, due to the entrenchment of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Article 39 of the Basic Law, the significance of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, which was modeled after the ICCPR, is not diminished." - When you use an abbreviation like ICCPR, it should be explained on the first use of the full term by adding it in parentheses after the full term; i.e., "... the local adaptation of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)... ". Also, you don't need to link the full term more than once; it's linked twice in this section. Ditto for similar overlinking elsewhere in the article.

References

• Quite a few of the citations are malformed or incomplete, and they will have to be fixed for the article to reach GA. Citations to web sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of those are known or can be found.

Other

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page show that the images need alt text, that some of the urls in the citations are dead, and that a few wikilinks in the article go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets. The urls and dabs should be fixed. WP:ALT explains alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Mount St. Peter Church

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to get some feedback on it since this is my first wikipedia article!

Thanks, Rudy4rachel (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your first article and welcome to the project. Since this is your first article I'll sprinkle suggestions on improvements with thoughts on MOS compliance. I'm not going to harp too heavily on prose and grammar as this is something that comes with time and you may be far more expert on writing than I.

Lead

• A lead is the introductory paragraphs before the body of the article. The lead is to be a summary of all the points in the article. A well-written lead should convey a skeletal outline of the article and the body will fill in the details. See WP:LEAD for more details.
• In my opinion the lead is not sufficient for the article. It should cover every point in the article in a summary fashion. For an article of this length (we'll talk about length a little later), the lead should be about 3 to 4 paragraphs. I would remove the mission statement and add details that are in the article but not in the lead.

Relocation of the parish

• Watch over-linking. See WP:LINK for some thoughts on this. I see a link to God, a good guide to follow is that words that are in common useage shouldn't be linked. I'll delink God and I suggest taking a critical look at the linking in the article. I would leave a word like altar as people who aren't native English speakers may not be familiar with the term.
• The paragraph about why the people started returning to the parish seems to be speculation. Using terms like "most likely" gives the reader the impression that the author is guessing as to why the event happened. Try to avoid speculation and stick to what the sources are saying.
• The title of sections should follow the convention where the first word is capitalized, and any proper nouns should be capitalized but the rest of the words should not be capitalized.

Overflow of parishioners

• Why the ???? in this section? If the year isn't specified then don't include it.

Citations

• I want to interject some thoughts on citations. See WP:CITE for thoughts on in-line citation formatting. I see that some of your in-line citationes, especially early in the article, generate as notes at the bottom of the page, but a vast majority of them do not. This is due to the fact that you are not using a citation template like {{cite web}}. You have the words "cite web" but you need the {{ }} surrounding citation. Check out articles such as Olympic Games, which is a Featured Article. The format of these references is accurate. The reason you have numbered in-line citations but they aren't showing up at the bottom of the page is because of the lack of the {{ }} brackets.

Taking possession of the new grounds

• One area of improvement is tightening up the prose. Remove superfluous and redundant words that aren't necessary to the progress of the sentence. Here is an example:

"After eighteen months of meetings, discussions, and research, there was still not a solid agreed upon vision for the future church."

In this sentence I would remove the words, "solid agreed upon". Given the previous sentence it is obvious that there were disputes, consequently all you need to say is that there was no vision for the church. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 06:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Raising the roof

• Here is another example of using too many words to convey your idea:

"Unfortunately, this was a problem because the church's account did not contain enough money to employ more men."

"...the church's account did not contain enough money..." could be reworded to "...the church did not have enough money..." It may only be one word difference but over the course of an article, especially a long article, a word here and a word there can make a significant difference in the readability of the article.

Summary style

• There is an important concept in article writing that I need to bring up it is called summary style and can be better outlined at WP:SS. The idea is that you want to cover the subject in a way that summarizes the key points. Wikipedia is not intended to cover every topic completely. The trick as an editor is to determine what should be in the article, to satisfy comprehensive requirements, and what is too detailed. I'll give you some suggested areas to edit when I have a little more time. Sorry this review is in pieces, I grab a little time when I can. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• I feel that there are several sections of the article that can be totally removed and others that can be significantly reduced. The sections that can be removed (in my opinion) would be:gathering more funds, raising the roof, WWII affects the congregation, and God watches over His workers. I would dramatically reduce the following sections: Relocation of st. peter's parish, The marble hall, and News of the destruction of the Mellon Mansion. Basically I would make one section entitled something like Building the church, with a couple of sub sections summarizing the high points of the building of the church. There are 3 sections with 6 sub-sections, which is too long. The reality is that just about all of the sections could be trimmed to improve readability. Of course this is just my opinion and you're welcome to disagree, just keep summary style in mind when writing.
• One great way for a new editor to get a guide for writing articles is to look at other articles on the same subject for guidance. To that end I refer you to Stanford Memorial Church, which is a Featured Article. This is an example of the best work in Wikipedia. Part of the article is focused on the architecture of the church, which is not an emphasis of this article so I wouldn't focus on that as much, but there is a good section on the history of the church, which would help you. Don't feel like your article has to meet FA standards right away, but it can still be a great guide for you.

Opening of Mt. St. Peter church

• I want to bring up another key aspect of writing articles on Wikipedia, that is neutrality. See WP:NPOV for a greater explanation of this. You want to discuss your subject in a neutral point of view without displaying any bias either for or against the subject. This paragraph is a concern to me regarding bias:

"Mount Saint Peter Church was magnificent and rose up on the hill, but to many, it seemed as if it could not really belong to the congregation. It was much richer than Saint Peter Church and if it had not been labored upon by so many members of the congregation, none would have felt worthy to call it their parish. But since so much work, love, and faith had been spent on this beautiful place of worship, parishioners became proud to have the honor of attending Mass there every Sunday."

Words and phrases like "magnificent", and "...so much work, love, and faith..." displays a bias in favor of the church and the builders of the church. Also it is unnecessary to state that they were proud to have the honor of attending mass there every Sunday. It's just a detail that is superfluous and a bit speculative unless you're quoting a member who was there at the opening.

• Here's another sentence that raises concern for me:

"The beauty of the Melllon Mansion was restored by the congregation and turned into something even more magnificent than a home to entertain the rich; it became a House of God."

This is a value statement, and an opinion, which editors are not to display when writing.

"Many of today's parishioners are descendants of those volunteers and are proud to tell the story of their forefathers who gave them this gorgeous church in which to practice their faith. Their only hope is that future generations will continue to appreciate and cherish this amazing parish."

Unless this is a direct quote from a parishioner it doesn't belong in the article as it is biased and speculative.

References

• It appears you are using the Notes section for websites and for specific pages of books. This is similar to the format used in the Stanford Memorial Church article. Check out the References section of this article. Please employ the {{cite book}} template and use either bullets or numbers for each reference.
• As a general rule it is always better to use as many different sources for your citations as possible. This article relies heavily on the Centennial Committee for the information. This isn't necessarily bad given the very specific subject matter, but for future articles consider using a plethora of source material. More to come on credibility of sources. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 04:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Regarding credibility of sources the most credible sources are peer reviewed professional journals, following this would be books, reputable newspapers, magazines, journals, websites etc. Sources that are deemed not credible would be blogs, rumor websites, facebook/myspace pages. What is really anathema in Wikipedia is original research. See WP:OR for more on that. That page explains it a whole lot better than I could. See WP:SOURCES and WP:VERIFY for a good rundown on references. See WP:CITE for information on formatting references. This site relies heavily on a report published by the church for what I assume is the centennial celebration of the church. While I wouldn't call it unreliable, it is a self-published source, which isn't as reliable as a third party published source (someone writing a history of the church that could be independently verified). That said, I feel that the source is fine but it would make the article stronger if you could find other sources to help augment your information. What you want to steer clear of are diaries and primary sources.

Images

• Whenever possible it's great to have images. These images need to meet the qualifications set forth in WP:IMAGE. Images you take yourself and license under a "creative commons" license are perfectly fine. See WP:FU for information on using Fair Use or Copyrighted images.
• Images draw the reader into the article and help explain the information far better than words can. Images will be especially useful in the building section and the sections about all the additions made the church. If you wish your article to reach GA quality then you'll probably need to include at least one image.

Overall

• The article is very complete. What I would recommend is to look critically at your writing. I felt as though you were telling a story through the article. This would be very compelling except that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a narrative form of writing doesn't work well with this project. As it stands the article would be great as a pamphlet for parishioners of the church or in a long article for a newspaper, but as an encyclopedia article it doesn't fit. Not that it can't be fixed, it certainly can and you've done a lot of work on it.
• I would recommend cutting out the nice to know information and leaving in the need to know information. Read the excerpts from the Manual of Style that I referred to. Once you feel as though the article conforms to these guidelines then relist here at WP:PR and have another editor review it.

That's it for my review, I hope you found it helpful. If you have questions, comments or concerns please leave them here and give me a poke on my talk page. I'll be happy to respond. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 23:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention is the "Orphan" tag at the top of the page. This is put on pages that are not connected to any other pages within Wikipedia. If there are other pages (like if there is a list of Catholic churches in PA) that should link to this page then add a link and delete the orphan tag. You can delete it as soon as you can link this article to another article via a wikilink. Sorry I forgot to mention that. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 23:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Steeple Aston

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was listed as a GA nominee, but I think a bit prematurly. I have tried to help expand the article to as close to WP:UKCITIES guildline as possible, and O would like some advice as to how it needs to change in order to become GA standard.

Thanks, Dharmaquila (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Here are some suggestions for improving/expanding the article:-

• There are two links to disambiguation pages that need fixing. Use the toolbox in the top right corner of this PR page to identify them, and then fix them
• Refs 3 and 14 go to dead links, marked as such in the References section of the article. These must be restored or replaced, or the content to which they refer should be withdrawn from the article.
• References are not properly formatted. Each should minimally give the title, publisher and last access date. Other information when known, e.g. author, should also be given.
• The article is fairly well written, but it seems very slight, at around 700 words of prose. I have looked at some "town" articles that have become GAs and they are mostly a great deal longer and more detailed. Other than the short History section, the rest of the content reads rather like the village guide, which is unsurprising when a main source is the Steeple Ashton website. It would be worth consulting other Good Articles to see how this article matches up, in terms of content and detail.
• It is not a good idea to name the holders of the various offices in the Governance section, since these can change frequently. What might be more relevant, especially to readers without knowledge of the levels of English local government, would be to summarise the powers of the bodies to which you refer. What does the parish council do for the village? What does Cherwell District Council do? What does the county council do?
• Other suggestions for expansion: say more about the school - how many children, what age range? If it's been there since 1640 it must have a bit of its own history, so let's hear it. Do we have any information from recent OFSTED reports? Some of the pub activities seem a bit too trivial to be mentioned, but could more be said about the so-called "annual highlights" of village life.
• Could you say more about the general character of the village; how much of it is "old", how many of its houses are post-war, etc?

This could form part of a generally beefed-up History section.

I hope these comments are helpful Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A few further ideas:

• The lead is a bit short - see WP:LEAD
• There are 41 listed buildings shown on the list at Images of England some of these may be worth a mention, particularly more on the Church, Cuttle Mill and the Eyecatcher Folly which are II* listed.
• Are there any sporting or cultural clubs etc?
• Any more on demography eg ethnic, religious, etc - where do most people work?
• Anything on public services eg Fire, Police, Ambulance, power companies, hospitals, Drs etc

Hope these are helpful.— Rod ^talk 14:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

---

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a prospective WP:FAC article in need of fine tuning.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I don't write sports articles so I may not know style issues here. I will read this and comment as I go along. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Per WP:MOS#Images, text should not be sandwiched between images (lead has two images sandwiching it, one in the infobox).
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Seems a bit WP:OVERLINKed to have links to college basketball and basketball in consecutive sentences (in the lead)
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• tied for 7th - per the MOS, spell out numbers less than ten, so shouldn't it be tied for seventh? It is spelled out as seventh in the next sentence
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Second paragraph says this was their first trip back to the NCAA tournament since 1998 twice in three sentences
  • Rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Watch verb tense - most of this is in the past tense, but some is in present tense which reads oddly. Since the season is over, shouldn't it all be in past tense? See The team was in its first year off of scholarship probation following the scandal but continues [continued?] to be prohibited from affiliating with implicated athletes (Chris Webber, Robert Traylor, Maurice Taylor, and Louis Bullock) until 2012, which means [meant?], among other things, that the players can [could?] not help the University recruit.[12][13]
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• This needs a copyedit - example Head coach, John Beilein, was in his second season with the team during the season.[15] How about something like John Beilein was in his second season as head coach with the team during 2008-2009.[15]?
  • Update progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• The first section after the lead has a gallery and four tables before it has any text?? I would have some sort of introductory text on the team roster (a paragraph or two). It also seems odd to have a whole table devoted to one player (see Mid-season transfer) - could this be converted to text? I am also not sure why the recruiting class for the the next year is listed in this section (again this may be where SPorts MOS says to put it, but this reads like an introduction and I think of the recruits as more of a legacy).
  • These tables are new technology in a sense. None of the four college football team articles at GA use them and only one of two FAs use them. It is really hard to say what proper usage is. However, I concede the one FA has preceding text. I will do something about this problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, my point was more that I got to this point and thought, Oh this is a list, not an article. Intro text would help, making the one person table into text would help, and moving the recruiting class for the next season to somewhere else would also help. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I have rearranged a lot of the text based on your feedback and the organization of 2007 USC Trojans football team, which is the only FA that currently uses these templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• In Preview, when was the preseason (dates)? What was the team record in it? I am pretty sure it is spelled "preseason" (not "pre season")
  • College sports are not like professional sports with formal preseasons. Instead the play games outside of their conference early in the season in what is sometimes referred to as a preconference schedule. Thus, preseason means before any games are played in the college athletics context. Michigan did play one exhibition basketball game, which is probably about standard. This game is not referred to as preseason, but rather exhibition.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I assumed these were all preseason exhibition games - if they count towards their season win-loss record, aren't they part of the season? Can a sentence or two explaining this better be added? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Have you noticed the detail in the 2008–09_Michigan_Wolverines_men's_basketball_team#Schedule section? Is further explanation necessary?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
        • The headers seem clearer now - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• What does RV mean in the Rankings table? Probably not a big RV like John Madden drives?
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• I would link the univerities in Coaches Vs. Cancer Classic tournament regional in which they defeated Michigan Tech and Northeastern at Crisler Arena
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• More awkwardness When a January 20 loss to Penn State extended the losing streak extended to three games,[72] a January 24 victory over Northwestern could not keep them among the votegetters in the polls.[73][74] Try printing this out and reading it out loud slowly
  • Rm extra word.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• The actual article sections about their season and postseason are quite brief - I was expecting more somehow.
  • The article is 12KB of readable prose. I could expand the article, but I am not sure how much a reader looking for this topic really wants to read.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Not supoer clear what this means - also a one sentence paragraph - could it be combined with others to improve flow? Finally the last clause seems to me to need a ref (probably move the ref to the end of the sentence?) Of the three ranked teams at the end of February that Michigan has played twice (Duke, Illinois and Purdue),[92] Michigan has split the two games against each opponent, winning against each at home. I think it means something like Michigan played two games each against three teams that were nationally ranked at the end of February (Duke, Illinois, and Purdue). The Wolverines won one of the two games against each opponent, and each vitory was at home.
  • I think it is fixed now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think it might help to explain that the BigTen and NCAA tournaments are both single loss elimination tournaments.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Gough Whitlam

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because… it's a former FA that I'm salvaging and I intend to nom it for a return to FA. Feedback welcome.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• What's with the capitalisation of adjectives in things like Northern Australia, Government School etc?
• I think that more details should be given on Whitlam's policies, if necessary at the expense of a lot of details on by-elections etc, especially peripheral background information eg the specific seat that Gorton took over from Holt, or that McEwen was caretaker for a few weeks or that Holt's body was never found.
• On the matter of content, I am surprised there isn't more on Vietnam given how much it was part of social debate at the time, or Whitlam's refusal to take in refugees from South Vietnam especially former embassy staffers, which created a ruckus. The thing about East Timor is also only added in at the end of a later life section, which seems out of place and also because there was a large controversy about Whitlam turning a blind eye to Indonesia. As well as all this he did make sweeping social changes etc and his legacy is still hotly debated, and I think the article should have more on policy detail YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on it. This is what peer review is for. Feel free to add more comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added stuff about his accomplishments. I'll look into Vietnam and Timor.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

I've been looking at the prose in the lead and first section. I can't promise this level of prose review for the whole article, but I'll do what I can. I don't know enough about Australia's politics to do more than check out the prose, though I do remember reading about the Whitlam affair at the time (I was quite young then) and wondering what was going on. I'm looking forward to finding out more as I go through.

• Lead
  • "new Federal capital of Canberra" - is the capital F correct?
  • "he assumed the federal Labor leadership and became Leader of the Opposition." the words "federal Labor" are unnecessary.
  • "After falling short of gaining enough seats to win government at the 1969 election,..." This is a wordy way of saying "After narrowly failing to win the 1969 election..."
  • Suggest link "appropriations bills". Likewise, "landslide" could be linked to "landslide victory"
• Early and family life
  • Three "ands" in first sentence of second paragraph. Sentence needs splitting.
  • Construction of first sentence of third para also needs attention
  • "to spend his formative years" → "to have spent his formative years"
  • The "and" connector in the sentence starting "At the time..." is inappropriate since the the two parts of the sentence are not closely related.
  • Gough's award of a prize should be given a year.
  • "where he studied first arts, and then remained for his legal studies." Needs simplifying, suggest "where he studied arts and later law."
  • It might be as well to explain why Whitlam was still at university in 1942 when he would have been 26 (having gone there at 18). Presumably this has to do with his legal studies, but even so, eight years seems rather a long time. (And I see from later that he had to go back and finish his studies after the war!)
  • "The couple have now been married more than two-thirds of a century,..." The "have now" is problematic because it begs the question "when is now"? Also, "had three sons and a daughter"? If the sons and daughter are still living, it should be "have".
  • Saying he volunteered for the RAAF in late 1941 is confusing, since previously you say he was still at university in 1942.
  • "While the party was elected..." I think "victorious" is more precise.

More to come Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll work on this tomorrow (it is still Wednesday here).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made most of Brian's comments. It's unclear why he took so long to finish his legal studies. Hocking never directly discusses it, but he was involved in a lot of student activities and that might have slowed things up. His initial service in the Sydney University regiment took him out of school.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "After falling short of gaining enough seats to win government at the 1969 election", the key point is actually that Labor did gain an awful lot of seats at that election - up 18 to 59 - but fell 4 seats short. In that sense, the 1969 election is actually more significant in terms of Whitlam's overall political achievement (it was his first as opposition leader) than the one he actually won in 1972. Orderinchaos 23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (McMahon consoled himself with the thought that he hadn't lost as many seats as Gorton did), but the time to cover that is in the body, not the lede. But 1969 did make Labor a mainstream party, respectable in the cities and suburban belts.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Gustav Mahler

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

There are several important Gustav Mahler anniversaries in the offing, the most significant being 7 July 2010, the 150th anniversary of his birth. This article has been revised, extended and updated with a view to a FAC nomination and TFA on the anniversary date. Editors, notably Jonyungk, have been generous in making suggestions during the article's gestation. I would welcome any further comments and suggestions for improving the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley I can see this is going to be tricky. I have read through twice and spotted hardly anything. A para by para review will follow over the next few days. Pending that I have two general points on consistency:

• You need a policy decision on premiere/première. Either will do, but you should be consistent. There are also rogue "premiéres" (acute accent) in the third para of the Hamburg Stadttheater section and twice in note 9.
  • Someone has kindly zapped the outstanding accented premieres. They should all be accentless now; if you spot any more rogues, please de-accent them. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Director – another word where you are not internally consistent. I prefer "director" to "Director", but whichever you prefer I'd try to stick to one or t'other.
  • I agree with you. The two capital Ds in the lead have been amended. The only instance of "Director" that remains is in the job title "Musical and Choral Director". My view is that that should remain, perhaps in quotes, But I'm willing to be guided. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

More to follow soonest. – Tim riley (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lead
  • "Born in relatively humble circumstances": the adjective is not qualified in the main text, and is, I think, better for it. (Relative to what?)

• Childhood
  • "gave his first public performance at the municipal theatre when he was 10 years old." Elsewhere you write the word "ten" out. Is this difference because it is an age? (I merely mention this, being far from sound on the numerals/letters matter.)

• Student days
  • "Despite having a reputation as a bully and wife-beater, Bernhard Mahler was supportive of his son's ambitions for a music career". A bit of a non-sequitur. Might it be less of one if you removed "wife-beater", which is, after all, covered by "bully"?
  • "Mahler, sometimes rebellious, only avoided the same fate by writing a penitent letter to Hellmesberger" Some Eng Lang pundits insist that the "only" should come after "fate". Pedantry, but you may wish to consider.
  • "Mahler attended occasional lectures by Anton Bruckner and, while never the latter's formal pupil, was influenced by him." Do you need "the latter's" here? Wouldn't "his" be clear enough?

• First appointments
  • "a dismal little job", which Mahler only accepted after Julius Epstein had told him…" Another "only": some might insist on "...accepted only..."
  • "The title concealed the reality that Mahler was subordinate to the theatre's Kapellmeister, Wilhelm Treiber, who disliked Mahler…" Perhaps just "disliked him"?

• Prague and Leipzig
  • "He had early success presenting works from Mozart and Wagner" Appropriately Germanic preposition, but "by" would be more usual in English usage, nicht wahr?
  • " Tchaikovsky was present, along with the heads of various opera houses." I'm being really nit-picking, but it could be read as meaning that Tchaikovsky and the intendants were all in the same party. But perhaps they were. If not you might possibly replace "along with" with "as were" or the like.

• Apprentice composer
  • "a 20-minute funeral march, or Todtenfeier, which later became the first movement of his Second Symphony." Did it become that movement without alteration or was it reworked into it?
    • Mahler was always revising his music. In view of the time gap between his writing the Todtenfeier and the completion of the Second Symphony, I'd say he did a lot of rewriting, but I don't have anything authoratitive on this. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Royal Opera, Budapest
  • "A performance of Don Giovanni which won him praise from the composer Brahms who was present." Nobody is likely to be misled, but if one were determined to seek ambiguity this could be read as meaning that Brahms wrote Don Giovanni. I think you might risk dropping "the composer" here: Tchaikovsky manages well enough without "composer" earlier on.

• Hamburg Stadttheater
  • "Pollini was prepared to give Mahler considerable leeway if the latter could provide commercial as well as artistic success." You could avoid "the latter" (which rather breaks flow, I find) by inverting the sentence on the lines of, "As long as Mahler could provide commercial as well as artistic success, Pollini was prepared to give him considerable leeway"
  • "This Mahler did in his first season…" but if you adopted the above suggestion you'd need to rephrase this, too. Disregard both of these by all means.
  • "under the influence of the Des Knaben Wunderhorn folk-poem collection…" Is it usual to include both the English and the German definite article in such a construction? Might it flow better without the "Des"?
  • "the Second Symphony was well-received on its premiere in Berlin". Is it worth mentioning who conducted?

• Hofoper director
  • "Richard Strauss's controversial opera Salome in 1905 fell was rejected…" superfluous word
  • "Beethoven's Fidelio, Gluck's Iphigénie en Aulide and Mozart's Le nozze di Figaro ("The Marriage of Figaro")" If not translating the second, why the third?
    • "Iphigénie" and "Aulide" are proper names; I didn't see much point in adding ("Iphegenia and Aulis"). Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "After conducting the Hofoper orchestra in a farewell concert performance…" This is not a suggestion but merely a question: I thought the opera orchestra with its symphonic hat on was the Vienna Philharmonic, but you distinguish between the two ensembles here and in the next section. Did the opera orchestra also give symphony concerts under its own name? Or have I simply got it wrong? (Later: see below - no need to answer this)

• Mature composer
  • "Mahler conducted the premiere of his Fourth Symphony, in Munich, and was at the rostrum…" On it, rather than at it?
  • "The couple engaged in a lively disagreement" In the context of a romance I don't think I'd use the phrase "the couple" about the two of them at their first meeting.
  • "Alma soon became resentful that, on Mahler's insistence that there could only be one composer in the family, she had given up her music studies, and wrote in her diary: "How hard it is to be so mercilessly deprived of ... things closest to one's heart"." This might, perhaps, be easier on the eye if broken into two: "…studies. She wrote…"
  • "…the Seventh Symphony was deemed by Alma Mahler a succès d'estime, a critical rather than a popular success." It feels slightly patronising to use a foreign phrase and immediately translate it. Might you just omit the French version here?
    • The French was what Alma wrote, the English my approximation of her meaning. I wasn't trying to show off, though it may look that way so I've got rid of the French. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Illness and death
  • "Alma, on doctors orders…" Possessive apostrophe needed?
  • "The Society aims to create a complete Critical Edition" Caps needed for Critical Edition?
    • That's how they refer to it - maybe over-reverent? I'll remove the caps. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Music
  • General observation by TR – When doing my first read-through I felt from time to time that the article was very plainly the work of an English writer. Copland and others notwithstanding the authorities quoted are preponderantly from the UK. But on my later para-by-para trawl I didn't find the English weighting particularly obvious. Anyway, if editors from other English-speaking countries wish to add quotes from Mahler scholars from their countries (Jack Diether comes to mind) they can always do so. A secondary point in this vein is that you mention e.g.Vladimír Karbusický as Czech, but don't say that, e.g. the great Deryck Cooke was English. Perhaps both or neither should have his national label attached.
    • On the question of sources I think it fair to point out that De la Grange is French (his books are translations into English and have been very slow in appearing). Karbusický is now a "musicologist" rather than a "Czech musicologist". Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Three creative periods
  • " For convenience, Deryck Cooke and other analysts have divided …" Does the "for convenience" make Cooke's division sound faintly spurious? Could it just be omitted?
  • "various song collections in which the Des Knaben Wunderhorn songs predominate." "the Des" – As above.
  • "the Rückert and Kindertotenlieder songs" I see the logic of the phrasing, but "..lieder songs…" broke the flow of my reading. I think it would read more smoothly if you had it as "the Rückert songs and Kindertotenlieder"
  • "while the songs have lost most of their folksiness" Is "folksiness" a quote? A touch slangy for a featured article if not, perhaps. Though I can't say any alternative leaps to mind.

• Antecedents and influences
  • "From Beethoven, Liszt and (from a different musical tradition) Hector Berlioz" Berlioz gets his forename mentioned when the others don't? (In passing, didn't Berlioz consider himself in the Beethoven tradition, or am I having delusions again?)
    • Berlioz ws indeed a great disciple of Beethoven, but he wasn't part of the "Austro-German" tradition to which the others mentioned here belonged. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Genre
  • "Except for his juvenilia, little of which has survived." Going into pedant-overdrive, this is plural and ought to be "…few of which have survived."
  • "Das Lied von der Erde, is a symphony in all but name—Mitchell categorises it as a "song and symphony", rejecting the "song-symphony" label which he describes as "pernicious and misleading". Mitchell no doubt knew what he meant by this, but I'm blest if I do.
    • I don't know why Mitchell got so heated about the implications of the name "song-symphony" (which La Grange and othera are happy to use), so I've dropped his comment. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Style
  • "Mahler believed that music should be all-embracing, hence his 1907 remark to Sibelius: "The symphony must be like the world. It must embrace everything."" This is a splendid quote, the impact of which is rather spoilt here by the repetition of "embracing … embrace". Might you abandon the first part of the sentence and have something like, "Mahler remarked in 1907 to Sibelius: "The symphony must be like the world. It must embrace everything.""
  • "Mahler's "amazing orchestration" which, the writer claims…" "Claims" always troubles me. The old purist view is that it means to assert one's rights or title etc (as in your footnote 4) and is not merely a synonym of "allege". I don't insist on this, but when used as the latter it also strikes some ears (including mine) as hinting at insincerity. Perhaps something like "…which, to Cooke, …"

• Early responses, 1889–1911
  • "Mahler's unconventional percussion effects–a wooden mallet…" I believe the WP standard for such dashes is either an em-dash without spaces or an en-dash with spaces each side.

• Relative neglect, 1911–50: (Point taken, but the "relative" weakens the title a bit. "Neglect" would not be overstating it, possibly.)
  • I think the heading has to stay, since several sources make the point that Mahler was never wholly neglected, only relative to the later popularity that came his way. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Stokowski had given American premieres to the Eighth Symphony" "Premieres to" reads oddly. Perhaps "the American premieres of" would be preferable?

• Notes
  • 5. "Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra which was comprised" "Was" needs to go. (I see this note answers the question I asked above about the Hofoper orch -v- VPO. Apologies.)
  • 9. "…at its Munich premiere, there were less than 1000 performers" This should be "fewer than".

Here endeth the epistle of Timothy. I'm sorry the comments are all on such tiny points, but they are all I can find. The article is such good stuff – well proportioned, widely-sourced, comprehensively referenced, and easy to read. – Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you indeed for all these points. I will try to get down to them later this evening, there being nothing on telly. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, I have worked through your list. If I have not commented you can take it that I have adopted your suggestions (or as near as makes no difference). Thanks again for your help. Don't hesitate to say if you think I have missed anything. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • All my suggestions are fully addressed, and I can only add my congratulations on a cracker of an article. I look forward with confidence to seeing it on the front page. - Tim riley (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Jonyungk comments

Lead

• Gustav Mahler (7 July 1860 – 18 May 1911) was an Austrian late-Romantic composer and also one of the leading conductors of his generation. "Also" seems a little redundant.

• While in his lifetime his status as a conductor was established beyond question, his own music only gained wide popularity in the latter part of the 20th century. Should "only" come before "in" instead of "gained" since it is referring to when Mahler's music became popular?

• I agree with tim riley about "relatively humble"—the sentence would be stronger without "relatively".

• Nevertheless, his innovative productions and insistence on the highest performance standards ensured his reputation as one of the greatest of opera-conductors ... You don't really need the hyphen in "opera-conductors".

• Mahler's compositional output is relatively small—for much of his life composing was a part-time activity, secondary to conducting—and is confined to the genres of symphony and song. There may be no way out of this, but even though you may not mean it this way, having "compositional" and "composing" in the same sentence feels redundant.
  • The sentence now begins: "Mahler's own music output..." Better? Worse? No change? Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Definitely better. Jonyungk (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Family background

• In the following year Marie gave birth to the first of the couple's 14 children, a son Isidor, who died in infancy. Should there be a comma after "son" (you have one between "son" and "Gustav" in the following sentence)?

Childhood

• Despite having a reputation as a bully and wife-beater,[2][5] Bernhard Mahler was supportive of his son's ambitions for a music career ... I disagree with tim riley about this sentence—it's possible to be a bully without being a wife-beater, so having both in the same sentence does not seem redundant to me.

Student days

• Overall this section has improved considerably since the last time I saw it.

• As a student, Wolf was unable to submit to the strict disciplines of the Conservatory and was expelled, while Mahler, sometimes rebellious, only avoided the same fate by writing a penitent letter to Hellmesberger.[11] I agree with tim riley that "only" should be moved to precede "by", not "avoided".

First appointments

• Despite poor relations with the orchestra, Mahler brought five new operas to the theatre, including Bizet's Carmen, and won over the press who had initially been hostile to him.[20] Should "who" actually be "that" or "which"? Also, "initially" still seems redundant, but this might be just me.

• In January 1984 the distinguished conductor Hans von Bülow gave two concerts in Kassel. Hoping to escape from his job in the theatre, Mahler unsuccessfully sought a post as Bülow's assistant. Did Mahler seek to be Bülow's assistant in Kassel or in the town where Bülow normally appeared? Bülow was in Kassel for only a short time, so applying for a job as his assistant there does not make sense. Clarifying this point would help.
  • This point has clearly troubled you, since you raised it earlier on the talkpage. I have now made it clear that Bulow visited Kassel to give two concerts, and that Mahler sought to escape from Kassel by applying to be Bulow's permanent assistant. I don't think I can make it clearer than that. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Didn't see that you had mentioned Mahler applied to be Bulow's Permanent assistant. Maybe mentioning the location of Bulow's permanent position would be helpful—wouldn't take more than a couple of words. Jonyungk (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I have clarified that Bulw Brought the Meiningen Court Orchestra to Kassel. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Prague and Leipzig

• In April 1886 Mahler left Prague to take up his post at the Neues Stadttheater in Leipzig, where rivalry with his senior colleague Arthur Nikisch began at once, primarily over who should conduct the theatre's new production of Wagner's Ring cycle. This sentence might read better broken into two.

• However, this did not make him popular with the orchestra who resented his dictatorial manner, although Mahler had the support of the theatre's manager, Max Staegemann.[24] You don't really need "however" here.

• At around this time Mahler discovered the German folk-poem collection Des Knaben Wunderhorn, which would dominate much of his compositional output during the following twelve years.[24][n 2] Are you going to spell out two-digit numbers or write them out?
  • Generally I write out numbers up to and including ten, and use numerals for the rest. I hope that inconsistencies in this respect are now cleared up. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Apprentice composer

• In the years of Mahler's early conducting work, composing was a spare time activity. Should "spare time" be hyphenated?
  • Not usual in British English. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Royal Opera, Budapest

• In the opera house the conservative faction had until recently been dominant, led by the music director Sandor Erkel who had maintained a limited repertory of historical and folklore opera. There may not be a way around this situation, but this sentence reads a little lumpy.

Hamburg stadttheater

• Bülow, who had snubbed Mahler in Kassel, had come to admire the younger man's conducting style, and on Bülow's death in 1894 Mahler took over the direction of the concerts.[34] Nothing wrong with this sentence per se, but the fact that Bülow snubbed him was not stated earlier, so it comes as a surprise here. I had assumed on reading the earlier passage that Bülow had simply not hired him as an assistant.
  • I've altered "snubbed" to "spurned". There is a story behind this, which I included in an earlier draft but then withdrew on the grounds of saving space. Basically, Bulow didn't reply to Mahler's request but forwarded his letter of application to Treiber at the theatre - unkind, to say the least. But Mahler seems to have forgiven him.Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Might be worth a brief mention for clarification's sake. Jonyungk (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
      • A "brief mention" would essentially mean telling the whole story. I think, honestly, that enough words have been spent on the brief Bulow-Mahler relationship which was not the most significant of Mahler's life. I'd rather leave it as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• However, Mahler refused further similar invitations as he was anxious to reserve his summers for composing.[34] "Further similar" feels redundant—one or the other would probably do.

• Mahler conducted a revised version of his First Symphony; still in its original five-movement form, it was presented as a Tondichtung (tone poem) under the descriptive name "Titan".[41][44] When I read this, I wonder, "Why Titan?" Would it be worth mentioning that the title came from the Jean Paul work of the same name, which might have influenced Mahler during the composition of the First Symphony? Not an urgent necessity, especially as you probably don't want to add much at this stage. Just a thought.
  • The assumption that Mahler was influenced by Jean Paul's novel is questioned by Mitchell, who quotes Natalie Bauer-Lechner's view that "all that [Mahler] had in mind was a powerfully heroic individual", and that there was no specific connection to Jean Paul's hero. Mitchell then conducts a debate on the issue, quoting other opinions and concluding that "the truth probably rests somewhere in the middle". All this is in Mitchell's Vol II, pp. 225-27, but I think is material for the Symphony No. 1 article rather than this one. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• He resolved the problem of the bar that existed against the appointment of a Jew to this post by a pragmatic conversion to Roman Catholicism in February 1897.[48] The first part of this sentence reads a little lumpy—are both "the problem" and "the bar" necessary here?

Hotoper director

• As he waited for the Emperor's confirmation of his directorship, Mahler shared duties as a resident conductor with Joseph Hellmesberger Jr (son of the former Conservatory director) and with Hans Richter, an internationally renowned interpreter of Wagner. You don't need the "with" immediately before "Hans Richter".

• In ten years, Mahler had brought new life to the opera house and cleared its debts,[66] but had won few friends—it was said that he treated his musicians in the way a lion tamer treated his animals.[67] Again, are you writing out two-digit numbers or using numbers?

Philharmonic concerts

• In fact, attendances rose sharply in Mahler's first season, but members of the orchestra were particularly resentful of his habit of re-scoring acknowledged masterpieces,[52] and of his scheduling of extra rehearsals for works with which they were thoroughly familiar. You've rejuggled this sentence since the last time I read it, and it reads better now. Should the footnote go at the end of the sentence, or is there another footnote coming to cover the last part of the sentence?

New York

• On 19 September 1908 the premiere of the Seventh Symphony was deemed by Alma Mahler a succès d'estime, a critical rather than a popular success.[92] Was this premiere in Vienna? New York?
  • Prague, actually. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Might be good to mention. Jonyungk (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Illness and death

• Alma, on doctors orders, was absent, but among the mourners at a relatively pomp-free funeral were Arnold Schoenberg (whose wreath described Mahler as "the holy Gustav Mahler"), Bruno Walter, the stage designer Alfred Roller ... Why reintroduce Roller at this point? We alread know who he is.

Relative neglect, 1911-1950

• However, much American critical reaction in the 1920s was negative, despite a spirited effort by the young composer Aaron Copland to present Mahler as a progressive, thirty years ahead ... Should this read "thirty" or "30"?

• I'm surprised there is no mention of Adrian Boult's efforts to perform Mahler's works during this time, including a 1947 recording of the Third Symphony.
  • I need to think about this. The temptation is to include more details of premieres, particularly those in the UK (the Third wasn't publicly performed here until 1961!) but I am conscious of the article's length, and will have to find a very economical form of wording if this is to be included. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • If I may stick an oar in at this point, I'd be delighted to see Boult's pioneering work cited, if it were not that I think you should be cautious about citing more UK examples for fear of biasing the article to the British viewpoint overmuch. (Apologies for barging in here.) - Tim riley (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, this is a factor. If I put in details of the Brit premiere, why not the US premiere, or others? Maybe the individual Third Symphony article is the place for such information. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim riley had already addressed the rest of my concerns with the music section. Ovreall, this article reads extremely well. Excellent work! Jonyungk (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments, all addressed. You can assume that where I have not commented I have adopted your suggestion or something very much like it. Your continued interest in the article is much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the kind words. Jonyungk (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

• I am reading this and checking the German as requested. I agree that it makes sense to translate the names of Mahler's works from German to English, but not the rest (since the article is about Mahler).
• This is a bit awkward as written The pedlar's son Bernhard Mahler, the composer's father, elevated himself to the ranks of the petite bourgeoisie as a coachman and later an innkeeper.[3] would something like The composer's father Bernhard Mahler, who was a pedlar's son, elevated himself to the ranks of the petite bourgeoisie as a coachman and later an innkeeper.[3] flow better?
  • We have already mentioned that Mahler's grandmother was a street pedlar, so your suggestion doesn't really work. I have slightly tweaked the sentence in the hope of getting a better flow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• I checked and Das klagende Lied is translated here as "The Song of Lament", but in the article on it the translation is "The Song of Lamentation", which also works. The two articles should probably be consistent in their translation of the title.
  • OK, I'll go with "Lamentation" to be consistent (they mean the same thing!) Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• After a week's trial at the Royal Theatre in the Prussian town of Kassel, Mahler became the theatre's "Musical and Choral Director" from August 1883.[19] I would say Kassel is a Hessian town much more than a Prussian one, even if it was politically part of Prussia at the time as part of Hesse-Nassau. Perhaps in the Hessian town of Kassel, then part of Prussia, Mahler became... or in the town of Kassel in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, Mahler became... or am I just too picky?
  • I've altered it to "Hessian town", which I think is enough. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Would it make sense to link to the proper emperor in As he waited for the Emperor's confirmation of his directorship, Mahler shared duties as a resident conductor ...?
  • Linked to Franz Joseph article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• If the works of others are not translated, this is not consistent He made his initial mark in May 1897 with much-praised performances of Wagner's Lohengrin and Mozart's Die Zauberflöte ("The Magic Flute").[53]
• Same possible issue with The collaboration between Mahler and Roller created more than 20 new and celebrated productions of, among other operas, Beethoven's Fidelio, Gluck's Iphigénie en Aulide and Mozart's Le nozze di Figaro ("The Marriage of Figaro").[58][62]
  • I have dealt with these. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Rachitic is not a word I knew - should it be linked in Burckhard called Mahler "that rachitic degenerate Jew", unworthy for such a good-looking girl of good family.[84]?
• Needs a translation (The Song of the Earth) Here, using a text by Hans Bethge based on ancient Chinese poems, he composed Das Lied von der Erde.[89]
• Translation needed (The Heavenly Life) Themes from the Wunderhorn song "Das himmlische Leben", composed in 1892, became a key element in the Third Symphony completed in 1896;...
• Ditto with "Des Antonius von Padua Fischpredigt" (The Sermon of Anthony of Padua to the Fish) or "Anthony of Paudua's Sermon to the Fish"
• Urlicht is "Primal Light" in Another Wunderhorn setting from 1892, "Urlicht", is ...
  • All above translations added. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• I would wikilink Ländler in ...and frequent recourse to popular music and dance forms such as the ländler and the waltz.[123]
  • Linked. I believe that where the word is used within an English sentence, no capital is required. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Another translation: Erinnerung is usally translated as Memory (could also be Recall - the movie Total Recall was "Die Totale Erinnerung") in Mahler first employed the device in an early song, "Erinnerung" (c.1880), and thereafter used it freely in his symphonies.
  • Picked this up, and I think (per below) that "Deaths" is the preferred form. Cooke uses it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's it. I made some copyedits as I went along, mostly typos, but in a few places I made translations consistent with those in the articles. I am not 100% sure if Kindertotenlieder should be "Songs on the Death of Children" or "Songs on the Deaths of Children" - I followed the article (Death) but it might be better to ask a native speaker of German. Very nicely done, let me know if you have other questions or need more comments, and when this is at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the German, and for the other suggestions all largely implemented. The article is going to stay at Peer Review for a while longer in the hope of a few more comments and suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help - I just copied the link to Ländler, hence the capital. On second thought I would be OK with the English names of the Mozart operas since they are generally known by those names, but it is your call. It reads really well, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Masako Katsura

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Looking for help to get this to FA level. In the pool and billiards area there is a pervasive issue with finding sufficient sources from which an FA could be written. I've written seven other GAs in the topic area but this is the first article where I found at least a decent number of sources such that I could put together an article that has a comprehensive feel (I hope). Here too I wish there were more in depth discussion of the subject but at least I wasn't struggling, as I often do, with major aspects that everyone would expect in an article on a biography, having no coverage at all in sources. I'm afraid there is little further information to be added—to the best of my ability sources have been scoured and just about every tidbit I found has been included. Please help with the prose and anything else you see. Any suggestions for further information... well I'll do my best. Thanks in advance for taking the time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a fascinating article, well-done and fun to read. I have quibbles about hyphens and other fairly small prose and style issues, but the content seems excellent. It might be that in a place or two (indicated in my comments below) that the jargon could be make a trifle more clear to readers (like me) unfamiliar with the complications of carom billiards. Because my Internet connection is extremely slow today for unknown reasons, I elected to write down most of my suggestions here rather than trying to change the article directly, even for small things. Here they are:

Lead

• "Katsura trailblazed a path for women in the sport by competing and placing amongst the best" - among" is preferred to "amongst"

• Done.

• "where she was invited and played in the 1952 U.S. sponsored World Three Cushion Championship, ultimately taking seventh place" - "U.S.-sponsored" with a hyphen? Also "Three-Cushion" with a hyphen?

• Fixed globally.

• "she again competed for the world three cushion crown" - "three-cushion crown"?

• Done.

• "After 1954, Katsura took a 5 year hiatus from the sport" - "five-year"?

• Done.

• "That year she made two television appearance" - "appearances"?

• Done.

• "one on CBS' primetime television hit" - "one on the CBS primetime television hit"?

• I don't see the problem with the construction, but I also don't see a problem with the change so I added it.

Early years

• "multiple time Japan national three cushion champion" - Too many modifiers. Suggestion: "who had won the Japanese national three-cushion championship multiple times". Then perhaps create a separate sentence out of the rest of this one.

• Changed with a minor modification to the suggestion.

• "who had four second place finishes in world competition" - "second-place finishes"?

• Done.

Marriage and titles in Japan

• "Greenleaf began taking lessons from Ms. Katsura" - Delete "Ms." per Manual of Style.

• You fixed this:-)

• "Katsura already boasted two second place finishes" - "second-place finishes"?

• Done.

• "Katsura repeated the year of her marriage" - Impossible. Perhaps "Katsura almost won again during the year of her marriage... ".

• Changed to something else.

• "over an approximate four and one-half hour period" - "over about 4.5&nbsp hours"?

• Done, but used "4½"; we don't normally say "four point five hours", so to use it in that fashion has a jarring effect, where the reader would translate the text to the normal usage in their mind before continuing.

• "In later year she said that her high run in three-cushion billiards was 19." - "years"? Also, a nonplayer will not know what this means or what it has to do with 10,000 points at straight rail. Are they connected? Does the 19 mean 19 wins in a row?

• Fixed the typo. You're right that I need to put in some explanatory material for the uninitiated, and not just here. I will need to mull how to do this in a flowing manner. To answer your questions, they are connected in that they are both high runs but in two different games. The high run for many years was 25, then 32 and I think 36 most recently by Semih Sayginer—that's points in a row (in one inning), while a few players have posted 10,000 point runs at straight rail, which is also points in a row (in one inning). Straight rail and three-cushion are very different carom disciplines.

• Update: I have worked hard on three explanatory footnotes: one for carom games in general, and one for each of three-cushion and straight rail, to provide context to the whole article, which requires at least a little understanding of the games involved.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Emigration to the U.S.

• "Cochran's sent his Japan-stationed naval officer son, W. R. (Dick) Cochran Jr., to investigate and received back a glowing report... " - "Cochran" rather than "Cochran's". Also, too many modifiers before the son's name. Perhaps "sent his son, W. R. (Dick) Cochran, a naval officer stationed in Japan, to investigate..."?

• Done.

• "After Masako arrived in the U.S." - Last name, Katsura, rather than Masako.

• Done. I could have sworn I got rid of all those months ago.

• "As a warm up for the competition" - "warm-up"?

• Done.

First Woman to compete for a world title

• Lowercase "woman".

• You fixed this)

• "Katsura's participation in the 1952 World Three-Cushion Billiards title was a first for any woman; not just as to that competition, but the first time a woman had competed for any world billiard title." - Awkward. Suggestion: "Katsura's participation in the 1952 World Three-Cushion Billiards title marked the first time that a woman had competed for any world billiard title."

• Done.

• "This was only ten years after Ruth McGinness became the first women to have ever been invited" - "woman"?

• Done.

• "in the championship in the race to 50 points format" - It won't be clear to non-players what "50 points format" refers to. Can you add something to clarify this?

• Yes. I will do something global to clarify what the games are and give context to the point amounts. I'm telling people she ran 10,000 points at straight rail, but her high run at three-cushion is 19, and without understanding a bit about the games, not only are these numbers meaningless, but may appear contradictory.

• See update note above.

• "Life magazine reported that... " - Life takes italics.

• Done and linked to article.

Tournament roster

• "Jay Bozeman, of Vallejo" - No comma.

• Done.

• "over the 17 day tournament" - 17-day?

• Done.

Exhibition tours

• "The duo previewed their tour with a three day engagement at the... " - Three-day?

• Done.

• "The 30-day tour was of the northeast U.S., including Chicago, Boston and other locations." - Slightly smoother might be "The 30-day tour of the northeastern U.S. included Chicago, Boston and other locations."

• Done.

1953 World Three Cushion tournament

• Three-Cushion?
• "the 1953 world three cushion crown" - Ditto.

• Done

Exhibitions and death of Matsuyama

• "He was said to have taught all of Japan's top players, with Katsura being his star pupil" - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "He was said to have taught all of Japan's top players, among which Katsura was the star."

• Done.

1954 World Three Cushion tournament

• Three-Cushion?
  • Done.

TV spots

• "On March 1, 1959 Katsura appeared... " - Comma needed after 1959.

• Done.

• "After signing in using Japanese characters on a chalk board, Katsura's occupation was listed for the audience as "Professional Billiard Player (World's Women's Champion)". - Misplaced modifier. Suggestion: "After she signed in using Japanese characters on a chalk board, show officials listed Katsura's occupation for the audience as "Professional Billiard Player (World's Women's Champion)".

• Done.

• "She appeared again on You asked For It" - Big A on "Asked".

• Done.

• "a November 25, 1960 broadcast" - Comma after 1960.

• I don't think the comma is proper in this particular usage.

1961 title match with Worst

• "The year prior Worst had issued a similar title-defending challenge to Joe Chamaco of Mexico... " - "before" rather than "prior"?

• Changed to "The preceding year..."

• "Worst even took legal action to block an Argentinian three-cushion tournament billed as being for the "world title," that was to take place during an overlapping period of time as his scheduled match with Katsura." - Awkward. Suggestion: "Worst even took legal action to block an Argentinian three-cushion tournament, billed as a "world title" event, that was scheduled to overlap his match with Katsura."

• Done, with a slight modification.

• "Menwhile, Joe Chamaco, competing in Argentina" - Meanwhile rather than menwhile.

• Done.

1961 – present

• Since "present" is not specific, this would be better as "After 1961".

• Done.

• "Robert Byrne wrote that after Katsura finished that 100 point run" - 100-point?

• Done.

Other

• Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment don't take a terminal period. I fixed the last one, but two others need fixing.

• Done.

• You might have a tough time defending the use of three non-free images in one article.

• Sigh. Yeah I know. They all feel necessary though.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks most kindly for the review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

---

2010 Claxton Shield

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… The season has finished so there shouldn't be any large content-based changes to the article any more. (Unless I've done something fairly wrong with it.) I'm looking to get this to good article status, but I'll see what happens from here. Thanks,  Afaber012  (talk)  06:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, and the topic is interesting. However, I think it would be helpful to add a brief history of the competition and an explanation of the name, Claxton Shield, for foreign readers and readers unfamiliar with baseball. Here are some other suggestions.

• I'm not sure about that one: the lead links to the Claxton Shield article which has that info. Also, assuming a summary should be added to this article, logically it should be added to the other 60 or so articles about individual Claxton Shield seasons: that sort of duplication doesn't sound right. But if you insist, I can put something in.  Afaber012  (talk) 

• I find the explanation of the rounds and byes puzzling; I just don't see how this works. If each team plays ten regular-season rounds of three games each, that would be 30 games in total, but each team played just 24 games. That suggests two byes per season per team if the regular season consists of ten rounds. Is there a way to make this more clear? Or, as I suspect, do most teams play just eight rounds; one semi-finalist plays nine rounds, and the two finalists play ten rounds? Would it help to make things more clear by speaking of eight regular-season rounds followed by a two-round tournament?

•  Fixed I thought it was clear, but given what you thought it was, apparently I explained it pretty poorly. I've changed the explanation there, so hopefully it's much clearer now. You might need to re-check it though to make sure.  Afaber012  (talk)  05:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• The "Overview" section lacks sources as does the "Rosters" subsection. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph as well as sources for direct quotes, sets of statistics, and any claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged.

•  Done I've added refs to both of those sections.  Afaber012  (talk) 

Overview

• It varied from the 2009 Claxton Shield by eliminating the showcase round and making each of the ten rounds a three-game series with one team taking a bye." - I don't think this statement will make sense to non-sports fans. Would it be helpful to briefly explain what is meant by "showcase round"? Should bye be linked? Would it be helpful to explain why a bye was needed? In what round(s) was a bye needed? A bye was clearly needed in first round of the tournament, but perhaps that is not what you are referring to here.
• "In total, it allowed for 24 regular season games per team before playing a championship series similar to the 2009 edition." - A top-to-bottom copyedit would probably catch and fix constructions like this one. "Playing" seems to modify "it" in this sentence, but "it" didn't play any games. Better would be something like "In total, it allowed for 24 regular-season games per team before the championship series, which resembled the 2009 edition."
• "Games were played on a Friday night and a doubleheader on Saturday with the evening game being shortened to seven innings." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. A copyeditor might revise this to say, "Teams played single games on Friday nights and afternoon-evening doubleheaders on Saturdays; evening games were shortened to seven innings from the usual nine."

•  Fixed I removed the reference to the showcase round, and as mentioned above redid the explanation of the season's structure. The specific things you pointed out are gone, but I might've introduced something new that needs to be fixed.  Afaber012  (talk) 

References

• I would remove the ad, "Proudly sponsored by Dominos Pizza", from citation 3.

•  Done  Afaber012  (talk) 

• Wikipedia uses title case even when sources use all caps, as in citations 9, 10, and 11. "NEW SOUTH WALES vs VICTORIA", for example, should be "New South Wales vs Victoria".

•  Done  Afaber012  (talk) 

Other

• The alt text tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page shows that the images need alt text, probably just the "decorative image" adjustment mentioned in the tool explanation. WP:ALT has a more full explanation.

•  Done I've added the "|link=" to all the images: with the exception of the Australian map it's been done through the template that's used to display it.  Afaber012  (talk) 

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. As you can see, there's one or two things that I've done that I'd love for you to check.  Afaber012  (talk)  05:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Event-driven SOA

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the topic is complete and free from common errors. It clearly and concisely quantifies the subject matter and presents a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge.

Thanks, Lancelotlinc (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll perform a review of the article though I am not familiar with the subject matter. As such I can't comment on the content but I can discuss compliance with WP's Manual of Style. I'll make some minor edits with some thoughts for improvement in the edit summary as well.

Lead

• See WP:LEAD for information on what is required in a lead. The lead is to be a summary of every point brought up in the body of the article. It also should not bring up information not discussed in the article. An article of this length usually would have at least two paragraphs in the lead. Consider expanding to encompass a summary of all the points raised in the article.

SOA 2.0

• The first section is seven paragraphs of no more than three sentences each. Consider combining the paragraphs if the subject matter is coherent.
• I like your explanation of terms that may be unfamiliar to some readers. In a technical article such as this it is important to not stray into jargon but to keep the language as simple as possible.
• There is only one in-line citation in the entire section. That will need to be expanded. See below for thoughts on citations.
• The first paragraph in the "Prototypical SOA 2.0 Paradigm" sub-section is one run-on sentence. This is grammatically incorrect and should be broken up into a sentence for each point.
• Short paragraphs of one or two sentences are discouraged. Try to combine or expand them.
• Watch abbreviations, I note "SQL" but I don't see it spelled out anywhere. You want to spell it out like you did with "Causality Vector Engine (CVE)". Then simply use the abbreviation going forward. ESB is another example, even though it's linked you want to spell it out as well.
• You talk about mediation flows in the "Data enrichment" section but then you define what a mediation flow is in the next sub-section entitled "Mediation flows". Consider adding the definition to the Data enrichment section, it seems a bit odd to have references to mediation flows before it is defined.

SOA 2.0 conceptual examples

• The structure of the article is confusing to me. As I see it the first section is explaning the architecture while the second section gives examples. Having an entire section dedicated to examples seems like overkill. Could the examples be folded into the section explaining SOA 2.0? Could the SOA 2.0 section be broken into a couple of sections? I'm not familiar enough with the material to suggest natural breaking points unfortunately. By the way I really appreciate the examples as it brings the information into a real world experience.
• In that vein a one-sentence sub-section is too short ("Engineering Defect").

Overarching thoughts

• See WP:CITE. This page will give you a format for how to consistently reference material. You should use a {{cite web}} template. Check out the section about how to present citations. Each website reference should have the title of the page, the publisher, the url and the accessdate.
• Ref # 2 appears to be a dead link, please check out and if so please repair.
• As previously stated the SOA 2.0 section needs more referencing.
• The strong part of your writing is your ability to convey the complex while incorporating examples for lay people. Please keep that up. I've ready numerous programming articles that just mire the reader in a pit of jargon and programmese. This article is a refreshing change.
• I think some critical examination of the article structure is in order. Look at combining sub-sections, moving the examples into the explanation section and perhaps breaking the explanation section into two or even three major sections.
• I can't speak to the comprehensiveness of the content sorry.
• Is there an image that could be added to the article?

That does it for my review. I don't typically watch review pages so if you have a questions feel free to contact me on my talk page and I'll happily come over and take a look. Happy editing and thank you for your contributions! H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Sherman Minton

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The article just failed to pass an FAC review. I think it is pretty good overall, but would appreciate any feedback, especially in the judicial sections as I am not a lawyer, I fear I may be missing an obvious point there. Of course any advice is very welcome.

Thanks, —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to watchlist this as I never got the chance to give it a second run through at FAC, but I'd like to see someone else weigh in first. If this closes and I haven't commented, please drop me a note on my talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: So far this reads very well in my opinion, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

• Does one really get in trouble with a whole neighborhood? As Minton grew older, he continued getting into trouble with [people in?] the neighborhood.
• Would it help add context for the reader by adding years and/or ages, for example in He received his basic education at a two-room schoolhouse in Georgetown, which he attended through eighth grade.[7][8] and perhaps add his age here Minton first attended the Edwardsville High School in 1905,...
• Link American football in There he played on the football, baseball and track teams.
• I assume the Jackson Club was for Democratic party members? Could this be made clearer in Despite the workload, he joined the school's baseball team and debate team, and participated in the Jackson Club and Phi Delta Theta.
• graduate school? Surely he completed his undergraduate degree? He completed graduate school at the top of his class in 1913 and moved on to Benjamin Harrison School of Law...
• Awkward - missing word (officers training course?) or extra word (He too officers training) He took an officers training at Fort Benjamin Harrison in hope of earning a commission, but was not among those awarded.
• I would clarify that Miami is in Florida in After the loss, he briefly joined the law firm of Stonsenburg and Weathers, two politically active lawyers, before moving to Miami where he joined another firm.
• Missing word? Minton delivered a six [minute?] radio addresses on behalf of his party in support of the bill, but public opinion could not be swayed in the Democrats' favor.[68]
• This is a personal thing (growing is not transitive, IMO) - could He advocated and supported growing the American military and believed that American entry into the war was inevitable... be something like He advocated and supported increasing the size of the American military...?
• Awkward Minton personally stated on several times his preference to affirm to the lower courts. either remove "on" or change "times" to "occasions"?
• Missing word? Minton abhorred racial segregation and provided a solid vote to strike down the school segregation practices at issue in 1954's Brown v. Board of Education[, which?] was among the few decisions in which he sided against the government.[129][136][137]
• Needs work, not sure how to fix it myself Minton did not particularly enjoy his judicial role on the Supreme Court in the later years as he found himself more frequently in the minority following the deaths of Justices Frank Murphy and Wiley B. Rutledge and their replacement by Eisenhower appointees.[154][155] Probably needs to be split into two sentences
• Don't need to say court twice here Minton played an important role behind the scenes of the court as a peacemaker between the two opposing factions on the court.[160]
• Try tweaking this too: During his time as an associate justice, there was considerable personal animosity between the two wings of the court that at times escalated to where members refused to speak to each other for periods of time. perhaps to something like During his time as an associate justice, there was considerable personal animosity between the two wings of the court; at times this escalated to the point where members refused to speak to each other.
• I would mention the federal office building in the lead too (not just the bridge)
• Is the photo of the statue really a free image? Isn't the statue a copyrighted work of art? I think it would be OK as a fair use image.
• I would briefly identify Linda Gugin - is she a law professor? A historian? A judge?

Hope this helps - please let me know when this is at FAC again. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

PS I reread the article now and think I might split the third paragraph and add to the new fourth paragraph. I think perhaps the fourth paragraph could be legacy and include the bridge, building, even the statehouse statue. I would also include something of the opinions scholars have about him - how he was oddly very liberal as a senator, yet very conservative as a justice. I think it would also be worth including that historians of the supreme court rank him very low in terms of his tenure there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

PPS I am not an expert on law. The discussion of the various cases read OK for the most part to me, but I am no expert (I think I recall what Marbury v. Madison and the Dred Scott cases were about, but they were both well before his time). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I appreciate your feedback! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Corrie ten Boom

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is devoid of any citations and seems to be full of bias.

Thanks, Mabibliophile (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: These are not good reasons for requesting a peer review. If you have issues with the article, you should try and resolve these on the talkpage with the editors concerned. I appreciate that this is difficult when the main contributors are anonymous IPs, but you should at least state your case there, giving examples of the bias you allege. Conflict resolution is not the purpose of peer review, and articles with cleanup banners are not normally considered ready for review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Code of Vengeance

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like this to be certified as a Good Article and eventually, with your help and guidance, perhaps someday as a Featured Article.

Thanks, Dravecky (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I used to sometimes watch Knight-Rider, but do not recall the backdoor pilot. Generally well done and interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I think by WP:LEAD, the alternate titles in the lead should also be in bold: Abbreviations and synonyms: If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance. So I think I would bold (and italicize) "Dalton", "Dalton: Code of Vengeance II" and "Dalton's Code of Vengeance".

• Done. - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• The first time I read this I was a little confused by the lead as I kept thinking it would be a regular series, not the complex set of pilots and movies and brief series it was. I do not write television articles, so this might be against the guidelines, but I wonder if the first lead sentence would be clearer if it mentioned the two movies and the series, so perhaps something like Code of Vengeance is two American television movies and a short-lived television series produced by Universal Television that aired on NBC in 1985 and 1986. (not great, but you get the idea)

• Reworded. - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any information on the reception of the Knight Rider episode? Reviews? Ratings? I realize this may be difficult to find.

• There is some information and I'll dig for ratings data but what little I found as reception is Knight Rider fans complaining but that's probably worth a sentence or so ("The episode was poorly received by Knight Rider fans who noted the limited roles of both KITT and Michael Knight."). - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would wikilink CBS at first mention

• Done. - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Problem sentence Code of Vengeance, a second pilot starring Charles Taylor, was commissioned for the 1985 pilot season which reimagined David Dalton as a flashback-prone Vietnam veteran who drifts across the country, encountering people in trouble, and helping them to find justice with his unique fighting skills.[3] Is it possible to say who commissioned the second pilot? NBC? Second, this sentence is fairly long and might benfit from being split, and tweaked. Many at FAC do not like verb + ing constructions, so perhaps something like NBC commissioned Code of Vengeance, a second pilot starring Charles Taylor, for the 1985 pilot season. The new pilot reimagined David Dalton as a flashback-prone Vietnam veteran who drifts across the country, encounters people in trouble, and helps them to find justice with his unique fighting skills.[3]

• Reworded. - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any other way to list the other cast members? This whole with X as "Lawman 1", Y as "Good Girl 2", Z as "Bunky the Sidekick"... construction gets a little tedious when repeated in each movie / episode. Are the roles imnportant enough to be repeated here?
• Or could the names of some of the actors be incoproated into the plot summaries? Something like Dalton arrives in New Orleans and finds himself the only hope for a produce wholesaler (X)being pressured to sell his property by a powerful real estate developer (Y).[37][38] Other prominaent roles were played by Z and Q.

• Certainly a few of these can be better integrated into the plot summaries (and I've done that) but given the briefness of the cast lists and the tiny number of episodes I believe I'll leave the remaining names for the moment. It's certainly something I'll consider going forward. - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Should the reader be told there has been a murder first? Dalton investigates then sets out to avenge the brother's murder.[6][7] perhaps something like Dalton investigates and discoveres the the brother has been murdered, which then sets out to avenge.[6][7] would read better?

• Fixed. - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sly nod might not be seen as NPOV in In a sly nod to the show's origins, Keenan Wynn's character is shown watching a Knight Rider episode,... - if it is in the source, it could be used as a quote and be OK (In what SOURCE called "a sly nod to the show's origins", Keenan Wynn's character is shown watching a Knight Rider episode,..)

• Removed the "sly" which while sourced is more trouble to quote and reference than to simply remove. - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Can you say where the novel was released? Of the five official Knight Rider tie-in novels, The 24-Carat Assassin was one of two never released in the United States.[43]

• Oops. Fixed. - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - my rule of thumb is generally to link something once in the lead and once in the body of the article, but backdoor pilot is linked 3 times

• Fixed. - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Refs look OK and images have decent fair-use rationales. I think this is pretty close to GA, but would need a copyedit before a run at FAC.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! I appreciate your interest, your comments, and your enthusiasm. - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Meet the Parents

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've already listed this article at WP:GAN#FILM but it may still take a while for it to be reviewed due to backlog. The thought has crossed my mind to remove it from GAN and to nominate it at FAC to get the article to FA status so that it can be listed on the main page on October 6 this year — the tenth anniversary of the film's original release. I wanted to get some feedback to see how close people think this is to FA quality. If judged to be FA quality or close to it, I would make the final push to make it pass. If judged not quite FA worthy, I'll let it go through the GA process and take it from there.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Steve ^T • C An interesting piece that covers most of what we should be seeing in film articles. I've a few issues/suggestions, starting with the infobox, lead and plot section:

Infobox

• Roach and De Niro are linked twice; once should be enough.
• DreamWorks is listed as a co-distributor, but no mention of the studio is made in the article body, where it's all about Universal.

Lead

• Is there any need to link to male nurse, remake and situation comedy? They're all common English terms; expect your readers to know what they mean. Only link such terms when you feel they might complement this article in some other way.
• "Meet the Parents is a remake of a 1992 film of the same name that was co-written by Greg Glienna and Mary Ruth Clarke and directed by Glienna who also played the main protagonist."—clunky and snaking. Consider splitting, adding a comma (maybe a semi-colon) or all of the above. For example: "Meet the Parents is a remake of a 1992 film of the same name, directed by Greg Glienna. The film was written by Mary Ruth Clarke and Glienna, who also played the lead role." Not perfect, but you get the idea.
• "After Universal Studios purchased the rights to the original film, Jim Herzfeld expanded the short script but development was halted for some time."—could give the impression that the original was a short film, rather than a short-ish feature-length film.
• "There was initial interest in the film by Steven Spielberg, who wanted to direct the film, and by Jim Carrey to play the lead role. The offer to make the film was not extended to Jay Roach until it had become clear that Spielberg and Carrey would not be able to take on the project."—a little repetetive. It can be made more concise and less clunky by combining some of the ideas. Example: "Steven Spielberg initially wanted to direct the film, and Jim Carey was interested in playing the lead role. The studio only approached Roach after Spielberg and Carey left the project." Much shorter, but doesn't lose any of the intended meaning. That makes room for a sentence about Roach's initial (pre-Spielberg) involvement, should you want it.
• "Released on October 6, 2000 ..."—where? Release dates vary throughout the world, so better to be explicit here.
• "earning over $160 million domestically"—to a UK or Australian reader, the word "domestically" could be ambiguous. Admittedly, that's not likely with such a well-known film. Still, more precise to say "in North America" or similar.
• "Released on October 6, 2000 and distributed by Universal Studios and DreamWorks, the film's initial budget ..."—dangling modifier; reads as if "the film's budget" was released and distributed.
• And again, DreamWorks is credited, but this isn't backed up by anything in the body text.
• Commas recommended before "Meet the Fockers" and "In-Laws".
• "titled ... entitled"—some consistency always looks more professional.
• You say the same thing twice: "well received by film critics ... receiving mostly positive reviews".
• Why single out the People's Choice Awards for mention in the lead, especially when no others are mentioned? I recommend adding at least a comment about its receipt of several other awards and nominations.

Plot

• Some overlinking; for example, the actors who are already linked in the lead. And is there any real need to link nurse, schoolteacher, black eye or sewage?
• I recommend expanding MCAT to the full title, so a reader unfamiliar with the concept doesn't have to hover over the link to see what it is.
• Although the section is below the 700-word maximum recommended by mosfilm, it could be shorter. More because of redundancies in the prose than any coverage of irrelevant plot points. For example, you tell us three times in the opening paragraph that Greg is to propose to Pam. That's fine, but you spell it out each time, when the idea is by this point firmly in the reader's mind and only a brief mention of "the proposal" will cover it. Also avoid commenting on a character's state of mind ("hoping to make the best of the situation"), which are interpretive claims rather than descriptive ones (a no-no per WP:PSTS). Current text:

  Gaylord "Greg" Focker (Ben Stiller) is a nurse living in Chicago. He intends to propose to his girlfriend Pam Byrnes (Teri Polo), a schoolteacher. His plans are disrupted by the news that Pam's sister Debbie (Nicole DeHuff) is getting married and Greg and Pam are invited to the wedding at Pam's parents' house on Long Island. Hoping to make the best of the situation, Greg now plans to propose to Pam in front of her family and brings the engagement ring he bought for Pam with him. After arriving in Long Island, Greg learns that the airline company had lost his luggage along with the engagement ring thereby putting on hold his plans to propose to Pam.

  Example alternative:

  Gaylord "Greg" Focker (Stiller) is a nurse living in Chicago. He intends to propose to his girlfriend, Pam Byrnes (Polo), but the plan is disrupted when he and Pam are invited to the wedding of Pam's sister, Debbie (Nicole DeHuff), at their parents' house on Long Island. Greg instead decides to propose before the family, but has to put the plan on hold when the airline company loses his luggage, which contains the engagement ring.

  Again, I'm sure that could be phrased even better, but you get the idea. None of the intended meaning is lost, even though it's 43 words shorter.
• The redundancy problem persists throughout the section. Spot the difference: "Greg desperately tries to impress Jack but his efforts fail one by one." Greg's desperation is implicit; "one by one" is made unnecessary by the plural "efforts". Look for similar opportunities throughout the section. At American Beauty (film)#Plot, I was able to condense my initial 700-word summary to 476 without losing anything important, and even now I can see things I'd reword. Have a look at Tony1's redundancy exercises for further pointers.

That's it for now; more later! All the best, Steve ^T • C 13:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Steve. I've gone ahead and corrected some issues that you mentioned above. Specifically, the infobox, lead and plot sections have been cleansed of WP:OVERLINK instances. I've removed mention of DreamWorks from the lead and the infobox until I can properly source it in the body. Per your suggestion, I also adjusted several sentences in the lead that you suggested might be awkward. The plot section has also been trimmed of excess fat and is now down to about 470 words. Please review those changes and let me know if you think additional fine-tuning is in order.

I sincerely look forward to any further input from you with regards to bringing this article up to FA quality and I'm very grateful that you've taken the time to do this. Since I filed this request, Talk:Meet the Parents/GA1 has been started and the article is being reviewed against GA criteria. While I want to hold off on making any major changes to the article while the GA review in under process, I still do want to get as much input as possible for improvement so please do keep reviewing and posting here. Once the final decision on the GA status is made by the reviewer, I will improve further with help from your observations. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I can see the sense of seeing out the GAN before acting on most of these. I'll just keep dropping in here with further comments now and again. Al the best, Steve ^T • C 21:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so those further comments I mentioned. Themes and the Production subsections (Background, Writing and Casting) follow. I won't focus too much on the prose from now on; to save space, I'll make a more general post at the end about that. Steve ^T • C

Themes

• Nice work on this section; it's expected, necessary even, for films such as American Beauty or Fight Club, but our coverage of lighter fare like this often omits the analysis part.
• Standard question applies: do we need to link male nurse (twice), prayer (twice), pajamas and bagel?
• I'm not 100% convinced that File:Meet the Parents grace.JPG meets policy, specifically NFCC#8, contextual significance. The image, Greg Focker with his hands clasped in prayer, does not give the reader any more understanding of the analysis than a simple description would.
• Any need to repeat the characters' full names throughout the section? "Greg", "Jack" and similar would suffice once they're introduced.
• "Sandy and Harry Summers in the book Saving Lives: Why the Media's Portrayal of Nurses Puts Us All at Risk call postulate that Greg's character ..."

Background

• Is there any particular reason that you've used four references for the simple statement, "Meet the Parents is a remake of a 1992 independent film of the same name"?
• Same question for second and third sentences.
• "Glienna also directed and starred in the 76 minute film which was filmed on 16 mm film in 1991 and released the following year."—"film ... filmed ... film". Any chance of a bit of variation?
• "The 1992 film"—the year is already established in the previous sentence.

Writing

• Same question about the number of cites, really. Two for "Universal approached screenwriter Jim Herzfeld to expand the screenplay"; five for "Universal's reluctance to give the project to Roach was also due to new interest from Steven Spielberg who wanted to direct and produce the film with Jim Carrey playing the role of Greg Focker." Seems like overkill for such uncontroversial statements.
• "Roach admits to have liked the script from the beginning"
• "Universal initially declined to have the relatively inexperienced Roach ..."

Casting

• "Roach cast De Niro in the role of Jack Byrnes due to critical acclaim of De Niro's recent comedy work in films such as Analyze This and in the live-action/animated film The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle."—I thought it odd to say that De Niro received critical acclaim for Bullwinkle (as that wasn't my recollection), so I checked the source. It makes no mention of the former film, and only mentions Bullwinkle in passing (as he was just finishing that up when Universal suggested him). Given that you say later in the section that Universal suggested De Niro, I think the paragraph could stand to lose the sentence entirely (starting at "De Niro's character ...") Oh, and you'll need another caption (alternatively, a cite for the "critical acclaim").
• Per mosdash, interruptions should be indicated by either a spaced en dash – like this – or an unspaced em dash—like this; you have multiple uses of a spaced em dash.
• In the statement, "Roach cast Stiller explaining that Stiller was the best choice for this role because 'nobody plays that kind of material better than Ben'", the implication is that it was Stiller's improvisational ability that caused Roach to go for Stiller (backed up by the adjacent caption, which says it more explicitly). The source says otherwise: "I saw Meet the Parents as an anxiety dream, and in my view nobody plays that kind of material better than Ben." The mention of his improv. skills is more of an aside, not as directly related to his casting as his fit to the material.
• Nurse!

Filming

• I know there isn't a Production subsection with this name, but should there be? To have nothing on principal photography, locations and cinematography seems like a bit of a gap. If the coverage doesn't exist, fair enough. Have you tried American Cinematographer or Creative Screenwriting magazine? No guarantee that they covered the film, but definitely worth a look if they did.

More tomorrow! Best, Steve ^T • C 22:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Final batch of comments, looking at the Rating, Theatrical run, Home media, Critical reception and Legacy sections. Steve ^T • C

Rating

• Seems a little short to have its own level two section. Do you think it would work better as the first subsection of Release?
• "Once Meet the Parents was submitted for rating evaluation, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) questioned the surname Focker as a possibly expletive ..."
• "repetitiveness"—would "repetition" work better?
• "according to the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system"—"MPAA film rating system"; you've already defined the acronym, so there's no need to write out the full title.
• Weird mix of tenses: "were asked if they had made up the name or if they can prove that such a name exists"; "which insured that the film retains a PG-13 rating". Also, ensured.
• "submitted to the MPAA".

Theatrical run

• In the absence of a "filming" section, I can see the wisdom of using the budget to give context to the box office returns, but you give the marketing budget in the first sentence and leave mention of the production budget for halfway through the section. Better to have them both together at the beginning?
• Mixed spaced en dashes and em dashes to indicate interruption.
• "It quickly proved to be a financial success"—no-one's disputing it, but I think the statement should be cited, rather than relying on editor interpretation of the results; a film can still debut at #1 and be considered a box office disappointment.
• "domestically"—see above ("in North America"?)

Home media

• "Meet the Parents was released on DVD on March 6, 2001"—where?
• "taking in over $200 million for 2001"—in 2001?
• "Billboard magazine listed the film as having the highest video sales for all weeks from March 31 up to and including April 21"—phrasing is a little clumsy; I had to read it twice before I worked out what it meant. Also, why are there four cites for this sentence? I assume because you're listing separate pages for each of the weeks? In which case, why not merge the cites? e.g. "60+73").
• Any need to link DVD, French language, wallpapers and screensaver?

Critical reception

• "The film received a generally positive response from film critics, being commended on the subtlety of its humor"—cited to five film critic reviews. That's fine for saying several critics "commended the subtlety of its humor", but not for the "generally positive response" part. Again, I'm sure it's true, but you need to avoid even the appearance of selective citing when constructing a section like this. For example, according to Rotten Tomatoes, even Battlefield Earth got three positive reviews. I could easily spin those out to create a positive-looking reception section at our article. I suggest citing the sentence to RT or Metacritic, or an article that has retrospective coverage of the film's reception, if available.
• The wording for your RT and MC bits doesn't entirely explain for the uninitiated how those sites work. Current wording:

  As of February 3, 2010, the aggregate review website Rotten Tomatoes registered an 84% positive response based on reviews from 139 critics and certified the film "Fresh" with an average rating of 6.9/10. As of the same date, Metacritic, another aggregate review website, registered a rating of 73 out of 100, based on 33 reviews, which is classified as "Generally favorable reviews" by the website's rating system.

  "[A] rating of 73 out of 100, based on 33 reviews" doesn’t give enough information; nor does "registered an 84% positive response" and "certified the film 'Fresh'". Especially as the two sites use different methods for calculating their scores. The last statement ("generally favorable") is unnecessary if you use the cite at the beginning of the section, as suggested above. Lastly, you no longer need the "as of" statements, as the film has been out a long time now and those sites aren't being updated on a daily basis. How about something along the lines of:

  :The aggregate review website Rotten Tomatoes reported that 84% of 139 sampled critics gave the film a positive review, with an average rating of 6.9 out of 10. At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 73 based on 33 reviews.

  Fewer words, yet a clearer explanation, I think.

Legacy

• Do you think situation comedy is a common enough term not to be linked?
• "Universal did not pursue any action against NBC but neither show lasted more than one season."—uncited.
• "domestically"—as before.
• The information about Little Fockers is way out-of-date; see that article for director, writer, production and release details.

American Airlines flight 605

• Do you think this really needs its own subsection? Or quite so much detail about the bomb "threat"?

Notes / References

• Cites to single pages should use "p."; cites to multiple pages should use "pp."
• I'm a little bemused by the way these sections are formatted. Where only one page or one page range of a book or journal is used, that would be better off in the Notes section, to save on click-throughs; the five Billboard mentions could be reduced to the two issues used. Given all that, I think only Billboard, O'Lynn, Brook, Bower and Summers really need to go in "References"; take a look at the "Footnotes" and "Bibliography" at American Beauty (film)#References for my take on it.

General comments

• Before you take this to FAC, I think it will need a reasonably thorough copy-edit; at the moment, there are a few clunky phrases and redundant phrases in each of the sections. I strongly recommend you look at Tony1's exercises I linked to above and those at WP:FILMCOPY; see how those lessons could be applied to this article. 90% of the copy-editing job is catching stuff like this; more concise wording means less opportunity for other mistakes to creep in.
• I also recommend you review the manual of style, with particular emphasis on WP:NBSP, WP:MOSDASH, WP:ELLIPSES and WP:MOSNUM.

Overall, this is a very good article that should have few problems getting through its GAN. However, for any potential FAC nomination, I think most of the above should be addressed. But don't let my comments discourage you; this is nice work. All the best, Steve ^T • C 09:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your efforts, Steve. I think this gives me plenty to work with for the next little while. I'll be back with updates and comments once the GAN is done. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do a review, too, but I will let you work with Steve's review first. Erik (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

---

University of West Alabama

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on the article as a whole. I would also like to determine if the newspaper citations that have been referenced are sufficient. I am also hoping to hear if the overall article has a good pattern throughout. Any suggestions, comments, or contributions would be greatly appreciated. If one has any ideas for any future images that could be added, I will be glad to determine how those can be achieved.

Thanks, UWAFanatic05 (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, and clearly a lot of work has gone into it. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs about universities that would be good models: see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education
• The disambiguation tool in the toobox at upper right finds several dab links that need to be fixed
• The external link checker finds one dead link - it is a newspaper article, so it is OK as just a ref to the newspaper (does not need to also be an internet link)
• There is no alt text for the images - this is needed for readers who cannot see the article. See WP:ALT please
• Now for some specifics on the article itself. The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - as such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. But the nicknames (U-dub) seem to only be in the lead.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I am not sure that the University beginnings and State university sections are in the lead.
• Another big potential problem is lack of references in places - U-WAH and U-DUB are unreferenced, as are the Media and Entertainment section, most of Facilities, the first paragraph of Athletics and traditions, and all of the Notable people. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Since you asked about refs, the newspaper refs seem fine to me - it is good to have independent third-party sources as much as possible (avoid refs from the university itself if possible)
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should not sandwich text between them, but this is done in a couple of places (Athletics and traditions, Present day)
• Avoid words like "today" in The main administration building that sits in the middle of campus today is named in his honor. "As of 2010" or since YEAR" would work instead.
• Extraordinary claims need solid references to back them up. For example this In 1882-1883, state lawmakers provided $2,500 for tuition and supplies, making Alabama the first southern state to fund the education of women, an appropriation which Tutwiler and state legislator Addison Gillespie Smith helped secure.[11] has the original bill for funding as a ref (which is fine) but I do not see how that backs up the claim "making Alabama the first southern state to fund the education of women" (apologies if I missed it)
• Awkward sentence New leadership and another new name to the school came during the early stages of the 20th century. plus it is not clear what the new name was (assume it is the name mentioned in the next section - if it is, I would try to keep the new name and this sentence in the same section)
• Read WP:RECENTISM and WP:WEIGHT - as you get closer to the present, there will be more and better sources available, but that does not mean that every detail needs to be included here. Does the reader really need to know all four candidates for interim president in 2002? And...
• When starting a new section, make sure to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR The "present day" section starts Richard Holland, an alumnus of the institution and former dean of the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, was selected by trustees to take over the position. If someone has skipped and is just reading this section, they have no idea when this is, what position he istaking over, etc. As noted above, I also think splitting stories like this between two sections is confusing.
• I also am not sure that the two recent faculty deaths (car accident and cancer) really merit inclusion in this article. I am by no means saying that their deaths were not tragic or that that they were not wonderful people, but what makes them notable in the 175 year history of the university? Over the past 175 years, I would imagine most of the faculty who have taught there have died already - why single out these two? See WP:NN too
• Many readers also look at the images first, before reading the article. So instead of just "Julia Tutwiler" why not mention one or two things she is know for? Or instead of two captions that read "X Hall on the campus of the University of West Alabama", why not say something like "X Hall, home to the departments of Y and Z, built YEAR"

Ok that's a start. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Just Dance

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm wanting this article to achieve atleast A-Class status if nothing more. I was just wondering if any reviewers' would take the time to review the article. Iv'e tooken the time too analyse the article myself to check grammar and add stuff where needed. And so have many other contributers. If you could give me some feedback on this article me and other wikipedians would be very much appreciated.

Thanks, -- Sprite7868 (talk) 10:49, 03 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Apologies for the time that it's taken, but here we are, finally. I bow to your obviously considerable knowledge of this topic, so my comments are mainly about style and presentation issues. I can't do the lot in one pass, but here's enough for a beginning.

• External links. There are numerous dead links: refs [24], [25], [27], [29], [48], [73], [77]. Oddly, these are not the deadlinks thatshow red when the tool (top right corner box] is used. However, they all need fixing. Perhaps check out all the others.
• Images: these are on the whole excellent, but you may be pushing it a bit to justify two non-free images. The album cover is probably OK, based on precedents, but I think File:Gagadance.JPG will be questioned.
• References: I'm not in a position to judge whether these are all reliable, though most look as though they are. Some minor queries:-
  • [1] Should be expanded to be a little more informative.
  • [16] What is the relationship between about.com and The New York Times?
  • [20] Not necesary to give the publisher of The Washington Post. Just enter the paper's name as "work" in the template.
  • [30] Appears to be unformatted
  • [90] Inconsistent format of retrieval date information.
• Prose etc
  • "while also featuring labelmate Colby O'Donis". "Labelmate" is a jargonish term – I don't know what it means – but the general phrasing "while also featuring" is poor. "...and also features" would be neater.
  • "and lyrically speaks" – verb normally precedes adverb, e.g. "and speaks lyrically..."
  • Lead second paragraph: two successive sentences begin "The song..." It's a tricky one, but the first sentence could be rephrased: "Critics have complimented the song's club anthem-like nature..." or some such simplification.
  • "appearing in a party" - should that be "at a party"?
  • "Gaga compared her experience of shooting the video with being on a Martin Scorsese set." This sentence in isolation reads rather oddly. Suggest either amplify to give it some context, or maybe just leave it for the detailed quotation later in the article.
  • As a general point of style, blockquotes should not be used for shorter quotations. MOS recommends minimum four lines of text per blockquote, otherwise the quote should remain in the body of the text. That's not a hard and fast rule, but I would say that both quotes in the "Writing and Inspiration" section, and the later one begnning "I was sick..." are all too short for blockquote format.
  • In the "Writing and Inspiration" quote, Gaga says she wrote the song in 10 minutes. The following paragraph says she wrote it "during January" and that it was "hard work". Can these accounts be reconciled?
  • Irony note: "'Just Dance' is a happy record" - now look at the expressions on the faces of Gaga and her group after a performance of the song; happy, eh? (You needn't respond to this comment)
  • "explained with Artistdirect.com " should be "explained to"
  • "Music and lyrics section: In general, this section is going to be hard for the uninitiated to follow. A few points:-
    • "The song combines synths of clipped marching beats, sawing electronics and contains mild R&B infused beats." Not grammatical as written. Needs a "with" somewhere.
    • Some combination of the shorter sentences would improve the flow, e.g. "The song is set in compound time with a moderate beat rate of 124 beats per minute, and is written in the key of C♯ minor."
    • "Gaga's vocal spans the two octaves of G₃ to C₅." This notation will not be widely understood, needs to be properly explained.
  • The word "keytar" should have a link

Will try to finish later. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Brian. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Olympic medalists in softball

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

I've listed this article for peer review; I want to take this to FLC, but I know my writing can be clunky, so I really need opinions on the prose and images. The pattern is based off the recently-promoted FL List of Olympic medalists in baseball as the fate of both sports was identical for 2012 and 2016.

The other issue other than flow I know of is that I need a citation for which IOC session added softball to the Games. This has proven quite elusive.

Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Sandman888 (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• What makes Sports-Reference.com a wp:rs?

• See the comment at the bottom of this FAC, the credible people behind it, and this recent FLC where the only discussion of the website was how to cite it, not whether it should be done. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• • The FAC only asserts credibility to pro-football-reference.com, not the other sites. The fact that others havn't picked it up, doesn't mean its a respectable source. As to who made, pr WP:SPS clearly states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." so you need to assert that a reliable 3rd party has used sport-reference.com Sandman888 (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• There's a lot of redlinked names. Too much for my liking as a whole team is redlinked.

• I'll address some of the others in a bit, but this would mean creating 15+ BLP's that the only thing I could say about would be along the lines of Masumi Mishina's article. I don't know if, in light of recent events on-wiki, a bunch more of those type of BLP's is actually an improvement. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Captions: wikilink names.
• Captions: needs re-writing.
• Lead:
  • clear favourite - says who?
  • POV - words as 'only'
  • Needs copy-editing: lead should discuss softball more and not be a mix of facts which can be deduced from the list.
    

---

2010 Pune bombing

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article has good coverage and references, mainly thanks to easily available reliable sources from the international media. I want to know if it can make it to WP:GA

Thanks, SPat ^talk 14:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles Thank you for your contributions and your work to get this article to GA quality. Currently I don't feel that it meets the GA Criteria but you are well on your way and with a little more work it will be there. I'll give you some specific thoughts on areas of improvement below.

Lead

• See WP:LEAD for thoughts on what is needed in a good lead. A lead should be a summary of every point brought up in the article. A reader should be able to read the lead and get a skeletal idea of the subject matter. The body of the article then fills in all the details. It seems as though the lead is a little sparse. I don't see much about who did the bombing, and why, I also don't read much in the lead about the investigation.
• It isn't necessary to put many sources in the lead. It is assumed that since the information is brought up in the article body and will be sourced there, then the sourcing in the lead is duplicative. That said, sourcing a very controversial statement is always a good idea no matter where it is. I think you could do without all the sources in the lead though.
• The nav box in the lead has "perpetrators" and "suspected perpetrators", given the fact that the investigation is on going it doesn't appear as though any perpetrators have been confirmed (even though a group has called in claiming responsibility). I would recommend moving all the groups into "suspected perptrators".

 Done Removed (or moved) most of inline citations, and expanded info.SPat ^talk

Location and time

• Is the name of the bakery, "The German Bakery"? If so then it's fine but if it has a proper name it should be mentioned here.

Yes, that's the name SPat ^talk

• The first time an abbreviation is used it should be spelled out, LPG should be spelled out here.

 Done SPat ^talk

Victims

• I think it would work better for the prose to be above the list rather than below it. This is really a presentation issue but given the size of the image in the previous section the formatting of the article looks a little off.

 Done Table did look bad, especially with the new image SPat ^talk

• There is no mention of compensation paid to the victims except in the quote by the Chief Minister. You may want to expand on this a little. I was surprised to read about compensation to the victims' families in this section, it just seemed a bit out of place. It's important information I just think it would be better in a later section.

I can't find any other reference. I believe it's usual for major leaders to announce compensation etc. immediately after the attacks. SPat ^talk

• No need to link country names to the generic article about the country. I delinked them but something to consider in the future. See WP:LINK for more information on this.

Not sure I understand this, do you mean the list of countries in the table? SPat ^talk

Equipment

• Please spell out abbreviated words the first time they are used: RDX.

Did it elsewhere, but not applicable here, RDX is the most common usage of the word. SPat ^talk

Initial hypotheses about the perpetrators and motives

• Expand FBI
• The following sentence has a problem,

"Within the first few hours of the attack the Indian media started speculating the attack was aimed as a blow to such talks."

I added a template to the end of this sentence. You indicate that, "...the Indian media started speculating...." but there is no citation and you need to be more specific than just the Indian media. This statement strays into weasel wording, which is to be avoided in WP articles. Please cite the sentence and specify at least one credible media source in the text.

• One and two sentence paragraphs (stubs) are looked down on by GA reviewers, consider expanding or combining.

Investigation

• Is this the most current information? I know the investigation is on-going so it will be important to update the section as more information comes out.
• Since this is such a developing story one thing to consider is the stability of the article and the information. It is generally discouraged to nominate articles for GA or FA if the information is in a high state of flux, meaning that new information is coming out frequently. Current event article nominations are usually discouraged until enough time has past that the content is fairly established and concrete. Does that make sense?
• The section is several short paragraphs, can some of these be combined?

Reaction

• I would suggest moving this from a list into prose. Lists are ok but if they can be converted into prose this is generally better. See WP:LIST for thoughts on using lists in articles.

References

• Ref # 37 appears to be a dead link, you'll need to repair it.
• The references have a lot of little inconsistencies. For example, The Hindu should be italicized if it's a newspaper, sometimes it is and other times it isn't. Also there are some missing accessdates. Also there are missing publishers like in Ref 19. It will be important to make the reference section consistent.

Overall

• I think your right is very good, a copy edit wouldn't hurt but the flow of the article is good and it doesn't bog down with unnecessary detail.
• I would consider waiting to nominate the article for GA consideration until the situation has settled a little bit. It is still a fairly recent event and the situation is developing day by day.

You're well on your way with this article so keep up the good work. This concludes my review. If you have any questions or concerns you can contact me on my talk page. Cheers. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 18:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've incorporated some of the changes, and am working on the others. I've also added an image that I just acquired from flickr.SPat ^talk 19:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

---

TransLink (South East Queensland)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I like to see this article as a GA or FA and I like to see what other editors think on how this article can be improved.

Thanks, Gerry (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this.

Further note: This is a second nomination by User Gerry on 24 April. PR rules limit editors to one nomination per day, as made clear on the PR main page. In view of the current backlog, it would be appreciated if this is withdrawn and re-presented in about a week. Brianboulton (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn, as per above. Gerry (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Billboard Top Latin Songs Year-End Chart

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FL status and want to receive feedback about it. Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• There are numerous disambiguation links that need fixing. Please click on yo the box in the top right of this review page.
• I have removed an "orphan" tag, after linking several of the songs in the list to this article. You can create many more incoming links by using more of the songs.
• "Juan Gabriel received the Person of the Year award in 2009 by the Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, for his professional accomplishments as well as his commitment to philanthropic efforts." I am not sure of the relevance of this information to this article.
• Other information in the text also looks of dubious relevance, e.g. De Vita's gold certification in Latin America and Spain for the album Al Norte del Sur
• "[Otro Día Más Sin Verte] ... earned a Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album and three singles yielded from it were among the top Latin singles from 1992 and 1993." Which three - are they identifiable in this chart? Also, a comma needed after "Pop Album".
• "...to be awarded with two platinum certifications" The word "with" is redundant
• ""La Tortura", a song written and recorded by Shakira and Alejandro Sanz holds the record for the longest run at number-one in the Top Latin Songs chart, with 25 non-consecutive weeks at the top and settled as the Top Latin Single of 2005." The sentence is shaky, grammatically. It needs a comma after "Sanz"; it contains too much information and needs to be split. My suggestion: ""La Tortura", a song written and recorded by Shakira and Alejandro Sanz, holds the record for the longest run at number-one in the Top Latin Songs chart. It held this position in 25 non-consecutive weeks, and finished as the Top Latin Single of 2005."
• The later sentence, beginning ""Livin' la Vida Loca"..." is likewise far too long and needs to be expressed more clearly, probably in at least two sentences.
• "Puerto Rican singer Luis Fonsi with his song "No Me Doy Por Vencido" became the first artist to appear two years in a row in the top ten for the best-performing Latin singles with the same track." Mention the two years. However, as the song was No.7 in 2008 and No.5 in 2009, was this such a big deal?
• The list itself looks very clear and well presented.

I hope these comments help. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Ellis Island

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i have done a reorganization of article: new template, opener, subsection, headers, addtional references. I have also change it's class from B to C, but believe it may just qualify for B if nudged a bit. Could use some fleshing out in some section, particularly ownership (pre-immigration station era), and general review.

Thanks, Djflem (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• There were two PRs open for the same article at the same time. I deleted the second and added the bit of text here that was not already present. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a good start on an important topic, but still needs more work if it is to become a WP:GA, and much more for WP:FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Typically articles are not accepted for peer review if they have major clean up banners in place - the Ownership and In the arts sections need to have their banners addressed
• The toolbox in the upper right corner of this peer review finds several issues that need to be worked on. The automated tips have several useufl suggestions. There are 5 or so disambiguation links that need to be fixed too.
• The external links tool finds two dead links. One of them is to Geocities.com, which is not a reliable source. The article also lacks alt text per WP:ALT (this is no longer a requirement for FAC though)
• The lead is very short for an article of this length and needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• Article needs more references, for example the Staff and In the arts sections have no refs at all, and the block quote in Ownership needs a ref too. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Many of the reference have incomplete information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Images should not sandwich text between them, but this happens in at least two places in the article.
• File:AnnieMoore.jpg is of a sculpture and so is a copyrighted work of art. If it was produced as a work for hire for the US Goveernment it owuld be Public Domain (free to use), but more information is needed.
• There are some places with short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these disturb the flow of the article and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• There are also two extensive lists - staff and medical. Could these be converted to text / prose?
• The See also section is usually saved for links which are not already used in the article

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

---

War on Terror

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently listed as C-class, but tremendous effort has been put into it to get it to at least B-class status. If it cannot be upgraded to B-class, I'd like to be provided with guidelines and proposals on what needs to be improved. The same applies for recommendations on further improvement, even if it reaches B-class.

Thanks, JokerXtreme (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

I'd say this article is fairly close to being B-class. Below are some suggestions for further improvement:

• Table of Contents is quite long - some of those smaller subsections should be merged
• Some of the long list passages could be converted to prose
• Al-Shabaab flag is tagged as missing source information
• Recommend merging short 1 to 2-sentence paragraphs
• You could reduce the number of citations in the lead, as those facts are supposed to be expanded and cited later in the article
• Some of the CNN links are now dead
• The article could use attention from a copy-editor, as there are a few grammatical errors and passages lacking in clarity
• The article needs more citations. Every paragraph should have at least one citation, often more. All quotes, stats, opinions, and controversial facts need to be referenced.
• Avoid stacking images as you do in the Enduring Freedom section
• Be aware of WP:WTA and WP:WEASEL. For example, you say "The US refused to provide any evidence." Did they just not do so, or were they asked and denied the request? It's unclear as written, and that passage is not cited
• Image of Special Forces in the Philippines is tagged as lacking author information
• Avoid overlinking - once a topic has been linked once, there's rarely a need to link it again later in the article
• Explain the military terminology that you use. For example, what is a "Hearts and Minds" program?
• Source link for image of British soldiers in Iraq is broken
• Clinton is generally referred to as "Bill", not "William"
• Don't use external links as references in article text - format them as citations instead
• Double-check the dates on the ISAF map
• Source link for the Musharraff photo is dead, as is the one for the US customs officers
• Articles already linked in the text should not also be linked in "See also"
• Referencing format needs to be more consistent. Web references should at minimum include a title and access date, and should also have publisher/author where available (no bare links). Book references need page numbers

Comments from MoreThings

I don't know the requirements for B- versus C- class, but all of the tags at the top of the article are appropriate, and a good place to start would be to address the issues they point out.

• Things like this need to be cited:
  • After months of insurgents' brutal violence against Iraqi civilians, in January 2007 President Bush presented a new strategy...The Iraq War troop surge of 2007...has been credited with a widely recognized dramatic decrease in violence...
  • The Office of Strategic Influence was secretly created after 9/11 for the purpose of coordinating propaganda efforts, but was closed soon after being discovered.
  • The entire Post 9/11 events inside the United States section has just one citation.
• This sentence doesn't really tell the reader anything she doesn't already know.

Researchers in the area of communication studies and political science have found that American understanding of the war on terror is directly shaped by how the mainstream news media reports events associated with the war on terror.

• ...political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers illustrated "how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror." If we say "illustrated" then we are implicitly accepting that Kuypers' view is accurate. We should say claims, or argues, or similar.

• But I'd say my main concern is the structure of the article. In many places it reads like a succession of lists. I notice that the great majority of citations are to web sites and news reports, which might suggest that the authors are looking around for references to support their own understanding of the subject. It would be better to rely more heavily on books about the War on Terror, of which there are many. That approach would lead to a much improved article, which would be more authoratitive, more coherent, and easier to read.--MoreThings (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've placed the tags accordingly to the guidelines by Nikkimaria above. Thanks for all the points you made, I'll look into them. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Joker. I didn't realise you'd placed the tags yourself. It sounds as though you're on top of what needs to be done, and that the article is headed in the right direction for improvement. --MoreThings (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Bids for Olympic Games

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for Featured list.

Thanks, Felipe Menegaz 18:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Drive by comment This really needs some images, somwehere, before going to FLC. Stadiums, skylines, something to give the page some spice. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

Lead could easily be expanded: information on most selected city, country and so fourth. Table: explain bold type. Notes need references. It is unclear what is references where: what's the ref for candidate city / host city / year / IOC session? Pictures wd be nice, yes. Sandman888 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

Thank you for your efforts to create a list of all the bids for all the Olympics Games. This is a commendable effort to be sure. I'll leave my comments below.

Lead

• I agree with Sandman888 that the lead could be expanded. It would be good to include the bid process. This can be found at the Olympic Games article.
• The statement that the IOC revived the Ancient Olympics is a very controversial comment. I have been addressing this issue on the Olympic Games article off and on for two years now. I would recommend a source for the statement (yes even in the Lead), better yet I would reword to indicate that it was one of the contributors to the revival of the Games. There is a small but vocal faction who believe Evangelis Zappas was the actual founder of the modern Olympics and that the IOC and specifically Coubertin usurped the credit. I don't necessary hold to this line of thinking but the comment is nonetheless a bone of contention that is best avoided if possible.

IOC-IPC cooperation

• Watch using abbreviations before you spell them out. I see you spell out the IOC in the Lead but I don't see mention of the IPC. Perhaps reword the title as "Cooperation with the Paralympic Games" Or "Cooperation with the International Paralymic Committee".
• In my research I think the agreement goes through 2012, you may want to check on this and add it if you can verify.
• The second para discussing "one bid one city" is a bit confusing to me. What exactly are you trying to get at? How were these bids different from 2008 and 2010?
• Consider combining the paragraphs into one, several short one or two sentence paragraphs isn't good prose.

Lists

• Why the parentheses around St. Louis in 1904? The note doesn't really clarify that enough for me.
• Good use of color, well laid out.
• Forgive me for my ignorance, I'm not as versed in the Featured List protocols but I thought that the lists had to be referenced. Is that right? If so it seems to me that they are not adequately referenced. I do see the use of notes but those are sporadic.
• In the All-Time bids list I would clarify what the Bold year means. It may be self-explanatory but I think it would help the readers if it was spelled out.
• This is a little nit picky but have you considered using the flag that the country used at the time of the bid in the all-time bids lists? That can be tricky when there are bids that span several decades (probably can't do it in those cases) but I do see the Canadian Montreal bids are all before 1960 and I think that Canada had a different flag back then. Just looking for things that might come up at FLC.

Overall

• I'd say you're on your way. The biggest problem may be the referencing of the lists. I don't feel the notes in the article sifficiently reference all the lists. That may be the biggest challenge (if lists have to be referenced).
• The text of the article could be improved and I would recommend adding a section on the bid process. I think people will find that very interesting.
• You could also add something about bid scandals like the 2002 Salt Lake City bid scandal. Not sure if that falls within the scope of this article though. Just a suggestion. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews, they are very helpful! However, I am somewhat busy with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics/archive1. After promoting it to FA, I will restart the work on this list. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 23:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

---

G. Wayne Clough

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's nice but I don't know where to take it from here to make it GA-worthy.

Thanks, —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Clough is clearly an accomplished man; however, the article presents only the sketch of a fraction of a whole person. It presents a pretty good list of Clough's accomplishments, but it reads more like a vita than a biography. It might be hard to find more details in sources external to the university, but some must be available. Here are some questions that might lead to answers that would make the article more interesting and rounded:

Who were his parents? Can you add anything more about his early life?

Done. Disavian (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

How big is Douglas Georgia? Where is it in relation to Atlanta? Is that where Clough went to high school?

What made Clough choose Berkeley for his Ph.D. work?

Is he married? Does he have children?

Done. Disavian (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What are his non-academic interests? Pets? Sports? Fishing? Travel? Photography?

I'm not sure how one would integrate that into an encyclopedic article. Disavian (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Were any of Clough's decisions at Georgia Tech controversial? It would be highly unusual if this were not the case. Controversies often attract coverage by outside media, and those would be possible sources for information about Clough from a variety of points of view. Varied points of view seem to be largely missing from this article; virtually everything in the article is honorific. Even a wonderful university president is apt to ruffle a feather now and then over the course of 14 years. Who disagreed with him about one issue or another? What did they have to say?

I added the one controversy I knew about. I can't recall any others. Disavian (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Did Clough have any setbacks at Georgia Tech or elsewhere, or did things just always flow smoothly?

Lead

• "the Georgia Institute of Technology" - Since you use an abbreviated name later in the article to refer to this institute, it would be good to include it here, thus: the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech).
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• "A graduate of Georgia Tech, in civil engineering, he was the first Georgia Tech alumnus to occupy that post." - Which post, Georgia Tech or Smithsonian?
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• "(the G. Wayne Clough Georgia Tech Promise Program)" - It might be more clear to specify that this describes the last program in the list rather than the whole list. Maybe "The latter was called the G. Wayne Clough Georgia Tech Promise Program".
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

President of Georgia Tech

• "In 1998, he separated the Ivan Allen College of Management, Policy, and International Affairs into the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts and returned the College of Management to "College" status." - Why was that important?
  • Done. Elaborated on the importance of that a bit. Disavian (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution

• Who named him secretary? How was he chosen? What are the required qualifications? Were any others in the running; if so, who?
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Honors and awards

• "Dr. Clough... " - WP:CREDENTIAL advises against using academic titles before names and suggests descriptive phrases where necessary. No description is needed here since he is fully described much earlier in the article.
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

References

• What makes the Geotechnical Engineering Hall of Fame a reliable source per WP:RS?
• What makes ANAK a reliable source?

Other

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page show that some of the citation urls are dead and that the images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, these are excellent suggestions! :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Jordan River (Utah)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm eventually going to nominate the article for FA. I will add photos in a few weeks. I'm not sure about the format of the pollution section. I feel like something is missing, but I don't know what.

Thanks, Bgwhite (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Nice start, but I do not think this would pass FAC in its current state. There is some missing information and the language needs to be cleaned up in places. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on rivers and streams that might be good models. Finetooth has been the main author for a number of FAs on creeks in Portland, Oregon that might be good models - see Johnson Creek (Willamette River) as one example.
• The disambiguation link find in the tool box shows one dab link that needs to be fixed. Two of the images are missing alt text.
• The lead seems a bit sparse to me - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• As a summary, nothing should be in the lead only. However, I note that there are some things that seem to only be in the lead, for example the other main tributaries of the Great Salt Lake.
• Comprehensiveness is a FAC criterion. I find it odd that there is no section on Geology in the article - most of the pollution seems to be mine related, so I think this is especially important to include.
• It is also odd that the History section ends in 1850. Even if the River modifications section is seen as part of History (in which case it should be a subsection), it also has some relatively large gaps in its coverage. I also prefer history to be in chronological order if at all possible, but the River mod. section jumps around in time quite a bit. Since they cause trouble later, the mines seem like they should be mentioned in history somehwere.
• I also like to mention if tributaries enter on the right or left bank - if river miles are known for tributaries or other features, they are useful to include (sometimes hard to find this though).
• SOme dams are mentioned - are there any prominent bridges?
• There are also things mentioned in passing like After the 1983-1984 floods, which seem to be crying out for expansion - a sentence or two would probably be enough, but what was the overall effect of these floods?
• I like to mention counties in the course section and also like to mention the cities and communities as the river passes through them - my rule of thumb is try and mention all of the important places the stream passes or passes through in Course so that the reader has some idea of where these things are as they read the rest of the article.
• For a river that seems to be pretty urban in places (34 percent of the watershed) and which contains the largest city in the state of Utah, this article does not mention much about the urban areas. The dates for founding of the five cities could be included in the the History section, for example. Rough ideas of population growth could also be included.
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example the June Sucker and Utah Sucker are each linked twice in the Biology section.
• Would "Ecology" be a better name for the Biology section?
• The Jordan River Parkway article says it is about 44 miles long. The lead here says the river is about 44 miles long. So how come this article says the parkway is continuous from Utah Lake to the Great Salt Lake and 40 miles long?
• Another FA criterion is a professional level of English, which is the most difficult criterion for most articles to meet. This is not bad, but could use a good copyedit before any run at FAC. A few points follow:
• According to the MOS, Generally, use either percent or per cent to indicate percentages in the body of an article
• There are at least two places where contractions are used (isn't, hasn't) that need to be fixed
• The article has several places where there are short (one or two sentence) paragraphs. These impair the flow of the article and should be either combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.
• Bullet lists (like the pollution sites) are also usually discouraged in articles, could the material be written as straight text?
• There are places where the prose is just clunky and what seem to be erroneous staements result. For example The Jordan River emerged as the only outflow of Utah Lake on the lake's northern end. - this makes it sound as if there are other outflows elsewhere (southern end perhaps). Something like The Jordan River emerged the northern end of Utah Lake, and is its only outflow. would be clearer
• Or this Elevations range from over 11,100-foot (3,400 m) Twin Peaks in the Wasatch Mountains to over 9,000-foot (2,700 m) Farnsworth Peak in the Oquirrh Mountains. makes it sound like the lowest point in the drainage basin is over 9000 feet tall. By the way, the convert template is set to adj=on, which gives the ungrammatical "foot" instead of "feet" - I turned it off.
• Avoid words like today and current(ly) - they can become out of date quickly. Instead tro to use things like "As of 2010" or "Since YEAR" (fill in the year).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Second look by Ruhrfisch

As requested here is a second look at the article.

• There is a way to turn off the second word River at the top of the Geobox - ask if you want me to do it or show you how.
• Also in the Geobox I would set the district type as "Counties" (not County) and then just have the names of the counties linked (so Utah, not Utah County)
• Language still needs some work. The Jordan River emerges from the northern end of Utah Lake, as the lake's only outflow, between the border of Lehi and Saratoga Springs. A border is singular and between two things, so I am not sure something can be between a border. How about something like The Jordan River is the lake's only outflow, and emerges from the northern end of Utah Lake at the border between the cities of Lehi and Saratoga Springs.
• I would split this sentence into two: The first dam, known as the Turner Dam, is located in the middle of the Jordan Narrows, 41.8 miles (67.3 km) from the river's mouth and diverts water to the east for the East Jordan Canal and to the west for the Utah and Salt Lake Canal.
• Seems like they should enter (not enters) at different river miles: Little Cottonwood Creek and Big Cottonwood Creek enters on the east in Murray, 21.7 miles (34.9 km) and 21.7 miles (34.9 km) from the mouth respectively. Is this a typo? If not I would say they enter at the same place.
• I would swap the order of these sentences - the 9 to 12 miles makes more sense after the [current] second sentence. The river then continues for 9 to 12 miles (14 to 19 km) with Salt Lake County on the west and North Salt Lake and Davis County on the east until it empties into the Great Salt Lake.[6][7][9] The length of the river and the elevation of its mouth varies year to year depending on the fluctuations of the Great Salt Lake due to weather conditions.
• I really like the 1898 image comparing the two Rivers Jordan!
• Could the Desert Archaic period be linked to Archaic period in the Americas?
• I would make clearer in the table header what "Historical populations" refers to - assume it is the three counties the river is in?
• The History section still seems a bit sparse to me in terms of more recent history.
• Per your comment on my talk page I skipped Ecology. Like the carp photo
• DEQ needs to spelled out somewhere (Department of Environmental Quality? Dogs Eating Quince?) I would still avoid words like currently, so The entire Jordan River, plus Little Cottonwood Creek, are currently on the 2006 303d list. could instead be something like The entire Jordan River, plus Little Cottonwood Creek, are included on the 2006 DEQ 303d list.
• EPA Superfund sites section - I would start with a sentence or two on what the EPA Superfund was/is to provide background and context for the average reader. I would also consider merging the last two paragraphs into one.
• With small acreages I usally allow convert to use hectares, which are a more directly comparable unit than square kilometers.

Since you said to ignore them I did not point out or fix most typos, rough spots etc. (though I did fix one funny typo). This still needs a pretty thorough copyedit. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Jana Skinny Water

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need assistance finding additional citations to clean up this article as well as help with editing and making this article better. I am a student at Duquesne University and this is for a class project. Any help that can be given or editing done would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Chelcal (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this.

Closing as article has been deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Skinny Water

---

High Court of Singapore

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a GA reviewer felt that certain aspects of the article needed to be fixed in order for the article to achieve GA status, but I disagreed with his assessment. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Well PR is not for dispute resolution - if you disagree with the GA reviewer, I think you can take it to GAR. I have some comments and suggestions for improvement.

• Lead - unclear what the point of this sentence in the lead is: There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters. I am reviewing as I read, so maybe this is clarified later, but I think that the sentence needs to relate these to the High Court of Singapore?
• In the History section I would make it explicitly clear that the first two paragraphs were under British colonial rule.
• At the end of History it would help to make it clearer that this is when the court was established Coming into force on 9 January 1970, the Act declared that the Supreme Court of Singapore now consisted of the Court of Appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal and the High Court. - easy to miss it otherwise
• I would also give the year when the permanent Court of Appeal for both civil and criminal appeals was established.
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Court of Appeal of Singapore is linked twice in two paragraphs and five times in the article
• Court of Appeal of Singapore is also linked under See also, but WP:See also says that is usually for links not already in the article. Plus it is a redirect to Judicial system of Singapore and the redirect is also linked under see also.
• The word consitution makes me think of a legal framing document, not a way of describing the composition or makeup of the court (might be American English). Could a different header than "Constitution of the Court" be used? "Composition"? Or is this the standard terminology?
• Similarly, WP:HEAD says that subheaders should avoid repeating the header if at all possible - in the "Jurisdiction" section, the word jurisdiction is repeated in eight of the subheaders - is there any way it can be avoided (or, again, is this standard terminology?)
• Nice images - I think just the year could be given in the captions so "The Supreme Court Building, photographed on 10 February [in] 2007"
• The article is a bit listy - is there any way some of the lists could be converted to straight prose to improve the flow of the text?
• This is written at a fairly technical level and is a bit dry in places, but seems OK to me otherwise.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Will take your suggestions into consideration as I think about how to improve the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

---

History of Mars observation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article covers the most significant historical aspects of our Earth-based observations regarding the Red Planet. Please take a look and let me know how it could be further improved.

Thank you, RJH (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I found the article very interesting - and at the same time deeply frustrating, since a lot of it was beyond my understanding even with the use of links when available. I suspect that other readers may find the same problem. In the points listed below I draw attention to some specific instances, but the problem is general. Apart from this issue, most of the points I raise are minor matters (grammar, style, etc)

• Lead
  • "Detailed records regarding the position of the planet Mars were made by Babylonian astronomers and they developed..." Awkward conjunction "and they"; better: "...astronomers who developed..." ✓
  • Two successive sentences ending with "of the planet". Suggest the second of these becomes: "the planet's motions". ✓
  • "Mars was first observed using a telescope by Galileo Galilei in 1610." As worded, there is multiple ambiguity here. The intended meaning is that the first telescopic observation of Mars was by Galileo in 1610, and the sentence should be rephrased accordingly. ✓
  • "Martian" and "martian" both used; I suspect the former is correct. ✓
  • "...multiple robotic spacecraft have been sent to explore Mars from orbit and the surface in detail." Ungrammatical sentence end. ✓
  • Last sentence: Does this refer to the discovery on Earth of Martian meteorites? ✓
  • Image: I note that NASA images emanating from the Soviet/Russian Space Agency are not necessarily PD. ✓
    • I think the combined image in the lead comes from the Russian wikipedia, rather than their space agency.
• Earliest records
  • Why is the motion of Mars "retrograde"? ✓
  • "notably missing": editorial comment? ✓
  • Last sentence: is there any reason why planetary theory suddenly became of interest to the Greeks at this time? ✓
• Orbital models
  • A problem with this section is the number of technical terms which general readers may find off-putting. True, these are generally linked, but sometimes the link article is equally opaque. For example epicycle-deferent; angular velocity; angular diameter; arcminutes and others. Without suggesting a general dumbing down, I think it might be helpful to have a little more explanation in the text (this is a factor in other sections, too). ✓
    • Hopefully I've clarified the jargon.
  • "This elegant approach..." reads like editorial opinion ✓
  • "became an adherent the Copernican system" - the word "to" is missing ✓
  • "succeeded at" → "succeeded in" ✓
• Early telescope observation
  • "During the oppositions of 1651, 1653 and 1655..." What are "oppositions"? (NB I notice that the term is linked later - it should be linked here, or explained, at first mention) ✓
  • "The Italian astronomer Giovanni Domenico Cassini was perhaps the first to definitively mention the southern polar ice cap of Mars in 1666." This phrasing creates ambiguity in a sentence already confused by the double qualifications of "perhaps" and "definitively". The meaning and the caveats would be clearer if this was rephrased: "Perhaps the first definitive mention of Mars's southern polar ice cap was by the Italian astronomer Giovanni Domenico Cassini, in 1666". ✓
  • What does "perihelical" mean? ✓
• Geographical period
  • The Proctor map needs complete details relating to its first publication ✓
  • What is meant by "spectrum" in this context? ✓
• Martian canals
  • The caption to the Schiaparelli map should indicates which are the "canali" ✓
  • "He advocated for the existence of just such inhabitants..." The word "just" is superfluous ✓
• Refining planetary parameters
  • "Previous detections of water in the atmosphere of Mars were blamed upon..." I think "explained by" rather than "blamed upon" ✓
  • On the matter previously raised about accessible prose, take this extract: "Baltic German astronomer Hermann Struve used the observed speed of rotation of the apsides of the Martian moons to determine the amount of secular perturbation caused by the planet's oblateness. In 1895, he published a value of 1/190 for this rotational flattening. In 1911, he refined the value to 1/192. I defy anyone without considerable prior knowledge to interpret the meaning of this, even with the help of links. ✓
  • "aphelic"? ✓
• Remote sensing
  • "This worldwide program focused significant activity on observing the development of dust storms..."; "focused significant activity on" is very heavy-handed prose; could you try something smoother? ✓
  • "X-ray emission from Mars was first observed in 2001 using the Chandra X-ray Observatory." "Using the..."? Surely, "from the" or "by the"? ✓
    • In this case the observatory is an orbiting spacecraft. The images are sent to the Earth for interpretation. Maybe it should say "first observed by astronomers"? ✓
  • Sadly, much of this section is beyond the understanding of laypersons. ✓
    • I've tried to make the section more transparent. Hopefully that makes some difference. Unfortunately some technical terms are still necessary.

In all, an impressive article. I believe, however, that some parts will need to be redrafted in a more reader-friendly manner prior to a FAC submission. Brianboulton (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive and helpful review. I'll try to rework the article to make the technical prose clearer.—RJH (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Suharto

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… While I know this is article is not quite ready for FAC, I'd like some outside eyes to advise on what could be done to improve. One shortcoming which I will work on soon is that perhaps the material on his presidency is not as strong as the pre-presidency material. Thanks, Merbabu (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lead needs rejigging but not sure exactly how yet until I read the article. The main thing is the lead needn't follow the flow of the body of the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I know little about him, so am not the best to comment confidently on comprehensiveness.

• Peta is in lowercase in one place, and in all caps elsewhere.

• If you can, try and minimise the use of "Suharto" - yes I know this is difficult :)

• the Operational Command for the Restoration of Security and Order (Kopkamtib) and the State Intelligence Coordination Agency (BAKIN) - why is one in italics and the other not (and capitalised)? - looks funny

• Imperial units needed in the Investigations of wealth section.

Brianboulton comments:

First, numerous problems with external links:-

• Ref. 76: Link broken
• Ref. 86: Link broken
• General ref, Amnesty International 27.11.96| link does not go to the required article
• Ref. 75: Repeated timeouts
• Ref. 81: Repeated timeouts
• General ref, "Public Expenditure, Prices and the Poor": Repeated timeouts

On prose, I am not sure that I will be able to give attention to the full text, but I can help to get the lead in shape.

• The lead should be a broad summary of the content of the article, but should avoid specific detail. Thus, for example, information such as that Suharto was born in a small village, that his parents divorced and that he was reared by various foster-parents, should appear in the main text of the article but these details are not required in the lead. Likewise the "one name" information in the final paragraph.
• The first paragraph of the lead should not simply give the fact that Suharto was the second President of Indonesia, but should add a sentence giving the most salient features of his presidency. This can be done by using some of the information that appears later in the lead. The sort of additional sentence I have in mind might read: "For much of Suharto's presidency Indonesia experienced significant economic growth and better living standards, but his record was undermined by the costly 24-year occupation of East Timor, by increasing authoritarianism, and by allegations of corruption. These factors led to Suharto's resignation in 1998, amid rising popular unrest." (This is offered as an example of what I think is needed; you don't have to adopt it word for word.)
• In any event, the first sentence needs to be amended: "having held the office" should be "holding the office"; Sukharno needs to be linked: also, "Sukarno's removal" is a bit terse - perhaps extend to "his predecessor Sukarno's removal from office".
• The first paragraph could then read thus:-

Suharto^ⓘ (8 June 1921 – 27 January 2008) was the second President of Indonesia, holding the office for 32 years from 1967 following his predecessor Sukarno's removal from office. For much of Suharto's presidency Indonesia experienced significant economic growth and better living standards, but his record was undermined by the costly 24-year occupation of East Timor, by increasing authoritarianism, and by allegations of corruption. These factors, and rising popular unrest, led to his resignation in 1998.

• It would of course be necessary to reorganise the lead prose to take account of the above.
• I notice that some of the statements in the lead have been cited. These facts would probably be better cited when they occur in the main text. There doesn't seem to be a logical reason why at the moment some lead statements are cited and others not.

That's all I can provide at the moment. The article certainly looks promising on the basis of a fairly swift look-through, though it needs to be read by someone with more knowledge of Indonesian history and politics than I possess. When/if the opportunity arises I will try to return with further suggestions.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Clemuel Ricketts Mansion

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is at least up to GA standards and perhaps up to FA criteria, but I would appreciate input from other editors before taking it to GAN or FAC. Thanks in advance for any feedback, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by Dincher (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

drop the 'in' between Colley Township and Sullivan County.

Dropped, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

it was home to ? generations, how many generations?

Well at least three and probably four generations - 1) brothers Clemuel and Elijah, 2) Elijah's son Robert Bruce (no idea if Clemuel had kids), and 3) RB's son William Reynolds. William had a son Robert Bruce Ricketts II who died young and is buried at Ganoga Lake in the family cemetery - I assume he lived in the house at some point too, but have no reliable source that explicitly says that, so I left it vague. I will probably expand the articles on RB and WR at some point and would RB II to those, not sure he belongs in this article. What do you think? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

several generations ought to do the trick. --Dincher (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It was included.... second sentence beginning with 'it' suggest changing to 'the mansion' or some other noun

Good catch, used "The house". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Is club house a compound word? clubhouse or club house. A dictionary will answer this question

Thanks for another good catch - clubhouse it is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Location

The first sentence has 6 prepositional phrases. This could be shortened by dropping, in north central Pennsylvania

Dropped it, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

History

Elijah G. RIcketts should be Ricketts

Yes it should and now it is, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In 1851 they started ..... which they completed in 1852. Long sentence suggest rewording to: Construction began in 1851 and was completed the following year. or something similar

Changed to They started building a stone house on the lake shore in 1851 and finished it the next year. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The hotel was run by, suggest changing to operated or managed.

Changed to managed, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The house and its hotel, suggest dropping the its

Dropped, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The hotel closed in 1903, and passenger train service ended then. suggest dropping the then or chaning from then to at that time.

Used "at that time" thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The stone house... home and was renovated and a new wing was .... Two ands in one sentence. suggest making two sentences from this information.

Split it for now, could also use a semicolon here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A source in the main park article places the end of tha Nat. Park project prior to WWII due to funding problems. Perhaps change it to budget problems and the war.

Thanks very much - added the ref and budget problems, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thus, private development of houses on the lake only began.... drop the only.

I did and the whole sentence was a bit odd, so I dropped it - more about the lake and its development than the mansion. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Architecture

This section looks pretty good, but I don't know much about architecture. Might want to get more feedback from another user on this section.

Thanks, I will see if I can get someone else to look at it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall the article is pretty good. Many of the sentences begin with prepositions. These could be easily changed by re-ordering the sentence, or not. Not a big deal either way. Dincher (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Link check for redirects and wrong links

Lead

Georgian style is a redirect to Georgian architecture

Location

No problems

History

Repeated link to Towanda already linked in Location section

New York Times should be The New York Times

Architecture

gable roof is a redirect to gable

All of these have been fixed now, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Link check is complete. Dincher (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Are the grounds open to the public so that more color photographs of the mansion can be taken? This would be nice. Dincher (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a gate with a security camera so I do not want to trespass, even for a good cause. There are a few more photos of the house on Flickr, but not under a free license and not as good (IMO) for showing the fronnt or door as the black and white HABS photos. Thanks for your helpful and thorough review, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Niagara

I am not seeing many problems with the Architecture section; it is very detailed and comprehensive.

• It's "L-shaped", not "ell-shaped". Ell is an ancient unit of measure.
  • Thanks - I changed it to L-shaped. There is an article on Ell (architecture), but that is not really relavant here either. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• The CRGIS link for the nom form is here, if you wish to update it.
  • I have updated it - thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• In the infobox: How can Colley Township be the "nearest city" (apart from the obvious fact that is not a city) if the mansion is in Colley Township. Not necessary, but I'd also break up that link such that "Colley Township, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania" links to the relevant township, county, and state article.
  • I used Elkman's NRHP infobox generator for the infobox. Have changed the "nearest city" field (which would probably be Wilkes-Barre if true cities are meant) to the "location" field and split it up so there are individual links for the township, county, and state. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I, too, agree that some recent photos would be nice. I wonder if there is a way to contact the owners? Maybe they've heard of Wikipedia and would willing to let you photograph the mansion (I mean, how often does one hear that your house has its own article). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have been in Flickr and email contact with someone who has a house there (for photo permissions) - will ask if it is OK if I go there and get some pictures. Looking at forecasts the weather there is supposed to be nice by the weekend. Thanks very much for your helpful comments. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have an appointment to tour the house in a few weeks. Hopefully the weather will be good. Until then I am closing this PR and nominating at GAN. Thanks very much for the review comments, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    

---

Sarah Geronimo

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take it to GA soon. Currently, it is in class B and has gone through a copyedit, neutralization, and source formatting. Please comment anything that you think we can improve in the article. All comments will be acceptable before I nominate it.

Thanks, White paladin888 (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit - You asked me for some further thoughts on whether or not this article is ready for GA. In my opinion, the article is missing a major section: a section on Geronimo's musical style and voice. See these articles for the kind of thing I mean: Aaliyah, Mariah Carey, and Celine Dion. The writing in the article certainly meets GA standards (there are a few awkward sentences, but these could be quickly fixed). I didn't look at all of the sources, but some of them look like they might fall into a gray area in terms of reliability (I wonder about using Geronimo's own site so much, for example). If you want me to do a full source analysis, let me know. Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Source review - I know very little about popular music sources, so I hope I didn't miss anything! Here is my review, though:

• In general, the notes need to more clearly identify the sources being cited - they need the names of the publications, not just the web address, for example. The reader should not have click on the link to understand what publication is being cited.
• Be sure that any non-English articles indicate what language they are in - there are language templates for that.
• Since this is a promotional website, I would not use it as a source if there are other sources available. I saw that many times you have other sources. If that is the case, I would remove this source. This is true for all of the sarahgeronimo.com sources.
• Try to source anything remotely controversial or debatable to third-party sources, rather than Geronimo's own site, such as the numbers of albums sold.
• Why is this source reliable?
• Why is this source reliable?
• This source is a reprint, is that it?

I hope this is helpful! Awadewit (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer from White Paladin888 - Thank you for doing a peer review in the article. Next week or next next week, I'll start my research about "Musical Style" and "Voice" as well since I'm very busy at the moment. I'm here to answer some questions regarding the sources:

this source is reliable because, like philstar and other sources in the article, it is the website of a newspaper. But if you don't like this site, you can remove it since there are other good sources that's been used in the same sentence.=))

source is reliable because "Manila standard today" is a NEWSPAPER too. But the news/article wrote both in the said site and the newspaper as well.

This source is a reprint? Well, based from the site, it shows that it repost some articles from different sites like Philstar and Manila Bulletin. And those sites are reliable because they are newspapers.

Now, regarding her site, do you think it's unreliable? you can remove some sarahgeronimo.com sources IF THERE's other sources that has been cited in the article. But if there's no other sources except her site, well just leave it that way for now (I'll research more reliable sources next next week..)

Again, Thank you for reviewing this article, OVERALL, do you think the article is good? Of course except those things that you noticed..--White paladin888 (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments from SuperFlash101: I was asked to review this last month. My humblest apologies for not doing so until presently. Overall, I find that this article is good, but here are some aspects in need of improvement IMO:

• I'd suggest moving all of the free-use images of her to Commons.

•  Done(White paladin888 (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

• Some standalone paragraphs in "Career breakthrough" can easily be merged with others in the section as they are rather small.
• "In 2004, Geronimo signed a contract with ABS-CBN network" → "with the ABS-CBN network"

•  Done--White paladin888 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Section "Concerts and movie success: 2008—present" should be renamed to "Concerts and film success: 2008—present" IMO.

•  Done--White paladin888 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• The caption "Sarah Geronimo's star in Walk of Fame Philippines, set in December 2009" → "Sarah Geronimo's star on the Philippines Walk of Fame, given in December 2009."

•  Done--White paladin888 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 20:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Protein allergy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am completing this article for a class project with another user. We would appreciate any feedback and comments anyone has to offer!

Thanks, Clarker1 (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a good start and an important topic, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Please see WP:LEAD - the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, and can be up to four paragraphs long. I do not think the current lead is a true summary of the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I also do not work on the lead too much until I am reasonably happy with the rest of the article (although it is read first, a good lead is written last).
• The red link in the lead should be to GTP-binding protein
• One of the major problems with the article is a lack of references in places. Many parts are nicely cited, but others have no references at all - for example the first paragraph of Symptoms, as well as the Skin symptoms and Gastrointestinal symptoms sections. The table in Avoidance is also not clearly cited.
• Per WP:HEAD, subsections should avoid repeating the name of a higher section, so "Skin symptoms" could just be "Skin" (since it is already in the symptoms section, this should be clear).
• Refereces used need to be reliable sources - I am not sure what came from Wikimedia.org (listed as a source) but it is not considered reliable. I am also doubtful that foodallergy.org and highproteinfoods.net are reliable sources.
• There are a lot of External links - several of them look like they might be better used as references
• The article as written has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections - these break up the flow of the prose. In most cases these should be combined with other sections or paragraphs, or perhaps expanded.
• My main concern with the article is the focus. Much of the article seems to be more about how proteins work in general, with little apparent relevance to allergies. WHile it is good to have some information on proteins in the article as background and to help understand the topic, I think the current version gives too much weight to the basics of proteins - see WP:WEIGHT
• Continuing with the focus problem, it seems to me that there is not really a basic explanation of how allergies occur / what triggers them. The phrase "immune system" only appears once in the article - if there is a bit too much on the basics of proteins, there is much too little on the immune system and how allergies work in general.
• The toolbox in the upper right hand corner here has some useful things to look at too. The automated tips lists several things that could be improved. There is one disambiguation (dab) link that needs to be corrected.
• The external link checker finds one dead link and others that may have problems.
• The alt text tool shows no alt text (for people who cannot see the images - see WP:ALT)
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several featured articles in the Biology and Health and Medicine sections at Wikipedia:Featured articles that may be good models

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Note article is at Protein allergy Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

---

List of FC Barcelona players

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's ready to go for FL as soon as the prose is decent.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find problems with dead citation urls, links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets, and missing alt text. WP:ALT has details about alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. The dead urls and dabs will certainly have to be fixed, and it would be good to add the alt text. Finetooth (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• This list was withdrawn from WP:FLC last month, after reviewers had queried the accuracy of some of the information and had raised points about the sourcing. Other issues were also mentioned. In revising the list, have you contacted these editors to enquire whether you have met their concerns?
• The lead is still problematic. Note:-
  • "...and the most successful club in Spanish football after Real Madrid" - this phrasing occurs in both the second and the third lines.
    • Done
  • Numbers in excess of 10 are normally given numerically, so why nineteen, twenty-five, fourteen?
    • Done
  • "The founder, Joan Gamper, was also one of the first football players the club had," Clumsy, try "The founder, Joan Gamper, was also one of the club's first football players..."
    • thank you
  • Problems also with the remainder of the sentence: "...and still holds the record for most goals in one match, with nine goals scored." You need to define "still" in terms of time ("as of April 2010"), and you can avoid repetition by saying: "...holds the record for most goals scored in one match, with nine."
    • Done
  • You don't need to say both "Thirteen years after the foundation of Barcelona" and "in 1912", since you have just given the foundation year as 1899.
    • Done
  • "one of the player legends in the club..." Who is defining what is a "legend". Has he officially been given this title?
  • "Today he still..." Same point as above re dating.
    • Done
  • "scored at Barcelona" → "scored for Barcelona". Also, lose the comma after "Barcelona".
    • Done
  • I don't want to split hairs, but it's not 100 years since Alcántara joined Barcelona. You could say "In around 100 yeara..." - that will be valid for a few years.
    • Done
  • "Barcelona has had several of the world's greatest players as it has received seven FIFA World Player and Ballon d'Or awards, making it the club with most FIFA World Player of the Year awards." This needs rephrasing. It is the players individually who receive these awards, so "it has received" is wrong. "Barelona has had..." is also clumsy - clubs don't "have" players. What is the difference between "FIFA World Player" and "FIFA World Player of the Year" awards?
    • Re-written.
  • I would rather you spelt out Barcelona's six awards, instead of making me use the "sextuple" link and search for the relevant information there.
    • Done
  • "The list includes notable footballers who have played for Barcelona. Generally, this means all players that have played 100 or more league matches for the club. However, some players who have played fewer matches are also included. This includes those who are recognized as official club legends by FC Barcelona, first captains and players who have set a club playing record, such as goalscoring or transfer fee records." I recommend that this information is given in the first paragraph, since it is this that defines the character of the list.
    • Done
• List: this is very well-presented, but the zeroes in the first few entries are confusing. I understand from your note that you are not including appearances prior to the formation of La Liga, but it would be better to replace these zeroes with "n/a" (not applicable) or dashes.
  • N/A it is
• Notes: some of the information provided in these notes requires citation to a source (e.g. Q)
  • Only Q AFAIK.
• Images
  • File:Gamper mov.jpg: Where did the photographer's name come from, and how do we know he died before 1940? Otherwise, can we establish a first publication date, that would release the image under PD-US?
    • Afraid not, image removed
  • File:Romário.jpg: the link to Agência Brasil is broken
  • File:Carles Puyol Joan Gamper-Tr.jpg: file information should be given more formally, e.g. author's full name rather than "my friend Shay". It would be helpful if the author's permission to use the photograph was given in English rather than Hebrew. Same applies to File:Bojan Krkic Joan Gamper Trophy.jpg
    • Agreed.
  • Information given in the image captions needs to be cited.

I hope these comments are helpful. Please contact my talkpage if you wish to raise anything with me, as at the moment I am unable to watch individual peer reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments appreciated. Sandman888 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Nobel Prize

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've worked on this article for a while now and have nominated it to FA two times, which it has failed once; the second time I withdrew it since many users suggested it should be peer reviewed first. The article has several problems I believe, the biggest would probably be prose and some inconsistency in expressions. I'm bad at reviewing things myself and would need help in finding the problems.

I would be grateful for any help, thanks, Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment - the reason the bot closed this originally was because it was still listed at FAC at the time. The PR bot will archive anything that is also listed at FAC. This PR is now on the PR backlog, so someone should get to it in the next several days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I must apologise for the time taken to get to this review, but there is something of a logjam in Peer Review at the moment. Here are some comments on the lead which you might like to consider.

No need to apologise. I'm just happy there are people who do peer reviews! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lead
  • The first sentence as now written implies a single annual Nobel prize. Should it not begin: "Nobel Prizes (Swedish: Nobelpriset) are annual international awards bestowed by..."? The plural would then need to be continued in the subsequent sentences: "The awards were established...", "They were first awarded in 1901..." etc.

    Good catch. Fixed it. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • "Scandinavia" should be "Scandinavian", and I don't think the link is necessary.

    Done. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Personally, I would prefer to see the sentence "The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive" plced immediately after the listing of the main disciplines and before the information about the associated prize.

    Wouldn't that imply that only the main disciplines are regarded as "most prestigious award one can receive"? Economics is also highly regarded. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Mention of the "Nobel prize in Economics" is a little confusing bearing in mind that you go on to say that this is not a Nobel prize. I suggest you amend thIs sentence to "Although this is not technically a Nobel Prize, its winners are announced with the Nobel Prize recipients, and iit s presented at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony."

    Changed. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • "presented a gold medal" should read "presented with a gold medal"

    Changed. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • It is not usual to talk about a "quantity" of money. Rather than saying "a varying quantity of money" I would say "a sum of money that varies from year to year depending on the annual income of the Nobel Foundation."

    Changed from "quantity" to "sum" but I didn't merge the two sentences it would be too messy then I think. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • "Critics of the Nobel Prize note that the committees sometimes choose poor candidates (such as the failure to award a Nobel Peace Prize for Mahatma Gandhi)..." The "such as" is inappropriate; the failure to award a Peace Prize to Gandhi doesn't of itself mean that "poor" candidates were chosen. This paragraph needs to be simplified and rewritten along the lines: "Criticisms of the Nobel Prize awarding bodies have included the failure to award the Peace Prize to Mahatma Gandhi and other high-profile candidates; the application of a strict rule against a prize being shared among more than three people; and the prohibition of posthumous awards."

    I changed it to what you suggested although I kept the part "which fails to recognise achievements by a collaborator who dies before the prize is awarded" since I think it is important to make it easier to understand. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I will add more when I have a little more time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Norton Priory

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because since it was accepted as a GA it has been expanded with the findings of the excavations in the 1970s and since, and is now as comprehensive as I can make it. I have recently asked for comments from experts in the subject, and these have been taken into consideration; also it has had a copyedit, and more photographs have been added. I look forward to a review of the whole article, with the aim of submitting it as a FAC.

Thanks, Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• The status of alt text for images is presently in a bit of flux, but I'm sure it will at some point in the near future be restored to the MoS, and hence the FA criteria. With that in mind, something I forgot to mention when I looked at the article earlier is that the {{Infobox monastery}} template needs to be updated to display the alt text for the image in the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks; query raised on the talk page.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• That talk page looks like a ghost town, so I've fixed it myself. It works fine now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Brilliant; I'd no idea how to do it. Many thanks.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments This certainly seems comprehensive, and it's professionally written and nicely illustrated. I enjoyed reading about this fascinating place. I found unusually few things to say about an article this long; that's good. Here they are, none requiring complicated fixes.

Priory

• "This was the only practical site where the Mersey could be crossed between Warrington and Birkenhead, and Brown and Howard-Davis considered it likely that the canons cared for travellers and pilgrims crossing the river." - Since this is the first mention of Brown and Howard-Davis, would it be helpful to readers to include their first names and a brief description such as "historians"? Also, would present tense be better for references to published works; e.g., "consider it likely"? And in the next sentence, "They also speculate... "? I think this would help keep the time of the writing (present, more-or-less) distinct from the time of the history being written about. Ditto for "The authors of the Victoria County History suggested... " a few sentences later. I think "suggest" would be more clear. Ditto for similar constructions in the article. Ah, I see later that you have used present tense here: "In addition to orchards and herb gardens in the moated enclosures, Brown and Howard-Davis are of the opinion that it is likely that beehives... ". So maybe it will not be a big problem to change the others.

• Added first names and descriptions for the authors. Not sure about the tense; please see comments below.

• "Nothing remains today of the site of the original priory in Runcorn." - Delete "today" as unneeded?

• Done.

• "A serious fire in 1236 destroyed the timber-built kitchen and damaged the west range of the monastic buildings and the roof of the church." - Delete "serious"? It's clear from the rest of the sentence that it was serious.

• Done.

• "Brown and Howard-Davis estimated that the original community would have consisted of 12 canons and the prior... ". - Link canon on first use?

• Already linked earlier.

Abbey

• "Initially the abbey was undervalued so that it could classified as a minor monastery... " - Missing word, "be"?

• Fixed.

Country house

• "At some time between 1727 and 1757 the Tudor house was demolished and replaced by a new house in Georgian style." - Delete "At some time"?

• If you delete "at some time", that makes it look like the demolition took 30 years. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• True. Replaced. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The ground floor of the west wing retained the former vaulted undercroft of the west range of the medieval abbey," - Wikilink undercroft on first use?
• "Greene was of the opinion that it probably formed the entrance from the west cloister walk into the nave of the church." - Wikilink nave on first use?
• "Greene was of the opinion that it probably formed the entrance from the west cloister walk into the nave of the church." - I think this is the first mention of Greene in the article. If so, it should be J. Patrick Greene here rather than later. This sort of link re-ordering often happens in my articles when I move things around or add material at widely differing times.
• "It was decided to create a museum on the site... ". - Who decided?

• All done/fixed.

Artifacts from the buildings

• "The excavations revealed an area of tiles of about 80 square metres... " - Conversion: 80 square metres (860 sq ft)?
• Consider linking trefoil?

• Both done.

Artifacts from daily life

• "including 10 pfennig piece from Germany dated 1901" - Should this be "a 10-pfennig piece" or "10 pfennig pieces"?

• n-dash added (or should it be a hyphen?).

Grounds

• "and a sculpture tail has been designed in conjunction with these" - What is a "sculpture tail"?

• Whoops, missing "r" -> trail

Walled gardens

• "It is Grade II listed building." - Missing word, "a"?
• "programmes aimed towards the community" - "Aimed" is used in the same way three times in this section. Maybe "meant for" or some other word or phrase could be substituted for variety.
• "Since its opening, the museum has won awards for its work in a number of different categories, including tourism, education, outreach and gardening." - Tighten to "Since its opening, the museum has won awards for its work in tourism, education, outreach, and gardening'?

• All fixed.

Bibliography

• It might be helpful to add the OCLC numbers for books with no ISBN. You can find these via WorldCat.

• Two fixed, but could not find anything for Starkey.

Images

• Nicely illustrated.
• File:Norton Priory Loggia.jpg needs more detail (who, what, where, when) in the Summary part of its page on the Commons. I'd suggest adding more details to the some of the others too; e.g., city, county, country.

• Details added to all images on Commons.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. As you can see from a glance at the backlog, we are always running a bit behind. Finetooth (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I had given thought to the tense of the comments/opinions. All the authors of these comments are still alive (I hope) but I expect the article to outlive the authors. Also these were their opinions when they wrote; they may change (may have changed) their minds; new evidence may be found to lead them to change their opinions, etc. The present tense may read better; the past tense is certainly accurate. What do you think? (Whatever the agreement, I must make them consistent throughout.)--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I lean toward present tense because by custom it refers to the eternal present of the published document; e.g. "Arfley in his masterwork, Botox or Smallpox, says of Shakespeare's landscape imagery... ". I think it sometimes makes more sense in context to use the past tense; e.g., "Arfley disapproved of Trollope's love of heavy artillery, but Hotfoot thought it wonderful". So, I hedge on this. You're on your own. :-) Finetooth (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have gone for custom rather than "accuracy" and will wait to see what the FA reviewers think. I have changed all the "past" to "present" and hope I have not missed any. If all the matters raised have now been dealt with, it is time to close the review?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Pittston Coal strike

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working on this as a class project. I am not too familiar with minning and would like some feedback. I am also very new to wikipedia and do not know how to write a good article under its standards. If anyone could help fix grammer, typos, and even add information it would help alot. I really want to do well on this project and would like any type of review as long as it helps me to improve the article.

Thanks, Megzie113 (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all welcome to Wikipedia (WP for short) and thank you for your efforts with this article. You have indicated that you are new to WP and so as I review the article I will provide suggestions and sprinkle in tips from the Manual of Style, which is the guideline for all articles within WP. If my review is too rudimentary please let me know, I want it to be helpful rather than covering stuff you may already know. I won't make a lot of prose comments as I want to focus more on explaining WP guidelines rather than discussing grammatical issues.

Lead

• See WP:LEAD for thoughts on what is supposed to be in a good lead. Make sure the information in the lead covers all the subjects in the body of the article. Conversely make sure that the lead doesn't bring up items not found in the body of the text. A good rule is that a reader should be able to get a skeletal idea of the subject simply from the lead. The rest of the text is filling in the details.
• Your lead seems ok, I haven't read the entire article so I don't know if it covers everything within the article but it appears to conform with the guidelines. I would recommend an image in the Infobox if you can find one.

The Pittston Strike of 1989

• I'm not really sure of the need for this section. It seems to be a very brief summary of the reasons for the strike and the strike itself. Since this is covered in the lead and the body of the article I don't really think it is needed. It seems duplicative.
• The image in this section is nice though a bit dated. But still it seems topical.

Events leading to the strike

• I did some word-smithing in this section, nothing major just trying to use some better or more topical words. Please feel free to revert or change if you feel I'm off base.
• Otherwise I think this section is pretty good.

UMWA declares strike

• The first paragraph ends with the end of the strike but then the rest of the section discusses the particulars of the strike. I recommend removing this final sentence in the first paragraph about how the strike ended. It's duplicated at the end of the section anyway.
• Consider combining this section with the Stike tactics section. I think that the subjects are intertwined.

Strike tactics

• Check out the link to wildcat. It is to the animal. I'm guessing the reference to a wildcat striker is to a rogue, rebellious striker who wants to take matters into his/her own hands. Is that right? If so consider using a different term or at least explaining the term here. You want to avoid jargon that readers would not be familiar with.
• I delinked equipment in this section as the term is to vague to be linked and is a common term in English. See WP:LINK for thoughts on linking.
• This sentence has been stated a couple times already, "The strike lasted until a settlement was finally agreed upon in February 1990." I don't think it needs to be said again in this section.
• The template is there because someone determined that a statement was made that is not supported by any of the in-line citations immediately following it. So it will be important to reference the sentence that has the tag on it. More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• "Mass sit down strikes and large groups of people picketing outside of the Pittston coal mines." This is a fragment sentence, consider combining with the previous sentence.
• The Civil disobedience sub-section is a bit sparse, can it be expanded or combined with the Violent actions sub-section?
• There is another template in the Moss 3 sub-section, there is also direction about this specific template placed in hidden text after the template. Click on the "edit" link for this sub-section and you'll see what is needed to fulfill the needs of a citation.
• I also added a template at the end of this sub-section. A common error many editors (including myself) have made is something called weasel wording. Editors will start sentences with "Experts claim that...", or "Many people believe...", or in this case, "People outside Moss 3 feel that..." and follow it with information that is not supported by outside references. They claim support because "People feel that way." This is very common and I would recommend taking a look at this sentence and rewording it to avoid weasel words.
• There's another reference to when the strike ended in the Moss 3 sub-section, I think it's a bit redundant to keep saying it.

Women's involvement

• "A majority of the support that the union members received was from women." Do you have a cite for this fact? Make sure it's referenced.
• List the two pivotal women's groups in the introductory section.
• It's usually not a good idea to drop in-line citations in the middle of a sentence. It's ok to put it at the end of the sentence or at least at the end of a comma. See WP:CITE for all things about in-line citations.
• I've seen a few misplaced hard spaces. See WP:NBSP for more info on hard spaces. Usually they come between numbers and a unit of measurement like years, meters, or millions. I removed a few but you might want to check throughout the article.

Aftermath

• I want to raise another issue with this sentence:

"Though the physical aspects of the area have changed since the strike has ended, what has not changed is the feeling that the miners of Pittston accomplished a win for their own benefits as well as benefits for the UMWA."

WP:NPOV is a requirement that all articles be neutral, that they present both sides without bias towards one point of view. I feel that the overall tone of the article is pro-miner. There is little about the financial pressures that the company was under. Some in the lead up to the strike but most of the article is centered on the miners. This sentence is evidence of opinion rather than verifiable fact. Try to keep the focus of the article on facts.

• The case is still undecided 16 years after the fact? That seems like an awful long time.

References

• There are a great many different formats for referencing. The most important thing is that you remain consistent. I see some book refs that have page numbers and others that don't. This should be remedied. Other than that your refs look pretty good. WP:CITE also has formats for referencing.
• WP:VERIFY covers references that are credible and references that aren't. I see the extensive use of an article by the United Mine Workers' Journal "A Strike like No Other Strike: Pittston Strike Holds Lessons for Today". While the source is probably valid and credible, it is also likely to be biased towards the miners. I don't think the article relies to heavily on the source but it's just something to be aware of.

Overall

• I think you've done great work here, you have a good working knowledge of WP style, which can be very complex and confusing. I note that the article is at WP:GAC, you may want to put the article up against the Good Article criteria to make sure it meets the GA standards. You're off to a great start and my suggestions are mainly going to help tweak the article and hopefully make it better. Best of luck to you. If you have any questions or concerns about this review please give me a poke on my talk page and I'll happily interact with you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Superhero

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has a very high importance and comparatively low quality. References need to be added and original research removed.

Thanks, Beware the Unknown (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This is not what Peer Reviews are for. The process isn't meant to invite collaborators, or those who wish to work on an article; see the top of the PR page for what it IS for: "Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." You already know the numerous issues involved with this article, so try drumming up interest on the article's talk page, or at an affiliated Wikiproject. I suggest removing this PR for now, however, as there's currently a backlog to be dealt with. María (habla conmigo) 13:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Closed--Beware the Unknown (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Food

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has a wide range of information regarding food but know it is still missing crutial details. I am looking for comments to improve the article from other editors.

Thanks, Tommy (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article is generally well-written and interesting. It takes on a gigantic subject which I think would be difficult to cover comprehensively even in a big series of related articles. Although I think the article is commendable, it's uneven in quality from section to section. I've tried to note some of the places that I think need copyediting or relatively minor spiffing, and I've made a few comments about more substantive matters.

Well said. Thank you for the feedback. Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 01:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead Done

• The lead should be a summary of the whole article. This lead is well-written but only summarizes parts of the article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. Missing any mention in the lead are commercial trade, famine, safety, legal definition, dietary problems, restaurants, and others. Even though you don't need to cram everything into the lead, this article is long enough to justify a lead of perhaps four full paragraphs. On the other hand, you might put off revising the lead until the main text sections have all become stable and more-or-less complete.

Food sources

• A good rule of thumb for sourcing is to provide at least one source for every paragraph and to source every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, every direct quotation, and every set of statistics. The first paragraph of this section is unsourced even though it contains information that is not common knowledge. For example, many people would not know that Nori is an underwater plant eaten with sushi. Where does that information come from? Ditto for other unsourced paragraphs in the article.

Sweet Done

• "Complex carbs are long chains and thus do not have the sweet taste." - "Carbohydrates" rather than "carbs"? Also, "long chains" needs a brief explanation, possibly an illustration.
• "Artificial sweeteners such as sucralose are used to mimic the sugar molecule, giving one the sense of sweet, without the calories." - Wikipedia avoids self-references such as "one" in this sentence. The problem is usually easy to avoid by re-casting the sentence; e.g., "Artificial sweeteners such as sucralose are used to mimic the sugar molecule to create the sense of sweet without the calories." Ditto for other sentences in the article that use "one" as a pronoun.

Cooking equipment Done

• "Different cuisines will use different types of ovens, for example Indian culture uses a Tandoor oven is a cylindrical clay oven which operates at a single high temperature... ". - Words missing?
• The proofreading seems to have broken down in this section. I fixed a few things at the beginning, but the sentence noted above is mixed up, and "cook-tops are used to heat vessels placed on top of the heat source, such as a sauté pan, sauce pot, frying pan, pressure cooker, etc." starts with a lower-case letter, and the list of pans and pots seems to illogically modify "source". The next sentence repeats the word "method" four times. On the other hand, the examples of cooking methods are good as are the illustrations.

International exports and imports

• The article is already long and complicated, but this rather dry section does not mention the effect of food exportation on hungry people living in the food-exporting countries. It also does not mention that some countries such as Haiti depend on food importation for survival rather than convenience.

Marketing and retailing

• This section seems U.S-centric, whereas the one above it is international. I'm not sure what the solution is; you've tackled a truly gigantic topic. I think something needs to be said about food distribution in non-industrial economies. Which countries do not have supermarkets? What other sorts of food-distribution networks exist in the world? What about subsistence farming?

Prices

• This information is outdated, and some of its claims seem doubtful. For example, "In the long term, prices are expected to stabilize" is an extraordinary claim depending on what "long term" is taken to mean. One report by CNN is not sufficient to support a claim like this. A basic sense of supply-and-demand economics would seem to suggest the opposite: if world population continues to increase, at some point demand for food will exceed the upper limits of possible supply. That would seem to guarantee price increases in the long term. If you get into the economics of food, I think you need to include something about the related questions of population, the limits of industrial agriculture, the dwindling supply of ocean fish, and the dwindling supply of fossil fuels. All of this is complicated and in many ways highly controversial. I can easily imagine a separate large article devoted solely to this topic.

Food aid

• Another complication is that food aid is not only a problem in the "neediest countries". I live in a rich industrialized country but only two blocks from a food bank for people who are struggling to get enough to eat.

Nutrition and dietary problems

• This section is unsourced and reads too much like an essay. For example, "As previously discussed," is a phrase that might appear in an essay but generally not in an encyclopedia article. "Unfortunately this promotes obesity in adults and children alike" is an editorial statement coming, apparently, from Wikipedia. It therefore violates WP:NPOV. That is not to say that the claim is false, just that it is unsupported by a citation to a reliable source and does not take into account opposing viewpoints, if any.

Other

• Some of the links in the citations are dead. The link-checker tool at the top of this review page reveals the dead links.
• The dab tool finds 12 links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

Legal definition

• "Some countries list a legal definition of food." - It might be helpful to name two or three specific countries that have such definitions and then use the definitions to show what they have in common and how they differ.

References

• The references with urls are malformed. For citations to on-line sources, include author, title, url, publisher, date of publication, and access date, if all of these are known or can be found. The templates at WP:CIT are useful for organizing the footnotes, or you can do them by hand without templates.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. We are always in need of willing and able reviewers, upon which the whole system depends. Finetooth (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

---