Wikipedia:Peer review/April 2013

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.

---

April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback with a view towards bringing the article to FA status.

Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Lower limbs venous ultrasonography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it for potential good article nomination. I'm afraid to develop it much more because it can be hard to understand for non experts readers. So I would like your advice and your suggestions about what section to expand. I'm Potuguese so my text needs to be verified. Thank you for your help and collaboration Thanks, Doc Elisa ^✉ 22:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment The topic seems highly specialized, with substantial content overlap. The article contains a great deal of anatomical information about specific veins, many of which already exist as separate articles. In terms of the procedure we already have duplex ultrasonography, venous thrombosis, and deep vein thrombosis, which could/should include much of the technical content. Do we also need an article on venous ultrasonography of the upper limbs, and how much overlap will there be? My guess is that we do, but for now we could anticipate a parent article on venous ultrasonography of the limbs, with more specialized articles dealing with the specifics of upper versus lower. To that end, it would be wise to construct this article with that in mind. Sorry if this is rambling a bit - just getting my bearing and look forward to other comments to see if my opinion is an outlier. -- Scray (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Scray, thank you for your comment. I'll try to answer all these poins and why this article is important:

1- Echographic anatomy is different from the anatomy we describe in anatomy category.

2- This article concerns triplex ultrasonography (B mode+doppler+color) not Duplex ultrasonography (usually is B mode+doppler)and it needs hemodynamic knowledge to be properly performed.

3- When aplied to veins (with venous insufficiency) this examination is completely different from the one done to check arteries or even to check veins with a thrombosis suspicion.

4- Upper limbs don't need a special article because there is no special vein pathology with a strong prevalence as we find in varicose veins.

5- Many countries are missing nowadays specialized centers to learn how to do this examination on insufficient veins and this article is an alert to this problem. It doesn't say how to do the examination but it explains some critical points which are often missed. Doc Elisa ^✉ 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Lesion

• Suggest this page uses recommended headings from WP:MEDMOS#Medical tests, i.e.

Current article:

• Ultrasonography (basic principles)
• Diagnostic applications
• Equipment
• Procedure
• Superficial veins
• Perforator veins
• Examination report
• History

Recommended headings from MOS:

• Types, if more than one kind or variant of the test or procedure exists
• Indications, including contraindications
• Mechanism, how the test or procedure works
• Preparation
• Procedure
• Interpretation of results, including accuracy and specificity of test results
• Adverse effects
• Legal issues, such as whether special counseling is mandated, if any
• History of the test

Not all headings are needed for all articles. e.g. we might not need adverse effects for an article about ultrasound. I think it will be fairly easy to use the recommended headings for all this content... Lesion (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Lesion I'll reverify. Doc Elisa ^✉ 01:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggest move "Ultrasonography (basic principles)" to "mechanism" ; "Diagnostic applications" to "indications" ; All these sections: "Equipment", "Procedure", "Deep venous thrombosis", "Venous insufficiency", "Technical pitfalls", "Superficial veins", "Great saphenous vein", "Anterior acessory saphenous vein", "Small saphenous vein", "Giacomini vein", "Perforator veins", can be moved to be subheadings of one main " procedure" section. Then we just have "examination report" move to "interpretation" and history is already titled correctly. You may want to populate the other sections, but then again they might not be relevant for this article and therefore can be left out. Hope this helps. Lesion (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Lesion. Now is much better and I can see easily how I can improve it. Doc Elisa ^✉ 17:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Consider using the template:Diagnostic infobox to bring this article further into line with other medical investigation articles. I couldn't find lower limbs ultrasonography in some of the classifications, perhaps because this is specialized. Even if you don't manage to fill any of the codes, would still be good to use the info box and move a picture into it... Any questions, feel free to ask. Lesion (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Done

Biosthmors says...

• I recommend removing "(SVS and DVS respectively)" from the first sentence because those abbreviations aren't used in the WP:Lead anyways. Feel free to use later though. Biosthmors (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Biosthmors for your help. Is done. Doc Elisa ^✉ 00:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Poitou donkey

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was just promoted to GA and I'm considering taking it to FAC. Thoughts on comprehensiveness and readability (especially any equine jargon) would be especially appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Dana. If you look at the French version of this article, there's three books listed in the Bibliography there. I think you might have to make an effort to get your hands on these to help fulfill FA criteria 1b and 1c. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, you are quite right. I had looked at the French article but had apparently not scrolled down far enough to see those. I have a French equine editor that I frequently work with - I'll have to ping her to see if she has access to those, as it looks like they're all in French. Thanks for pointing these further sources out. Dana boomer (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: I'm archiving this because of the time it will take me to get the refs that Sasata pointed out. Without these, there's no point in going to FAC, so a PR right now is unnecessary and a drain on reviewer resources. Dana boomer (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Prometheus (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to send it to Featured Article and I'd like a fresh eye on it to see anything I may have missed before I do so.

Thanks, Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Pulteney Bridge

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on expanding it, improving the referencing etc. and would like suggestions about what else would be needed before it could be nominated for Good Article. Thanks, — Rod ^talk 18:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is an attractive subject. My first reaction was that, at under 1000 words, the article is quite short, so there may be issues of comprehensiveness. A few specific observations:

• Image licencing

• File:Malton Pulteney Bridge 1785.JPG: I believe that the correct licence should be PD-Art, not PD-US.
• Same is true of File:Malton-pulteney-bridge-in-1779.jpg Except that, in this case, the source indicates "© Victoria Gallery"

• Design and construction

• The first two paragraphs are more background than "Design and construction", and could I believe be expanded.
• For example, no year or date is given for the design or construction until the end of the section where, incidentally, the information given is different from that given in the infobox. However, no details at all are given as to the period of conception, the time between the formulation of the original idea and the start of construction. How long was this period? Five years, ten?
• Some further backgound info on Sir William Pulteney would be useful. Who was he? Why did he want to build a suburb on his estate?
• "Their involvement is recalled by Great Pulteney Street in Bathwick, reputed to be the longest boulevard of its kind in Europe..." Uncited information
• Paty's plans were "rejected and adapted by the brothers Robert and James Adam. Should there be a comma after "rejected"? Surely it was for Pulteney to reject the plans, rather than the brothers.
• I'm also a bit muddled by the statement that, having adapted Paty's plans, Robert Adam was then "involved in further designs for the bridge". There seems to be part of the story missing here – what happened to the adapted Paty plans?
• There is an unnecessary "But" ("But Adam's design more closely followed...")

• Development

• "In 1792 alterations to enlarge the shops, combining the original 16 shops into six large ones, and widening it to 18 metres (58 ft), which marred the elegance of the façades." The sentence does not parse.
• "Some even painted advertisements on the outside of their shops affecting the view from the river and Grand Parade." Sentence needs more punctuation, and should lose the judgemental "even"
• What was the nature of the 1975 restoration work?
• When was the Grade I listed designation given?
• What has happened post-2009 to the pedestrianisation plans?

• Architecture

A rather meagre section

• What are "high segmental arches"
• The British spelling is "storey" not "story"
• There are lots of scraps of information, but nothing solid. For example "Further restoration was undertaken in 1975"; or "The appearance of the bridge changed when the weir was constructed in 1979."
• Could we have some comments on the architecture of the bridge, as recorded over the years by expert commentators?
• The Les Miserables snippet is unimportant trivia.

My chief worry is that, overall, the article does not give enough information about what is, after all, an important architectural feature. I would recommend some content expansion, along the lines indicated in my comments, before considering a GA nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. I have acted on many of them but I'm having trouble finding suitable comments on the architecture.— Rod ^talk 14:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Sonic Adventure

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for Peer review in hopes of getting this game, Sonic Adventure 2 and Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) to GA status. A little bit needs to be cleaned up, but further suggestions here would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

SA1 and 2 is going to take serious digging through websites and magazines. You'll have to go through stuff like this and see if any of that can be traced back to legitimate sources. You may want to go the extra mile and ask the article creators for their references. « Ryūkotsusei » 09:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll second Ryu - Digging through magazine sources was quite helpful in revamping Sonic R, and its certainly easier to find scans online when its such a mainstream series with active fansites and whatnot. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Serge's comments

I'll keep adding to this as I come across things. Hopefully this is okay, I haven't really done any of these before (though this isn't very active so far, so I doubt I'm stepping on anyone's feet...)

1. The lead mentions the game being the sixth installment of the series. Personally, I try keeping labels like that out, especially considering this series, where the fanbase is always arguing and contesting what constitutes a "main" or "spinoff" entry. I don't think anyone would in good faith argue that SA is a spinoff, but rather, I think it could lead to extra arguing/edit warring in the future over whether or not it's the "sixth entry". (Does Sonic CD count? Does Sonic 3D Blast count? What about Game Gear games? Which ones? etc etc etc) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay then, I am going to remove that information from the lead section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

1. In the character section, it says something along the line as "Amy being Sonic's love interest". Shouldn't it be the other way around though - Sonic being Amy's love interest? I didn't look up what the source says, as it traces back to the manual and I don't have that on-hand at the moment, but I'm just going off of what I remember from the game (and series as a whole.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed wording. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

1. With a game as mainstream and popular as this, I think we should sub out some of the lesser-known sources in the reception section with different reviews. (If if "Classic Game Room" or "Gamer 2.0" are deemed reliable, something I'm unsure of, there's no reason to settle for them when every video game review source under the sun reviewed this game. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my advice to heart. I can help with point #3 in the future too. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Also, UGO, 1UP, and Gamespy are going down soon, so we may archive the sources where necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

---

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FL status, and would like some feedback from other editors first. Any suggestions for improvement and general comments on the quality of the list are appreciated.

Thanks, Fandraltastic (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Comment It's comprehensive and well sourced, but I do have a couple of concerns:

• There seems to be an emphasis on the WP:INUNIVERSE structure of the series. The purpose of such a lists is for a reader to be able to look up a character and see who played them and in which films, but splitting the characters across two tables makes this difficult to do. For instance, to see which films Tony Stark appeared in I have to look him up in two different tables. I think the original layout was more accessible. If there is a problem with the expanding number of films perhaps you could try flipping rows and columns, so that characters go along the top and films down the side.
• Possible reliable source concerns:

1. Moviefone Blog (#11) – Blogs are not permissable unless authored by published experts.
2. Slashfilm (#17); /Film seems to have a solid reputation, but it still appears to be just a blog at the end of the day quoting another source.
3. Cinemablend (#26) doesn't look reliable to me; our article states "It combines gossip from anonymous and unverified sources as well as news and reviews."
4. iamROGUE (#32) – what makes this reliable? Who is behind it?
5. The Hollywodd Reporter/Reuters (#34) – Citation problem: the citation should cite the work you got it from. In this case Reuters is quoting the Hollywood Reporter, so The Hollywood Reporter is not technically the source for our article, since we are getting the information form Reuters. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT on how to format these types of second-hand sources.
6. HeyUGuys (#56 & #60) – Never heard of it, site is dead therefore unable to obtain RS status; not a good sign.

Betty Logan (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

First thank you for your comments Betty. As you can see on the article's talk page there were lots of discussion about the structure, though WP:IN-U didn't seem to be a problem. It is organized by film and phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (which is only mentioned out of universe, not within the narrative of any of the films). I also thought that one table is better than two but it didn't seem possible as the franchise continues to grow. Switching the rows and columns only exacerbates the problem as there are more characters than films and the problem stems from the table's width not length. I suggested making the table scrollable but then we might run into accessibility issues. Any other ideas?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem with multiple tables as such (there is no other way to do it really), the problem is splitting characters over two tables. The way I would do it, would be to have all the characters introduced in Iron Man in the first table, and then in the second table all the characters introduced in the second film etc, but with names across the top and all the films (including those from phase 2) down the side. That means that the tables will keep expanding vertically but not horizontally, and readers would still be able to see all the films a character appeared in by just scanning a single column in one table. This would allow readers to search the list by both film and character and they can get the information from one table. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That might work, great idea. I'll try formatting it like that. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I reorganized it as per your suggestion. How does that look? -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Here it is for discussion. It looks very disjointed, splitting characters seems like the lesser evil.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it turned out with a few big, smushed sections and then a bunch of tiny ones. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I won't pretend my suggestion was any better because it disrupted the fluency of the list even more than the current format. Someone may come up with a better solution, although it may be the case there just isn't a perfect way of doing this. After all it is an ordinately large list. Either way, I don't think it will come up as an FL issue. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I think this is a case where there is no 100% perfect solution, and trying to find one is like fitting square pegs into round holes, haha. There are just too many cast members and too many films, with no end in sight for either, to try to ram them into one table, and splitting it up leads to either characters being spread over multiple tables or each film's cast being spread all over the place, almost at random. The current format seems like the best compromise, as it keeps the table(s) fluid and neat while grouping the films in the same manner the producers and studio have. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the comments. As for the sources:

• The moviefone/slashfilm/iamrogue (which is a site run by Rogue Pictures) are blogs, but does the fact that the articles in question are interviews with the actors themselves not override that a bit, and lend them some credibility? If not, I can find other sources. The same goes for heyuguys, and the site is usually up, you should be able to use the archive since it's temporarily down, though.
• I am cleaning up the Reuters citation now, and will replace the cinemablend one.

Thanks again, appreciate it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Rogue one actually looks ok at closer look because it is conducting the interview itself so is admissable as primary source. Moviefone and and /Film aren't conducting the interviews themselves; Moviefone and /Film are just reporting the contents of interviews, and any unreliable blog can do that, and it doesn't make them reliable. It seems to me though that it can't be hard to find reliable sources for actors appearing in films that have already been released. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have replaced the Moviefone, /Film and CinemaBlend refs, and cleaned up the Reuters ref. Look good? -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The replacement refs looked fine to me. I took the liberty of altering the HR/Reuters ref since my suggestion wasn't correct. Reuters was simply republishing this story in its capacity as an agency. When a site or source simply reproduces a story from another news outlet, there is a parameter called agency i.e. agency=Reuters you can set to indicate where you got the story from. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

---

John William Finn

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to submit this article for good article assessment. Before that I would like other editors to take a look at the article, and provide suggestions for improvement for it to pass GAR, and possibly conduct some copy editing while reviewing the article.

Thanks, RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ian Rose

• Prose: Took the liberty of copyediting, as is my wont -- feel free to discuss any of it.
• Structure:
  • I moved the short Additional Honors section info to Later Life, to make a Later Life and Legacy section -- I think this improves the flow.
  • Another thing that would improve the flow considerably is moving the Awards and Decorations section to after the Later Life section, i.e. before or after the MoH Citation section. However, you have a problem with the Awards and Decorations section anyway in that nothing apart from the MoH is cited in the text. Unless you can cite his receipt of these medals, they need to be deleted (if it were me I wouldn't include this picture-book style of award ribbons cited or uncited but I know US military articles often have them).
• Referencing:
  • Since everything in your References section seems to be online, you may as well lose the entries there, and just include their retrieval dates in the citations.
  • Looks to me like you have a dead link in your ELs.
• Supporting materials: Image licensing looks okay.
• Content/detail: Looks adequate for GA-level, though I'd be interested to know if there was anything to add to the bit about his membership of the John Birch Society.
• In short, I'd say this has the makings of a GA if the above points are addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have implemented the changes recommended above, please see this diff, and let me know if there is anything additional I should do. Thanks for the C/E BTW.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, satisfied with all that, I think it's about GA quality now -- just tweaked the position of See Also to where it normally goes in articles. I assume nothing more about the Birch Society, if so fair enough, however I note in the short bio you used to cite his medals (dang, I was hoping they'd be none and the ribbons'd have to go!) that he was the first MoH recipient of the war -- unless you have other sources that contradict this, be worth mentioning I think - if not in the lead then at least in the main body, say after the bit about when the decoration was pinned on him. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have added more content, all verified with RSs and added the first recipient content, please review this diff to see the change.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I tweaked a bit. Only remaining hting is purely formatting: for some reason the table of awards under the ribbons is now off-centre (I mean off-center!); it seemed to occur with this edit, not sure why... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Appears good on my screen. I will nominate for GA. Thanks a bunch!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

---

1960 Winter Olympics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's passed GA review quite a while ago and I'd like to see what needs to be done to move it to FAC.

Thanks, H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Binders full of women

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at AfD, I feel it should be improved. It is reasonable controversial, as such I would like to bring it up to at least GA standards. A peer review from a non-involved editor will help in that process.

Thanks, Casprings (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: When you say the article "failed" at AfD, what you mean is that the attempt to delete it failed. As a non-involved editor, I would say that the subject-matter is slightly amusing—all politicians speak clumsily at times, critics make a disproportionate response, and the fun often is seeing the hapless pol trying to squirm his/her way out of the fuss. However, in my view this "gaffe" ranks about 3 out of 10 in the scale of such things; I can think of many far worse instances of mis-speaking, by British as well as US politicians. A few years back one of our people inserted an unwanted "n" when he referred to "the cuts in the Defence Department".

I can offer a few suggestions for improving the article, but in all honesty it is hard to see so slight a matter ever becoming GA-worthy:

• The first of the two main sections is head "Meme". In what sense are you using the word "meme" here?

• An internet meme.Casprings (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Obama's quotation needs a source

• DoneCasprings (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• The Joel Mathis sentence could be expanded.

• After ready the source, I think the sentence should be removed

• The "Jeopardy" sentence is trivia, uncited, best removed.

• Removed

• The "MassGAP Response" sections looks like it could be expanded, given the number of sources you have cited this slim material to.

• All the sources say the same thing. I will bundle them. Casprings (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• What do the "further readings" articles add to what is already in the article? If they contain new information they could be used as sources; otherwise, why bother?

• RemovedCasprings (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are format errors in the references. For example, retrieval dates ought to be in a single format. Titles of journals and newspapers should be italicised.

Not much else I can suggest. Good luck with it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Demi Lovato

This peer review discussion has been closed.
For the last couple of weeks, I have worked to overhaul Demi Lovato's article; this includes a thorough restructuring, rewriting, and revising/adding references where needed. Today, I have finished the last of these major changes. Before nominating this article for GA, I would appreciate if an editor would read through it, so a second set of eyes can ensure it meets the criteria.

Thanks, WikiRedactor (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

---

George E. Goodfellow

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I completed this article after spending several hours on it over a vacation trip and believe it's very complete. I would appreciate an objective set of eyes and some input on how it can be made ready for submission as a Good Article. Thanks for your input. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Jo Stafford

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

An article about a prolific singer, popular in the 1940s and 50s. Although she is largely forgotten today, Jo Stafford provided a large part of the soundtrack to the generations of World War 2, Korea and the pre-Rock and Roll era, before largely retiring from the music business in the mid-1960s. I've listed this for peer review because I'd like to get it to FA status, and am interested to know what it may need to reach that level. Both myself and We hope have worked extensively on this in recent months, and I successfully took it through GA in February. Before that process it underwent a previous peer review by Runfellow, and a copy edit courtesy of Lfstevens. The article itself is quite broad in its coverage, and comparable with similar articles already at FA. Peer Review 1 and the GA were fairly in-depth, but I want to know what improvements could be made ready for FAC. I know the page numbers are missing from the Billboard Magazine references, but am unable to enlarge the text enough to read them myself, and their format means it won't run through text-to-speech, so if anyone can help there that would be much appreciated. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 13:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from EddieHugh

• Billboard pages (these are from Google Books, which are the links supplied in the article; I can see them clearly enough...)

Ref 26: p. 30

Ref 50: p. 12

Ref 51: p. 6

Ref 52: p. 31 is the linked page, but it has a different title, and I don't see the info for Ref 52b

Ref 53: p. 9

Ref 54: p. 14

Ref 66: link redirects to homepage

Ref 67: p. 19

That's great, thanks for getting those for me. I'll add them to the sources, and revisit the ones that don't appear to support what is being said. To me 52 appears to say "Most Played Juke Box Records", but please correct me if there is another main title. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

ok, fixed page numbers, will look more closely at 52 and 66 tomorrow. Cheers again Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

52b and 66 now removed as other refs back up statements. 52 also renamed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Randall Flagg

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to improve on this article and hopefully get it up to featured status someday.

Thanks, CyberGhostface (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Brambleberry of RiverClan

• The first paragraph of the lead could be reworded better. Examples/suggestions:
  • "He often appears under different names; most are abbreviated by the initials R.F." → "He often appears under different names, usually initialled R.F."
  • "There are exceptions to this rule; in The Dark Tower series, the name most often associated with Flagg is Walter o'Dim." → "There are occasional exceptions, such as Flagg being most often associated with the name Walter o'Dim in The Dark Tower series."
• In the lead, you could mention the reason that "Walter o'Dim" is an exception to the R.F. rule is because King originally wanted them to be separate.
• Quotation marks and apostrophes alternate between '/" and ’/”. I personally prefer the former, though any standardization would be preferrable.
• Overall, you're doing well, and there are only a few small things. If you still feel you might need help, feel free to ask for a copy edit. I don't think you need one, but it couldn't hurt. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

---

G. Wayne Clough

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it went through FAC recently. Despite having all comments addressed (or at least replied to), it received minimal response from reviewers and was archived. The closing admin suggested a run through Peer Review prior to its next time through FAC.

Thanks, Disavian (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Hassium

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA (it's one of the most interesting and significant transactinides) and would like to hear some comments on what I should do to get it there.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

---

New SI definitions

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to submit it as a Good Article

Thanks, Martinvl (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62

I will post a full review at some point in the next day or so. For now, I think you should try to find a different title for the article. "New SI definitions" does not comply with the precise language guidelines. It is also somewhat misleading, as the definitions in question are proposed, not accepted. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cryptic 62 - Thank you for your post. May I suggest as a title "Proposed redefinition of SI base units" as an alternative title? Martinvl (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Aye, that seems reasonable. At some point it may be necessary to disambiguate by including the year of the proposal, but for now it doesn't appear to be problematic. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC) done - the article will probably need a rewrite in late 2014

• Background to the proposal of new SI definitions This section title can and should be shortened to Background done
• Looking at the table of contents, it is not immediately clear to me how The proposals and Proposed changes to the base units are different. Why are there two top-level sections about the same thing? done - renamed second section "Impact on base unit definitions". I might have to enlarge the intoductory paragraph
• Maybe I'm missing something, but there is a lot of content in Impact on reproducibility that does not appear to be related to reproducibility. The word "reproducibility" itself doesn't even appear in the section, which obscures any relationship there might be between the text and the title. - to be addressed
• The caption for File:Prototype mass drifts.jpg is far too long. See WP:CAPTION for ideas on how to write good captions. done
• "a fundamental change - the current definition" The correct punctuation mark here is the emdash "—". See WP:DASH for more details. - to be addressed
• I believe that the Criticism section can and should be organized by grouping together related criticisms, rather than by author. There are several reasons for this: - done
  • It will make it easier to elaborate on specific points, such as "economic damage due to increased transaction costs", which is a bit mysterious.
  • It will allow you to incorporate comments from other sources without needing to create a new paragraph for each one.
  • It will reduce the need for bulleted lists, which the article relies quite heavily upon.
• On a related note, when introducing commentary from a specific author, it is helpful to establish some context as to why the author's opinion is relevant. Sometimes this isn't made clear in the source, which is a bit annoying, but in Leonard 2010 there is a link which says "Show affiliations", which indicates that he is a mechanical engineer. - names of specific authors have been removed from the text

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Garamond Lethe

(This is my first time commenting in this forum; I'd appreciate any feedback you have on my comments.)

Looks good to me! Regardless of whether a particular comment is "right" or "wrong", you've highlighted very specific ideas, which will help generate focused discussion on how to improve the article. "The article isn't very well written" is a good example of useless feedback, and you've done exactly the opposite. Wikipedia always needs more detail-oriented reviewers, so I hope you keep at it! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

 Doing...

Lead

1. "Although the units themselves form a coherent system, the definitions do not." Not sure what "coherent" implies in this context. - Wikilinked to a new article
2. "it has been argued" Passive voice. - done
3. Caption: "The seven SI base units". Perhaps "The seven current base units"? (Or would "existing" be better?) I really like this diagram, but it's very hard to understand until you've gotten a significant way into the article. Perhaps expand the caption to give an example how the figure is to be read? "The diagram shows, for example, how foo is defined in terms of bar and baz, the formulas for each being....". It's a little wordy, but if the reader understand this diagram when perusing the lead then they'll have no trouble understanding the rest of the article. - done - captions rewritten

Background to the proposal of new SI definitions

1. Just "Background" is probably sufficient, but either works. done
2. I wikified the first use of International System of Units. A small bit of context (half-dozen words at most) would be useful here: which of the bodies under discussion created the system? - done
3. "small drifts which could be as high as" Perhaps a few words after "small drifts", starting with "possibly due to...". Just a teaser is fine. - done - added a citation identifying possible causes
4. "temperatures below 20 K and for temperatures above 1300 K." I don't know what the manual of style says (and you should defer to it, of course), but listing the first temperature as "20 Kelvins (K)" might help readers who haven't had a physics class for a few years. done

Proposals

1. Perhaps wikify joule, columb, mole, etc. I like how you've spelled out the units here as well as providing the symbols. - done
2. "It is proposed". Passive voice. - done
3. I like how you handled the notation for the capital "X", but using the lower-case "x" for multiplication immediately following it is a little confusing. Ah, wait, you did use the multiplication sign – it's either the character or my browser's rendering that is the issue. The center dot is used elsewhere in the article for multiplication. Perhaps use that throughout? - The symbol "×" is used when multiplying numbers, the middot when multipyling units. This is in accordance with the SI brochure. According to the SI brochure, either "kWh" or "kW·h are acceptable.

Proposed changes to the base units

1. I'm confused here as to what exactly a proposal is. Are the "Proposed changes to the base units" several separate proposals? How do these proposals relate to the "Proposals" in the previous section? - done - used the singular
2. I don't know that you need to a add a lot of detail about the parliamentary workings of the CCU; changing the section headers might suffice. - My intention in including the "parliamentary workings" is twofold: to show that the authors of the proposals are working under the authority delegated to them by national governments and that a transparent system of checks and balances is in place
3. "It is proposed". Passive voice. - done
4. "become more rigorous." Should be "would become"? - replaced with "is more rigorously defined
5. "tightening up" A bit colloquial. (Not a big deal.) - reworded using the word "rigorous"
6. "easier to realise in practice." Perhaps "easier to realise." as "in practice" ends the previous clause. - done
7. It's obvious that all of these proposals are coming from the CCU document (collection of proposals?); perhaps add references where each proposal can be found in the document? I don't think the benefit here will be people using this page as an index to the document. Rather, I think it will help the reader understand that all of these proposals are coming from a single document (if that's the case). The {{rp}} template might be useful here in cutting down on the clutter this would add. - done
8. "One of the following must change". Would like to see a cite for this if it isn't covered by my previous comment. - to be addressed

Impact on reproducibility

1. "but it is unsuitable as it can only be measured with an uncertainty of 10−4" Not sure what the "it" is pointing to. - done
2. "uncertainty of 10−4", "uncertainty of 5 × 10−8". I'm not familiar with the word "uncertainty" in this context. I think you're referring to accuracy, although this may imply something about precision as well. If the sources use "uncertainty" then I'll get over it, I guess.... - I was following the literature - see my notes later
3. "it is merely an assurance" Does "it" refer to "practice"? - reworded
4. "Physical constants directly related" Section title should be changed to reflect the contents of the table. - to be addressed
5. "Relative uncertainty" table. I like this a lot; visually showing how "exact" is moving around does a lot to clarify what these proposals are doing. However, the "uncertainty" value doesn't mean much without the context of the order of magnitude of the value of the definition (or perhaps I've misunderstood?). Could you add the proposed values to this table as well? Even better, the values +/- the uncertainty, if that's appropriate? - reworded
6. "Leonard has proposed" Introduce who this is. - names of specific authros have been removed from the text
7. Reproducibility isn't discussed. Can probably be fixed by changing the title to "Changes in precision" or "Changes in allowable measurement uncertainty". - names of specific authors have been removed from the text

Acceptance

1. "The various committees" More detail possible here? - replaced "committees" with ""consultative committees" and added a definition of "consultative committees" in the preceding sentence
2. "relative standard uncertainty" Wikilink or note describing what this means? - done

Criticism

1. "Price has argued" Introduce Price. (Also Pavese.) - names of specific authors have been removed from the text

References

Will take a look at these later.

Overall impressions

1. I don't think the article in its current form communicates why it's important for definitions to be coherent as well as units. If this information is available, I'd like to see it in an "Impetus for change" section following the "Background" section (and perhaps move some of the information in "Background" into "Impetus").
2. There are a few bits of information that are well-sourced and relevant but aren't integrated well into the article, e.g., the paragraph detailing the "Quantum SI System". I don't think these need to be addressed for GA, but if you'd ultimately like to take this to FA then I'd like to make another pass and look specifically at how the article flows.
3. Overall, very good work and I don't expect any difficulty at all at GA.

Notes by Martinvl

I have taken the liberty of adding an in-line note to each point green once the point has been addressed or red before it has been addressed as I believe that this is the easiest way to keep track of my response. Martinvl (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Free free to also use WONTFIX. These (well, mine at least) are only suggestions. Garamond Lethet
c 17:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That is certainly an option - I planned to denote it by disagree because .... (in green so that there is a record that it has been addressed). (The use of red is really to create a tick-box of outstanding items. When I create a new document using an old one as a template, I usually colour all the original text red and as I address each item, I change the colour appropriately) Martinvl (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I was more concerned about making sure you understood (and that you understood that I understood) that these were nonbinding suggestions. The red/green works fine for me. Garamond Lethet
c 18:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of "uncertainty"

I have wikilinked the term "uncertainty", but the links to "relative uncertainty" are not very good. Is it worth cross-referencing the International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms for these terms? I would do this via the "Notes" section with the following text:

The following terms are defined in International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms:

• standard measurement uncertainty - definintion 2.30
• relative standard measurement uncertainty - definition 2.32
• etc etc.

Is this appropriate, or is this overkill? Martinvl (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm amused that you're asking the person who sourced ten different archaic abbreviations of kilometres per hour about overkill.... I would find the proposed note to be a huge help in understanding the article, and since you're linking to a pdf I don't see the need to include the definitions themselves in the article. I think you've struck exactly the right balance here. Garamond Lethet
c 18:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That's really a fascinating document. Thanks for pointing it out. Garamond Lethet
c 18:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

All done

I have now implemented the changes suggested by both User:Garamond Lethe and User:Cryptic C62 and added a little more material that was triggered by their observations. May I thank you both for the time that you have taken to do this review. I will give it a day or two for any further feedback before submitting it for a GA artcile review. Martinvl (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Politecnico di Milano

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I made substantial improvements and I'm planning to go on to meet the criteria for Featured Article by November 2013, the 150th anniversary of the University. I know a lot of work is still needed, so I would like to have an opinion on the present state of the article and suggestions on how it can be further improved.

Thanks, Ita140188 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Kahaani

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we plan to take it to featured article candidacy. Some references are in bare format, which we would change. The peer review is largely for the structure and the prose.

Thanks, Dwaipayan (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Note There are discrepancies in the reference formatting, and we are aware of this. Will work on making references consistent once prose and other issues are discussed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• Any sources for 1.4 million US$ being shoestring? If that's shoestring, then Indian films probably have bigger budgets on average than Indonesian ones.

• Added two news reports (one from March 2012, and the other from January 2013) using the term shoestring. Bollywood indeed has quite big budget, as do Tamil and Telugu industries; but other Indian language film industries are probably not as big.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Shoestring budget is a single linguistic unit, so I'd put the ref after "budget" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Done.

• often employing guerrilla filmmaking in streets - Feels like you're missing a word after filmmaking

• Changed to guerrilla filmmaking strategy. Was in dilemma between strategy and technique.

• paved the way - Not very formal, try a different wording

• Simple "helped"

• They barely escape a close brush with Bob - Does he attack them, or...?

• No attack takes place. Changed to "escape an encounter"

• He points his gun at Vidya to kill her, but is thwarted by the prosthetic abdomen which Vidya has been using to fake her pregnancy. - Pointing a gun at someone doesn't kill them. Does he shoot?

• No, he does not shoot. Remved "to kill her"

• Is Poltu's name really necessary? You could reword the sentence to avoid using it

• Reworded to avaoid Poltu's name

• Per WP:CASTLIST you should (re)consider including the plain cast list, as the key players are already identified in the plot section

• Changed. However, kept small description of chracters that were not detailed in the plot.

• "Aami Shotti Bolchi not only has interesting lyrics but also conveys the feel of Kolkata. The song is successful even if it expresses about only 20 percent of the local feel of Kolkata. Kahaani may not be a collector's item but it features right voices as per the overall mood of the album. Aami Shotti Bolchi and Ekla Cholo Re have the potential to fetch your attention." - Are these song titles in italics in the original? Also, this quote is rather long. Paraphrasing would be nice.

• No, the italics were wrong. Now paraphrased the quote.

• How does File:Ekla Cholo Re.ogg pass NFCC #8?

• It does not. Removed it.

• Consider splitting off the awards list like at List of accolades received by The Hurt Locker

• Will do. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• was well-received by the public who expected it to be a good film that might do a moderate business at the best. - Everything after well-received by the public is confusing. Well received, but they expected it to be ho-hum?

• Yes, that's what it meant; but, now I have removed that part.

• a baby bump, - Not formal

• Changed.

• she often carried a sketch of her missing husband - surely not the actress' husband, but the characters.

• Yes, added "on-screen"

• The marketing section sounds like a couple of random reports were rewritten to describe a trend. Did she do this repeatedly, or was it a one time thing?

• I am not sure how much trend was it. It perhaps did not last long enough to establish a pattern. Not sure what to do. Removed the mention of a single appearance in Kolkata.

• daily soap - Missing a word

• Made soap opera.

• Silk avatar - An adaptation of a film named Silk? If so, link!

• Paraphrased the quote, this is not needed anymore.

• Rathnam's quote can probably be paraphrased.

• Paraphrase.

• the image of India's first underground railway. - Is "first underground railway" necessary? No. This can be rewritten "the railway's image" and cut some 15 characters. Be careful with this extra verbosity; I've fixed a bit already.

• Changed as suggested.

• What are satellite rights?

• Explained in the sentence. This means exclusive right to broadcast.

• 'Making of the Film', 'The Success Party' and 'Promotional Songs'. - Don't tell us the titles, tell us what they are. Photographs, a behind the scenes film, and songs?

• Explained in the article.

• the story and screenplay, and the film itself. - What's the difference? Try limiting this whole phrase, to avoid "mostly for ... 5 things".

• Removed that whole part.

• As of May 2012, the film is set to be remade in Tamil and Telugu. - Which film, Kahaani or Kahaani 2?

• Kahaani. Made clear in the article.

• One or two remakes?

• Two; made clear.

• Ghosh commented that, "I am overwhelmed with the kind of interest Kolkata has generated among the people in Mumbai and elsewhere. - There is no reason to not paraphrase this quote.

• Actually removed it altogether. Seems unnecessary

• No reason to have the tidbit about Balan and Kolkata; WP:CRUFT.

• Removed.

• Half of the Monalisa Guest House paragraph is marketing from its management and may read advertorial. Trim, with fire.

• Trimmed. Perhaps with fire.

• Perhaps change "was ... as of 2012" to "is being ... as of 2012"

• Not done yet. Not sure.

• Those stars in the reference section should not be there. We have critical review templates that you can use instead.

• Which templates are you suggesting?

--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• CN tags in critical reception

• Done.

• Critical reception remains a QUOTEFARM. Case in point: "Post The Dirty Picture, the admiration for the National Award winning actress Vidya has scaled woozy altitudes and let me affirm, the supremely talented actress delivers a performance that's at par with her former accomplishments." - The first half of that sentence gives very little about Vidya's reception in this film.

• Reduced some more quotes. Completely removed this particular one.

• "Once again, a 'pregnant' Vidya, ironically displays more 'male ornaments'... than most heroes." - Is the ... in the original? Ellipses generally have a nbsp before them

• The ellipses were not there in the original. Added nbsp.

• Positive or mixed reviews? I see some real nastiness
  • Positive reviews. This source proves that.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 11:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Generally positive, maybe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Done.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 11:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• box office revenues raised from 47% on Friday (day of release) to 77% on Saturday and to around 97% on Sunday. - How can revenues be percentages? Also, I think it's weird to have days but not dates.

• It is "occupancy", not revenues. Gave dates.

• create a niche - A niche what?

• nice as a director. Sounds ok?

• an actor of Bengali cinema - not very clear for someone who does not know much about India cinema

• Wikilinked Bengali cinema; and explained it there in the article.

• The Bong Connection -year?

• Year added.

• He thought there were competent actors in Hindi film industry suitable for the role - More competent?

• Changed the sentence construction to "He thought there were suitable actors in Hindi film industry for the role"

• My issue is that he seems to be saying he wasn't as qualified as the other actors, which is why the "more" is important. If it's just there were competent actors, it would include him (because obviously someone chose him) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I did not find in the source if he said "more" competent. But, he told there are other actor suitable for the role.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• he wanted only him as Bob Biswas - Huh?

• Removed only.

• Dos and don'ts - We should not use a contraction. Find another term

• Changed the sentence to "... along with making lists of rules and superstitions followed by pregnant women"

• stand up acting - Acting or comedy?

• Not sure. Will try to search more.

• Quotes can be shortened in this section

• Shetened quotes.

• relatively cheap brand of cigarette - Which

• Named the brand.

• Some actors mingled with the crowd—their job was to appreciate the camera angles and accordingly apply sindoor (vermilion) on Balan's face so that accidental exposure of her eyes to sindoor could be avoided. - Not understanding this

• Ok, I guess this would need an explanatory note to make it understandable. Will try.

• the place - The room or guest house?

• The room. Made that "it".--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Are any of these quotes (themes section) fleshed out more in the sources?

• Yes, quotes are more fleshed out in the source; but here we are using only parts,

• the demon - Which demon?

• Mahishasura. Added.

• "Durga Puja, with its paraphernalia of idols, immersion processions, pandals, even an entire crowd of women draped in white saris with red borders, is central to the film’s plot and visual aesthetic." - According to whom? Also, what evidence have they provided for the slaying of the demon thing?

• Provided the author name (According to Uddalak Mukherjee of the Telegraph).
• Now, you have asked a really difficult question. What evidence? I am quoting a sentence from that source article, "Kahaani’s denouement utilizes the hackneyed symbolism of the goddess returning to Calcutta each year to slay its demons, thereby leaving the city, momentarily, free of the grime of sin." Is it enough?

• That's for FAC... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• You're varying between past and present tense here.

• Will work on consistency soon.

• a boy - How old is Rana? "Boy" suggests still a teenager or preteen.

• Replaced with man.

• but could be performed on screen only because of the outstanding performance of the two actors involved. - Feels a little POV. Is "outstanding" in the source?

• Removed the sentence.

• Rediff.com - What makes this source reliable? What makes its review worth quoting?

• Rediff.com is a reliable web site in Indian news etc, and has been used in many articles as reference. It is almost like a almost newspaperf so far as reliability is concerned.
• The review is not necessarily worth quoting, but it was very difficult to paraphrase without running the risk of too close paraphrasing. These lines mentions certain things/entities, and so used within quotes.

• If we have an article on it, it should be linked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• "yellow taxis, leisurely trams, congested traffic, claustrophobic metros, dilapidated brick houses, tapering alleys, rajnigandhas, lal paad saris, piping hot luchis". - Italics in the original?

• No, not in the italics in original. We italicsed the non-English words. Should we de-italicise?

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Typographic conformity, it shouldn't be italicised if not italicised in the original. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Italics removed.

• Deft portrayal of different moods of the city is noted in the review. - Such as?

• Removed it.

• glossed up - Huh?

• The source actually used that verb. Now, replaced with "polished up"

• director Srijit Mukherji argues that the portrayal the city was akin to a Lonely Planet exotica. - Not of this film, right?

• I did not get your point. Anyway, changed the construction to "and director Srijit Mukherji argues that the portrayal the city in Kahaani was akin to a Lonely Planet exotica on the city"

• Mukherji didn't direct this film, right? Concerned there may be confusion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, he did not direct this film. I changed the sentence now to "noted Bengli director Srijit Mukherji...". Does that sound ok?--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• More ellipses... don't forget the spaces.

• Hmmm. Done.

• He acknowledges the inspiration of framing of the visuals - Not very clear

• Rephrased to, "He acknowledges influence of Mahanagar (1963), another film directed..."

• visually striking - According to whom?

• According to the director Ghosh, Rephrased to, "Ghosh also admits inspiration from what he calls "visually striking" films of 1970s and 1980s..."

• Taking Lives and The Usual Suspects are both American films; might be worth noting.

• Mentioned. Used American for one, and Hollywood for the other.

• You may need a good copyedit from someone who is looking for spelling mistakes; there seem to be several.

• Will request copyedit after this peer review is done, and it reaches a relatively stable form.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments

I am reading random sections, not all in a sequence. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Portrayal of Kolkata
  • ... rajnigandhas, lal paad saris, piping hot luchis... shakti during the famed Durga Puja: the non-English jargon in the sentence will be difficult to understand to a non-Indian

• True. Thinking about an way to explain this. may be an explanatory note.

• • Cut the quotes in para 1

• Tried, more can be done perhaps.

• • Who is Gautaman Bhaskaran? Note his significance. "Gautaman Bhaskaran of the Gulf Times"

• In Critical reception section, his review in Gulf Times was mentioned. D you think we need to repeat that here?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• • tie Calcutta to Kolkata, else confusing to non-Indian

• Calcutta-Kolkta tied.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Themes and "Visuals and motifs" should be merged in something like "Themes and influences" as they are related.

• Done.

• "I remember an interview ... " and "I remember the scene ..." can be removed. -> Ghosh is inspired ...

• Done. Please check.

• "Shashi Kapoor walks in, sees Nirupa Roy and takes his cap off... " probably can be removed.

• Removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Check for dead links: 106

• Will do.

• Do we have updated info for " as of ___ 2012" facts. Concerned more about facts from March/April

• We do not; difficult to find.

• Remove quote "Though Kahaani was ready befo..

• Removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Most quotes in "Themes and influences" para 1 can be removed.

more quotes in this section can go probably. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• "After Ishqiya (2010), No One Killed Jessica (2011) and The Dirty Picture (2011), Kahaani was Balan's fourth woman-centric film..." would fit better in Themes
• Release: where was the star-studded premier. Most films have it.

• Could not find out where was the star-studded premier. May be will have to search more.

• Cast should have a short explanation about every charcter.

• Actually, the small description used to be there (see, for example, this diff). Those were removed during this PR when Crisco suggested to do so (please see above, that point is the 6th or 7th point on Crisco's comments dated 17 March 2013).--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• 1 thing missing is Rana's involvement in Vidya. How he falls for her

• The hint of romance has been discussed in themes.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Vidya Bagchi is portrayed to have arrived from London initially. Right?
• Can anything be done about the tiny sections at the end. Suggesting merge:

• Reception: Reviews, awards, box office
• Impact: including remake.

• Regarding section merging, do you suggest to have sub-sections (level 3 headings), or coalescing the text without subsections?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• The latter. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Merging now done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• On his casting of Balan, Ghosh said..., On the character of Rana, Parambrata Chatterjee said, He said, "Today, I feel glad when people address me: the quotes can go. A promotional quotes

• Removed many quotes, rephrased Paramabrata's quote.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Filming: focusses more on the climax. There are many other locations in the film. Where particular areas of Kolkata used?

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

---

List of photographs of Abraham Lincoln

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how it can be improved, and how it compares to other lists.

Thanks, Scewing (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Progeroid syndromes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…this article had one major contributor (me) I have never written an article as big as this before, and so am bound to make many mistakes; so comments and constructive criticisms are welcomed. User:Iztwoz have already helped me with copyediting. I also want to try to get it to good article status. Specifically, please tell me how I can make the article more friendly towards readers not knowledgable in biology or the sciences. I have tried to explain things whenever possible and provided links, but any more suggestions are again welcomed.

Many thanks, Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 02:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

Interesting topic

First off, try to meld the prose into paragraphs rather than alot of single sentences.

Hopefully there is some literature discussing them as a group. The article needs a section on incidence somewhere near the top.

Thank you for your comments, and I will work on it some more in a week's time. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 10:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Sasata

• I think there's some major problems with the sourcing for this article. Please review the recommendations for sourcing medical articles at WP:MEDRS, in particular the part about using secondary sources (e.g. review articles), and about using up-to-date evidence (WP:MEDDATE). If I were reviewing for GAN/FAC, I'd wonder why the following recent (all from 2008–2013) review articles weren't used as sources: PMID 22411253, PMID 22383384, PMID 22265392, PMID 22103513, PMID 22103512, PMID 21739188, PMID 21680258, PMID 21671373, PMID 21400569, PMID 20651707, PMID 20298165, PMID 20044904, PMID 20024518, PMID 19675546, PMID 19387478, PMID 19181118, PMID 18762784, PMID 18201555. It would probably be a good idea to go through all the citations and try to replace any citations to primary studies, and studies more than a few years old; the article will likely have a rough time at GAN otherwise. Sasata (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have largely based the parts I wrote on the most cited sources. I am not very familiar with sourcing in the Medicine Wikiproject, but will have a look. Thank you for your suggestions and I will incorporate them soon. (I may not have access to a computer for a week, so please don't think I am ignoring your comments, I will act on them as soon as I can) Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 10:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Jane Cobden

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Jane Cobden was one of a group of strong-minded women who emerged in the late Victorian era – Millicent Fawcett, Emmeline Pankhurst, Beatrice Webb were others - to become influential, even dominating figures in early 20th century British politics. Cobden had probably less impact than the others because she spread herself thinly over many causes, and also because she eschewed grand, headline-grabbing gestures. In her time she championed women's suffrage, free trade, land reform, Irish independence, and the rights of indigenous peoples in South Africa and elsewhere. She was also a governor and benefactor of the LSE. For some reason she lacks a full-length biography, so information has been gleaned from many sources; comments welcomed on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few. Very interesting read, well done as usual.

Lede

• "in particular the securing of rights to aboriginal peoples in colonial territories" perhaps this can be phrased a little less legalistically?
• "but attacked the introduction of segregationist policies in South Africa after 1910." I'm not quite sure I get the "but"

Sisterhood

• "where she lived until her death in 1877" I don't think it's actually ambiguous, still you might want to check the use of female pronouns in this sentence.

• There might be a very slight technical ambiguity, but I don't see this as a problem. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• " and differences of outlook and opinion arose" Perhaps just "and differences opposed".

• Sorry, I can't make sense of this suggestion. Can you amplify? Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Senior moment, I'm afraid. I just meant "and differences arose". I didn't feel that you need to say what the differences were, especially as the terms used are fairly vague. I think people will understand that a mother living in a house with young adult daughters may lead to disputes between them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps a brief mention of how the sisterhood did these things would be good. Did they write to people?

• The sources are unhelpful. I imagine they wrote, met people, maybe attended meetings, but no specific details are given. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would make it clearer how Morley fit the bill, presumably because he was a professional writer.

• Again, I would have to use my own guesswork as to why they chose Morley. He was an established writer and journalist, perhaps they had met him in their promotions of Cobdenism – it's conjecture, really. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Early campaigns

• " After the failure of her marriage to Sickert" As the failure of the marriage has not yet been mentioned, possibly "After her marriage to Sickert failed"
• "On the problems caused by absentee landlordism in Ireland " I would delete this phrase. Cobden's quote speaks for itself.
• "revealed the extent of the British government's harshness in hounding the most vulnerable of individuals." possibly a bit dramatic.

LCC Election

• "she declined to do so" it's not clear what she declined to do, though I surmise she paid the fine as there is no mention of prison.
• I'm not sure I'd call that a quirk btw, perhaps "provision"?
• What did Cons do in the face of the ruling?

• Cons, like Cobden, paid the nominal fine. She was apparently more prepared than Jane to defy the law, but was persuaded otherwise. This information probably belongs in her article, though I could add a footnote here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Edwardian

• "when she supported the WSPU's new magazine" Supported how?

• The sources simply say she "lent her support" to the Magazine, and likewise that she "supported" the Tax Resistance League – no details given. I have, however, adopted your next point and varied the phraseology. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Watch overuse of "supported" here. Four times in two paragraphs.
• "Henry Campbell-Bannerman" I'd stick his customary handle of "Sir" on the front end.
• Given the fair amount of emphasis, perhaps a thumbnail of Joseph Chamberlain's views might be provided? Just a brief mention of Imperial Preference and tariffs outside the Empire, that kind of thing.
• "victims of the Black and Tans". Perhaps a slight rephrase would not be amiss?
• At some point, something should be said about how she was getting money to live on.

• Well, from 1892 she was married to a well-to-do publisher. Before that, I imagine she lived on a share of the Cobden family money – the aforementioned "Cobden Tribute Fund" had provided a very generous sum. However, the matter is not mentioned in the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That's all. I can't say I've ever run across her in my readings, though I've encountered her father. Still, always enjoy learning something new.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks: all good points which will have my attention later today. Brianboulton (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed the above points. As usual, no comment means I've adopted your suggestions. Many thanks for this help. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ceranthor's Comments

Lead

• From her youth Jane Cobden was involved with her sisters in protecting and developing the legacy of her father. - I think it's just me, but I associate the phrase "involved with" with either criminals and organization/relief work. Either way I think it would be more direct as "From her youth Jane Cobden and her sisters protected and developed the legacy of their father".

• I have tweaked the wording to avoid the use of "involved with" Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Family...

• Jane's mother was Catherine Anne, née Williams, the daughter of a timber merchant from Machynlleth in Wales; her older siblings were Richard ("Dick"), born 1841; Kate, born 1844; and Ellen, born 1848. - The way this sentence is written with its pronoun arrangement makes the "her" before siblings somewhat ambiguous.

• Hmm...I think the pronoun is acceptable, despite a possible technical ambiguity. The alternative ("Jane's older siblings..." etc is awkward and repetitive. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Two further daughters followed Jane: Anne, born 1853, and Lucy, born in 1861.[1] - The two uses of born differ. Consistency would probably be better, either "born + year" or "born in year".
• He returned to the House of Commons in May 1859, as Liberal MP for Rochdale.[9] - Before you put a "the" in front of an MP title, so I think the should be used here too.

• Probably the initial use of "the" was wrong, as in those days most constituencies were multi-member. So he was not "the" MP for these places, just one of several. I have removed "the". Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• although his letters indicate that he felt warmly towards them and that he wished to direct their political education. - I actually Googled "felt warmly towards" because it was very foreign to me. It seems a bit awkward, but if you have used it before do not feel obligated to replace it.
• She and her younger sister Anne, at the ages of 12 and 10 respectively, taught classes in the local village school. - I think "at" would be better grammar than "in", though I suppose "in" also works fine. Just nitpicking with this comment.

Sisterhood

• The girls' formal education had to this point been intermittent, with periods of schooling being interspersed with governesses. - This sentence does not make an iota of sense to me as is. Could you explain so that my thick brain can comprehend? :D

• It means that their formal education, i.e. their attendance at schools, had often been interrupted by spells at home, under governesses. But the sentence adds little to the article,so I have removed it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• After their father's death Jane and Anne attended Warrington Lodge school in Maida Hill, but following an unspecified disagreement with the school both were removed, "thrown on my hands", their mother complained.[13] - Seems like this needs a grammar tweak. First of all I have no idea what an "unspecified disagreement" means, and I think that reads as though the reader is the person reading a historical book about their family and then saying that it is "unspecified" in that book. Perhaps an unknown or poorly-understood disagreement. Also, the part that follows "removed," seems like it should have a semicolon in front of it, and be rearranged to be "their mother complained they were thrown on my hands" or something similar. It may actually be fine as is for this second comment, I just have not seen anything similar in an encyclopedia article.

• An unspecified disagreement is a disagreement the nature of which has not been made clear. I think the sentence was plain enough, but in case others should share your confusion I have slightly reworded and repunctuated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Together they stopped publication of a memoir of their father, sponsored by his former colleagues and complied by a family friend, Julie Salis Schwabe. - What does "complied by" mean? I think it means to say "compiled by", though I cannot be sure.

• Just a typo - well spotted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• This caused some offence; Schwabe had given the family financial and emotional support after Richard's death.[16][n 2] - I do not think a semicolon is necessary since the idea does not necessarily change from the first part to the second. I think a simply comma followed by an "as" or "because" would suffice to position the next statement.

• Either form is equally correct. The wording after a semicolon should add to or explain the main point made before the punctuation, which is the case here. A comma followed by "as" would work, too.

Women's suffrage

• Ellie became a novelist.[10] - This is the first mention of an Ellie rather than Ellen. Is this a typo or an unintroduced nickname?
• The National Society's general stance was cautious; it avoided close identification with political parties, and for this reason would not permit branches of the Women's Liberal Federation to affiliate.[22] - Affiliate with each other or with the entire society?

Ireland

• The attachment of Jane and her sisters to the rebellious factions in Ireland strained relations between the sisters and many of their father's former Liberal Unionist colleagues, but won approval from Thomas Bayley Potter, who had succeeded Richard Cobden as MP for Rochdale.[29] - Again "the" MP or just MP?

That's it for now. More will come later! ceranthor 19:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

These comments were very helpful and, except as commented, have been adopted. Thank you for your interest. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Another fine article. I'll need a couple of goes at it, with intervals for rest and refreshment. Part one:

• Lead
  • "A daughter of the Victorian reformer and statesman Richard Cobden, she was an early proponent of women's rights…" – you might like to check that the implied link between the first and second of these statements is strong enough to justify the yoking. I don't suggest it is in the class of our wonderful press's efforts ("a red-haired lay reader from Uxbridge, Smith first climbed the Eiger in 1966") but I just mention it.

• • I think that had he lived longer, or a little later, Richard Cobden's radicalism would have incorporated women's rights, hence Catherine's readiness to support the 1866 petition. So I reckon on balance that the link in my wording is justifiable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "militant, extra-legal methods" – extra-legal? As in illegal?

• • Strangely, neither of my dictionaries recognise "extra-legal" as a word. I am humbled. "Illegal" it must be. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• • The full OED admits extra-legal, but not in quite the sense you mean: "extra-ˈlegal adj. beyond the province of law; not regulated by law. 1644 P. Hunton Vindic. Treat. Monarchy ix. 65 It concernes only..their Absolute, extra-legall Will; not their Authority. 1806 W. Taylor in Ann. Rev. 4 239 The extra-legal perpetuation of authority. 1871 E. A. Freeman Hist. Ess. 1st Ser. xii. 384 The word 'Government'..has come to be applied to this extra~legal body.1889 Spectator 12 Oct. 465/2 The legal and extra-legal expenditure..for election purposes." Tim riley (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• • You give her a "Jane" as well as a surname in paras 2 and 3. Looks fine to me, but the MoS disagrees, methinks.

• • You touch on one of the tricky issues with this article. MoS advocates that surnames be used in biographical articles, but in this case, for much of the first part of the article there are too many Cobdens around (father, mother, sisters) to describe Jane as "Cobden" without creating confusion for the general reader unaware of WP conventions. So I have largely used "Jane" in the early sections, switching to "Cobden" when the coast becomes clearer. On a couple of occasions, when it seemed appropriate, I have used "Jane Cobden". My main intent has been to ensure clarity for the reader; the principal biographical articles I have used (Richardson, Howe in ODNB) refer to her as "Jane" throughout. I hope that my compromise naming strategy is acceptable, but I would welcome any further comments or suggestions on this aspect. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC}

• • It works for me. I might omit the statement from the lead that she was known after marriage as Cobden Unwin, which is sure to have some clever clogs asking why she isn't so referred to in the relevant sections of the main text. Tim riley (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Good idea; the first sentence was too long, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Family background and childhood
  • "who at the time of Jane's birth" – of her birth, perhaps?
  • "withdrawal from active public life" – better without the adjective, I think
• Sisterhood
  • "and works, and to" – the comma looks odd to me, but what do I know?
  • "although it would be several years" – this is the second "would be" rather than "was" construction so far. I never know quite what they add that the plain future tense doesn't. They feel woolly to me, but perhaps I'm missing a point, and I certainly don't press the matter.
  • "the 1866 "Ladies Petition" that Catherine Cobden had signed" – unless there was more than one of these I think the correct construction is "Ladies Petition", which Catherine Cobden had signed"" – the comma and "which" turning a defining clause into a descriptive one.

• • I have removed the words "that Catherine Cobden had signed", as there was only the one petition and it has already been stated that Catherine had signed it.

• Ireland
  • "In a letter to The Times, Jane and her associates cited one particular case—that of the Ryan family of Cloughbrady" – their letter ("The Administration of the Law in Ireland", Isabella Rowntree, Ellen Cobden Sickert and Jane Cobden, The Times, 27 October 1887, p. 6) spells the place as "Cloughbready".

• • Sources differ, but if it's Cloughbready in the letter, that's how it should be. Incidentally, if you can give me the full Times citation details I'll include them in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• • That's the full citation. The URL is a waste of time as it takes you to Westminster Libraries' log in - a fat lot of good to most readers.

• • "the Catholic Church" – Roman Catholic, please: certain Anglicans get very exercised about this, as their Creed includes them as members of "one Catholic and Apostolic Church".

More anon. Tim riley (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks thus far; I await your further pleasure. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Second and final batch from Tim riley

Three supplementaries added to batch one above. Batch two:

• Marriage, wider interests
  • "she represented the WFL at the World Congress of Representative Women in Chicago" – for the avoidance of doubt, as the lawyers say, I think I'd reorder this as "she represented the WFL in Chicago at the World Congress of Representative Women." The phrase "Women in Chicago" momentarily catches the eye and breaks flow.
  • "an extended tract, "The Recent Development of Violence in our Midst"" – you have the title in quotes in the text but in italics in the notes.
• Social, political and humanitarian activities
  • "Cobden expressed confidence that "Manchester ... will tell Mr Chamberlain that it is still loyal"" – The reader will want to know if she was right (at least this reader did). I see that the electors of Manchester East threw Balfour out in 1906 and there wasn't a Tory MP in any of the city's six constituencies: List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1906#M You may or may not think this worth mentioning in a footnote.
  • "The Cobdenite cause of land reform was revived in the 1900s as a major Liberal reform policy" – two reforms in one sentence
• Late campaigns
  • "Native's Land Act" – there seems to be some doubt whether the Act had an apostrophe at all (see, e.g. [1]) but those sources that give it an apostrophe give it as Natives' plural, not Native's singular.
• Final years, death and legacy
  • "Others were eventually collected, with other Cobden family … Otherwise" – too much of the other
  • "Jane Cobden died in her 97th year" – the Victorians used to go in for this formulation on tombstones, but I reckon "aged 96" is plainer.

Them's my few gleanings. I knew not of Jane Cobden before this, and I much enjoyed making her acquaintance. The only thing I should have liked to see and didn't is a pen portrait of her by a contemporary, but perhaps there isn't one. – Tim riley (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Further tweakings applied, including a couple of sentences (all I can find) that provide some sort of a portrait, though not, alas, from a contemporary. I am giving further thought to the question of a footnote on Manchester's loyalty in 1906; there were other factors than Free Trade which influenced the result of that election and how Manchester voted. Thanks for your time and suggestions, which undoubtedly improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Later: I am disinclined to add the footnote, having studied various histories. There were many issues that led to the Conservatives' heavy defeats in 1906; Manchester's results could have been influenced by these factors, rather than their merely staying loyal to the principles of free trade. If could find a history that said: "Manchester demonstrated its loyalty to the Free Trade principle by kicking out each of its five Conservative or Unionist members, including the prime minister, Balfour" - or words to that effect, then I'd be happy to add it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. No complaint from this quarter. Tim riley (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

More Ceranthor Comments

London County Council election 1889

• They formed the Society for Promoting the Return of Women as County Councillors (SPRWCC), - This implies that women could previously serve as councillors. If this is the case, then a little context might be helpful, though it is certainly not necessary.

• Why does it imply that? County Councils were created in 1888, and the Society was formed to promote the election of women to these new bodies. The word "return" in this sense simply means "election". Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• In court the judge ruled against both, - I think you should add "women" after both.
• Women did not receive the right to sit on county councils until 1907.[36][n 5] - Might be useful to mention what Act of law changed this fact. Also, I am not sure what relevancy note five has; could you explain?

• I have added the name of the legislation. As to the footnote, this is a bit of incidental information which might be of some interest to current Londoners, especially those who remember the destruction of the GLC by the Thatcher government. I see no harm in keeping it, but wouldn't weep tears if it were deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• In his account of the 1888–89 election, the historian Jonathan Schneer marks the campaign as a step in what he terms "working-class disenchantment with official Liberalism", citing in particular Lansbury's departure from the Liberal Party in 1892. - I really feel this sentence should have a citation after it seeing as it has a quote.

• All the information in this paragraph is cited to ref 32 (with 39 as a backup), but I agree it would be useful to pinpoint thr citation of the earlier quotation. Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Final years, death and legacy

• Others were eventually collected, with other Cobden family documents, by the West Sussex County Council Record Office at Chichester.[2] - The commas setting off "with... documents" are unnecessary.

• The commas are optional; it's a matter of personal style. Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Jane's activities showed that it was still possible to follow a radical agenda within the aegis of Liberalism". - Citation?

• In this case, the single citation at the paragraph's end suffices, as both quotes are part of the same summing-up by Richardson of Cobden's career. Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources

• Jackson (2012). Morley of Blackburn: A Literary and Political Biography of John Morley. Plymouth: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. ISBN 978-1-61147-534-0. - I know of Fairleigh Dickinson, and it is not, as far as I am concerned, anywhere near Plymouth; I do not believe there is a Plymouth in NJ. The Google Books info page lists Rowman & Littlefield as the publisher. Could you clarify?

• Use the link in the bibliography, and go to the publication details pages of the book. You will see that it is published by Fairleigh Dickinson University Press of Plymouth in the UK. Rowman and Littlefield, of Lanham, Maryland, were the US publishers. Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally a great article. ceranthor 22:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the time that you have given to this review and for your helpful suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat.

A couple of minor copy edits for typos done: feel free to revert any or all with which you disagree. As always the following suggestions are very minor and possibly incorrect, but here goes:

Family background

• "born on 28 April 1851 at Westbourne Terrace": at seems the wrong preposition here without a house name or number.

Social, political and humanitarian activities

• The book dedication: "Free Trade in Land" should be in single, rather than double quotation mark.

A short list for yet another very pleasant and interesting read. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Two small fixes made - thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Ancient Egyptian deities

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review for some final polishing before FAC. My biggest issue is what to do about the list of deities at the end of the article; see this talk page section for prior discussion about the list.

Thanks, A. Parrot (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

This is a very fine article. You manage to use dozens of terms and names unfamiliar to most readers while at the same time remaining comprehensible to the layman. The structure of the article works well (and must have taken a lot of thinking out). As to your particular question, I don't think it helpful to the reader to have an incomplete list of deities at the end. What does it add? Anyone looking for an individual deity can look him or her up at List of Egyptian deities and the incompleteness of the selective list here will irritate those who know anything of the subject. (My own eyebrows went up when I saw Thoth described as "ibis-headed" sans phrase – I am a personal friend of the British Museum's Baboon Thoth). There is also the question of how authoritative the sub-categories in the list are. Some might say at FAC that you need to cite a reliable source for the chosen categories. I'd dispense with the list, but if you do (and even if you don't) you need to add a prominent link to the stand-alone list. That list needs a fair bit of work, but that's another matter.

In the ordinary way of things I usually comment at PR on infelicitious prose, typos, ambiguities and so forth, but I can find nothing to quibble at here. Please let me know when you put the article up for FAC. It will be a pleasure to support it. – Tim riley (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, and for the encouragement. As for the list, your thinking pretty much agrees with mine. The only issue is that list of Egyptian deities is nothing more than somebody's duplicate of this one, so one could see it as the list that doesn't add anything. If it could be turned into a redirect back to this article, and if this article's list could be rewritten to be coherent, thorough, and compact, combining the list of deities and the article that explains what they are in one place might serve the reader better than dividing them. But rewriting the list that way probably isn't possible, so I suppose it's best to remove it here and leave the problems in the stand-alone list for some other time. One question: should I link that list in a "see also" section at the end of the article, in a hatnote at the top, or both? A. Parrot (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the existing list article is lifted from the original here, and yes, it needs work (happy to chip in if I can be of use). I hope we'll have a complete-ish list of deities in due course, but that list does not belong in the present article, any more than, say, a complete list of compositions belongs in Mozart's article. I'm no expert on hatnotes and links, but my inclination in this case would be to go for both; if anyone thinks differently he or she can say so, but possession is nine points of the law, and FAC will smoke any objector out. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do. A. Parrot (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Marie Lloyd

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. Marie Lloyd was often referred to as "Queen of the Music Hall" thanks to her success as singer, comedienne and musical theatre actress during the late Victorian era. With a repartee littered with innuendo and sauce, Lloyd enjoyed a long and prosperous career, despite her sad and turbulent private life. I have been working on this for the last month and the article may be a tad bloated, but its easier to cut text than create so I have done all the hard stuff now which saves time. The article has received a Rothorpe copy edit which has been invaluable. Obviously, GA would be sought after this with an FAC on the horizon. I would be glad of any comments and thoughts. Thanks, Cassianto^Talk 16:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

This is going to take two or three goes. First batch, down to the end of Early career and first marriage:

• General
  • Lloyd's surname appears too often for the prose to flow smoothly. In general, wherever the meaning is plain I'd change the name for "she" or "her": e.g. "On 3 February 1886, Lloyd appeared at the prestigious Seabright Music Hall in Hackney.[23] After a few weeks, Lloyd began performing songs…" I'd change both "Lloyd"s to "she". Later: I've had a shot at this here but see what you think, and revert anything you don't like.
    • Yes I see what you mean. Wow, there really was a lot of Lloyds wasn't there! I changed one to "his wife" when speaking of Hurley. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Lead
  • I'd lose the inverted commas round "straightlaced".
    • Lost. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Family background and early life
  • "The Wood family were "respectable and hard working"" – not sure having the phase as a direct quote adds anything.
    • Done. -- Cassianto^Talk .
  • "John sought her unpaid employment" – perhaps "secured" rather than just sought
    • Agree. Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "at The Eagle tavern" – I'd lose this second "tavern" in two sentences; also see comment below about capitalising "The"
    • Second tavern deleted. Would "tavern" be classed as part of the definite article? -- Cassianto^Talk 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Early career and first marriage
  • Second para – and throughout article – you should, I think, decide whether to capitalise the definite article in the titles of theatres etc – "the Oxford" or "The Star" – and standardise on one of the two forms. I prefer lower case, but consistency is the main thing.
    • Opt for lower case. I think I caught them all. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "The Boy in the Gallery" – comes up twice in the para. I'd lose the first mention.
    • Done. I have moved the credit to Nelly Power to the song's first mention. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Her reputation as a "blue" performer did not impress her East End audiences which her West End counterparts enjoyed so much." – not sure what you mean here. The East Enders disliked it or were blasé about it? And their not her counterparts, surely?
    • I have reworded this now. I was surprised at reading this, I thought that this would have been the other way round. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "MaQueen-Pope" – spelling; and wl to W. J. MacQueen-Pope, and probably add "the theatre historian" or some such.
    • Added theatre historian and mentioned he was her biographer. Spelling (typo) also fixed. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That's all for now. Sunday lunch beckons. More anon. I'm enjoying this. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Batch two: to the end of Relationship with Bernard Dillon. I have tinkered with the prose while going through these sections; revert any changes you don't like, naturally.

• Life at Drury Lane
  • "she played the principal boy.[n 11] " – I'm confused. Unless I'm going completely dotty (a contingency not to be discounted) your footnote explicitly contradicts your text. As far as I can tell from the text her roles at the Lane were female, and Macqueen-Pope was right.
    • Your sanity is all present and correct, its mine that is questionable. Fixed. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "according to Pope" – as he was double-barrelled I think you really have to refer to him as Macqueen-Pope
    • Yes of course, done. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Debut in America
  • "A few weeks later, Lloyd began a secret affair" – not a successful secret, evidently, as Courtenay was suing for divorce within a matter of months.
    • No, it wasn't successful, everybody knew about her going over the side, but nobody spoke of it. Gillies called it "music halls best kept secret". I have deleted the ambiguity. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Risqué reputation and transatlantic tours
  • "She then rendered the drawing-room ballad "Come into the Garden Maud" in such an obscene way that the committee were shocked into silence" – perhaps it would make the contrast still stronger to mention that the words of Maud are by Tennyson.
    • Now mentioned. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Music hall strikes of 1907
  • "Within a few days … within days" – repetition
    • Fixed. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "the increase in Matinée performances" – I think this is the first we hear of the increase; I'd be inclined to say "an increased number of matinée performances". Lower case, perhaps?
    • Done and done. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "The war ended later the same year with a favourable resolution being directed towards that of the performers" – perhaps "with a resolution broadly favourable to the performers"?
    • Swapped. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "the Gaiety Theatre in Scotland" – a big place, Scotland. Better mention Dundee, I think, even though it's mentioned in the quote that follows.
    • Swapped. I have also linked it (I'm not sure if I have linked already, but if I have I will delete). -- Cassianto^Talk 16:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Relationship with Bernard Dillon
  • "She was eager to become a success in the country" – I had rather gathered from the earlier text that her success in the US was already well established. Tim riley (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I have clarified this to say that she wanted to equal the American success of her sister Alice, not actually be a success in America. Does this read better? -- Cassianto^Talk 16:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I am, by the way, becoming increasingly anxious at not, so far, finding any reference to "She Sits Among the Cabbages and Peas". I have always understood this was one of her numbers, to the fury of the authorities. If you shatter my illusions about this I shall not lightly forgive you. Tim riley (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha, no I have heard of that one too. She had literally hundreds of songs, all of which were well received, so its knowing what to mention and what not to mention. I will consult Gillies (the most comprehensive of the sources I have), and report back with this. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you believe Gillies gives no mention of this number! I found this, but cannot see a page number. I will see what else I can find. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

My comment about Cabbages and Peas (or Leeks, if you prefer) was prompted by the thought, "What does the interested, lightly-informed reader know about ML?" I should say that of her songs "My Old Man" is the best known, with these, in no order, as runners-up:

• Oh, Mr Porter

• Already mentioned. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• The Boy I Love

• Already mentioned. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• One of the Ruins that Cromwell Knocked About a Bit
• Cabbages and Peas

• Now spoken of. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• A Little of What You Fancy

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think these all deserve at least a passing mention in an FA on the lady. Tim riley (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will read up and give them a mention. Thanks Tim. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by SchroCat

I used to walk past the house on Graham Road when I was a student, so I'm extremely glad to see you've given her your usual high-quality treatment. I made a couple of minor edits: feel free to revert if I've introduced errors or problems. First sweep comments below, more to follow. As always, feel free to ignore or disagree with the many occasions when I'm wrong:

• Do you have a citation for "Marie rhymes with "starry";"?
  • In a word no. This was added by Rothorpe, but neither of us knew how to do the correct IPA. Does anybody know the correct format, or how to make the correct (and more desired) IPA? -- Cassianto^Talk 09:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    • IPA is a pain to work out (and I think it is of slightly limited use, as you need to be able to "read" it to understand it). Is there nothing that says Marie should sound like starry, as opposed to marry or maree? There's a few ways to correctly pronounce the name, so it would be good to get it right, if at all possible. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, unless I'm missing something, I think I have done the whole IPA thing. Maaree (I think) is the French pronunciation, so I have chosen to use this (unless I have to go with English). As for a citation, I'm not sure I need one. this, this, this, and this are a few picked at random that don't. I will, however, search for one as it won't hurt. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Should hard working be hard-working?
  • It should yes, changed. -- Cassianto^Talk ,
• Is it really the Seabright Music Hall in Hackney, but the Sebright Music Hall in Bethnal Green? (I'm presuming the BG one was near the modern day Sebright Arms, a pub I used to know all-to-well!)
  • The source says "The Sebright opened in 1865 as a music room annexed to the Sebright Arms Public House in Hill Street (nowadays Coate Street) Hackney." I suspect it is not Hackney as it has a Bethnal Green postcode. Your presumption is correct. The MH adjoined the pub near to Garner Street. Now changed. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• "The labor dispute": overly American—and not just the spelling! Perhaps "strike", or even just "The dispute"
  • I don't know how that slipped in there, changed. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• a critic for the The Courier noted
  • Good catch, deleted. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• lineup -> line-up
  • Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• "I'd Like To Live In Paris All the Time" should probably carry different capitalisation
  • fixed. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• First World War and final years section, two disambig links are there, one for Hackney (in the blue plaque pic) and one for Crystal Palace.
  • Both done. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• There are three dead footnotes at the moment:
  • FN13: "Biography of Marie Lloyd" (info) [vam.ac.uk], Victoria and Albert Museum website, accessed 30 December 2012
    • Fixed.
  • FN183: "The Death of Marie Lloyd" (info) [guardian.co.uk], The Guardian (Archive), 22 October 1922
    • Fixed. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • External link: Article on Marie Lloyd at East End London (info) [eastlondonhistory.com]
    
    • I have replaced this. I know these are a bit threadbare at the moment. I will go through and add some more later. Thanks for the great review thus far. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it a full run-through later, but it will be similar small typos, rather than anything major and structural for you to worry about. Excellent article, and extremely close to FA standard. - SchroCat (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Part two from SchroCat.

As usual, these are largely suggestions, as you may have reason for doing things in a particular way which are entirely justifiable. My very minor points are:

Lead

• "The Boy I Love Is Up in the Gallery": I'm not sure the caps are right here (or in the corresponding article) and I note that you have in the second para of the lead "The Boy I Love is Up in the Gallery".
  • The source capitalised "is" so it slipped through like that. I have changed this to lower case (and moved the corresponding article while I was at it). -- Cassianto^Talk 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Is "straightlaced" one word, or hyphenated? (I'm not pointing out an error, but I've always hyphenated and would like to know if I've been doing it wrong all these years!)
  • This should be hyphenated and now is. Later on, I talk of Chant who MacQueen-Pope describes as being "straightlaced", without the hyphen. Do you think I should [sic] that or leave it? -- Cassianto^Talk 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'd be tempted to split the third para in two at "Offstage, Lloyd had a turbulent…", with the fourth dealing with her private life separately. Your call if you don't like the idea!
  • Yes I agree. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Family background

• said 'Bless you my child, do what you like.'"[15] You could think about: you like'."[15] just to ease the plethora of diacritic marks.
  • spaced, thanks. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Early career

• "reputation as a "blue" performer". Do you mean risqué or was she a daring innovator of modern theatre performers, or even a popular beat combo? A piped link may be useful, but I'm not sure about the best page: innuendo or double entendre are possibilities, although they do not really convey the full meaning. Perhaps profane or ribaldry? Not sure ...!
  • I deliberated about this for an entire day a few weeks ago. I really have nothing to link it to. I feel profane is wrong as she never used profanities during her act (a career ending move back in those days), but have really been torn between "innuendo", "double entendre" and "ribaldry". I have opted to link to "rude song" within "ribaldry" as I think it is the closest to the subject matter. Does anybody else have any suggestions? -- Cassianto^Talk 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Good link! - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• There are a series of song titles in sixth para which need to have the capitalisation sorted out.
  • This capitalisation malarkey is haunting me a bit. There were copied letter by letter from the sources, so presumed correct. Yes, done (but may need checking as its not a strong point). -- Cassianto^Talk 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I know - I was going cross-eyed trying to work them out too! The problem is that the sources may use a different style format to Wiki's one. I've made a couple of other changes, but need to look at it tomorrow with fresh eyes. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Risqué reputation

• teach a girl at school'". Again, the sentence could avoid the collection of diacritic marks with: teach a girl at school'."
  • Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Music hall strikes

• the Variety Artistes Federation: link the first, not the second mention
  • Jiggled about a bit. I also removed a bit of repetition. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Scandal in America

• Again you need to sort out the caps in the song titles (second para)
  • Again, these came from the sources. Would you mind checking them here? -- Cassianto^Talk 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First World War

• Again, a few wrong caps in the song titles
  • Per above. I've had a stab. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• "In 1915, Dillon was conscripted into the army, but he quickly deserted by jumping off a moving train in France. He spent a long time on leave and stayed home in Golders Green, drinking to excess". I think you need to add a little more here: it looks like he jumped from a train and took leave. If he deserted, he was absent without leave. Was he caught and then took leave, or did he spend time at home, while a deserter?
  • All addressed. It was his intention to desert but he never actually achieved it. The source doesn't say, but I suspect the leave was granted because of the injuries (if any) he sustained during the escape. I have used a bit of poetic licence so the leave is not misinterpreted as leave per se. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes

• Have you considered using {{ODNBsub}} instead of {{sub}} for the DNB references?
  • Swapped. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

All very minor indeed, and this is certainly close to an FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As always, your review has been invaluable, and I'm certainly looking forward to our time on T-T. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Blofeld

I'll tackle this gradually over a few days.

No problem, I'm glad of your interest :-)

• Intro - "topped the bill". Headlined?
  • Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"spectacular" - a peacock word.

• but they were. I think dumbing them down by not emphasising just how "spectacular" they actually were, would lead one to think that they were "just another pantomime", which they were not. Drury Lane was considered back then to be the holy grail of the London theatrical world. --Cassianto^Talk 20:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

" Lloyd was in frequent dispute with Britain's the strict theatre censorship". Superfluous the?

• Good flippin' spot! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Humpty Dumpty; or, The Yellow Dwarf and the Fair One, Little Bo Peep; or, Little Red Riding Hood and Hop O’ My Thumb, and Robinson Crusoe." No wiki links?

• These differed from today's Little Red Riding Hood and Humpy Dumpty inasmuch that they were harlequinade versions. They were also loosely based around the official pantomimes, with a large share of the script being totally re-written on the request of Gus Harris. I think linking them to the conventional pantomime would be inaccurate here. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

De link First World War.

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Link Alhambra Theatre

• Linked. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Early career.

• Grecian music hall, Hoxton hall or something else? Not quite sure what hall you are referring to.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm, could you be a bit more specific. I'm sure its me, but I cannot see where you mean. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Collins music hall, Falstaff Music Hall, Oxford Hall, Sebright Music Hall, Britannia theatre, Oxford music hall. Inconsistency in capitalization. Links? I'll create them if they're red linked. Oxford music hall in risque section also not in capitals as Oxford Hall was originally. Also further down link the Crown Theatre in Peckham. Let me know which are missing articles and I'll fill them.

Brianboulton comments

After so much attention, there's probably not much left for me, but I will try and manage a few suggestions. I have not checked the earlier reviews, so some of these points may have already have been made:

• In the lead: "Between 1891 and 1893, she was recruited by the impresario Augustus Harris to appear in the spectacular Theatre Royal, Drury Lane Christmas pantomimes including Humpty Dumpty; or, The Yellow Dwarf and the Fair One, Little Bo Peep; or, Little Red Riding Hood and Hop O’ My Thumb, and Robinson Crusoe." This sentence is difficult to read, because of the multiple commas and "ands" arising in the list of titles. Is it really necessary to have the full titles of these works in the lead? The following would be much easier on the ear: "Between 1891 and 1893, she was recruited by the impresario Augustus Harris to appear in the spectacular Theatre Royal, Drury Lane Christmas pantomimes; these included Humpty Dumpty, Little Bo Peep and Robinson Crusoe."
  • For pantomimes, what comes after the "or" is as important as what comes before, and gives an idea of what happens in the "transformation" period. I would be happy to shorten it if the title is repeated. --Cassianto^Talk 00:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    • My point was really whether the full, awkwardly-punctuated names are required in the lead, which is normally a brief summary. The full names are fine in the main text. I'll leave it to you. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, OK. No I think we can scrap the full titles within the lead based on that. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Also in the lead, needing slight attention: "By the mid-1890s, Lloyd was in frequent dispute with Britain's the strict theatre censorship..."
  • Fixed during Blofeld's review. --Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Still in the lead: "she enthusiastically supported recruitment..." I'd drop the adjective.
  • Removed. --Cassianto^Talk 00:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• In family background: being "respectable and hard-working" does not guarantee financial comfort, so I question "as such".
  • Deleted. --Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Is a 1900 photograph appropriate for this section, which is concerned with Marie's life up to about 1885?
  • It is more there for illustrative purposes as I speak about the Wood family. I think moving it down to the 1900s for chronological reasons would be a double edged sword inasmuch that there is no supporting text. Would I be better to move it regardless, or shall I delete. It's a shame, because its a nice photo. --Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that images are required to have supporting text. Keep the omage, place it wherever you think it serves the article best. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Early career: "at age 15" is an American construction; I think the article should use the British idiom. Incidentally, the first sentence is rather awkwardly arranged. The word "including" is one of at least 13 usages in the article, which is somewaht repetitive.
  • I have had a go at reworking this. See what you think. --Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I have tweaked the sentence a bit more (up to you whether you keep it). I'm still concerned about the word "including", for which you have an apparent stylistic fondness. I suggest you go through the article and see if you can reword a few of them. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It is true, I have used the word far to often (and is not the easiest to find a replacement for). I have trimmed a few. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Lloyd established her new name on 22 June 1885..." - do you mean 1885? The context and chronology suggests 1886.
  • Yes, source checked and added. --Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• "whom she was subsequently managed by" → "by whom she was subsequently managed"
  • Copy edited. --Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Lloyd followed the comedian Tom Leamore on stage and earned a wage of 15 shillings per week." Non sequitur.
  • Deleted. --Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Measuringworth: Such comparisons are highly questionable, since economic circumstances have changed out of all recognition in the last 130 years or so. My advice, if these present values are used, is to confine them to footnotes rather than show them in the main text, and include in the note that these values are "according to Measuringworth". And I would avoid spurious accuracy, as in £8077.
  • I have deleted them as their inclusion does make for bumpy prose. I only included them as I was once asked at FAC. --Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, some reviewers used to ask for them at FAC, but no longer. I can't actually remember when the matter last came up. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• "In May 1888, Lloyd and her husband had a daughter named Marie..." Daughters don't come with names. And "had a daughter" is inelegant. I would rephrase this along the lines: "In May 1888, Lloyd gave birth to a daughter, Marie..."
  • ha, yes fixed. --Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Drury Lane and success; In general, it's a bad idea to force your readers to use links, as I had to do to find out what the "Old Mo" was.
  • Done. --Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Improvisational" does not need a link; it's not a technical or unusual term. Ditto chamber pot.
  • Removed both. --Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Why did the Flossie performance end her career as an actress? Was her performance so terrible?
  • It was yes. Mutual decision I believe. MacQueen-Pope, Farson and Gillies all say so. have explained a bit in a footnote. --Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That's about the halfway point. My comments on the rest will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple more sections

• Debut in America: Why this section title? The section is very largely about other things.
  • Deleted. In your opinion, does this now make this section too long? --Cassianto^Talk 00:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• The ""greater acclaim" quote should be attributed rather than merely cited. Same, later in the section, with the "roar of applause" quote.
  • Done.--Cassianto^Talk 00:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "entitled" them? Do you mean "retitled"?
  • I do, done.--Cassianto^Talk 00:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "At Christmas..." Give year, for clarity
  • Done. --Cassianto^Talk 00:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "initiating a divorce" → "initiating divorce proceedings"
  • Done. --Cassianto^Talk 00:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Risqué reputation: "By 1895, the content of Lloyd's songs were often receiving criticism from "straightlaced" theatre critics and strict, influential feminists." Too much judgement here. I would neutralise: "By 1895, the content of Lloyd's songs were often receiving criticism from certaintheatre critics and also from feminists." (I honestly don't know what you mean by "strict feminists")
  • Reworded. --Cassianto^Talk 00:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "The writer and feminist Laura Ormiston Chant, who was a member of the Social Purity Alliance, successfully campaigned to have large screens put up around the promenade at the Hackney Empire[91] and managed to persuade Hackney council to ban the consumption of alcohol in auditoriums, forcing patrons out of the music halls and into the bars." I am struggling to understand what the latter part of this rather long sentence has to do with the firts part; there seems to be two unrelated campaigns here: against Lloyd for her lewdness, and against alcohol consumption.
  • Reworded. Redundancy removed. --Cassianto^Talk 00:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Chant also protested Lloyd's lyrics as "racy"..." British English doesn't really use the transitive verb form in this way. Maybe "protested that", or "protested against".
  • Thanks. Now reworded slightly. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• It should be "cabbages and leeks"; that was the double entendre.
  • Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "She then rendered Alfred Tennyson's drawing-room ballad "Come into the Garden Maud" in such an obscene way that the committee were shocked into silence". This does not accord with what the cited source says: "The story goes that she sang ‘Johnny Jones’, a child's-eye view of the facts of life, in tones of angelic purity; she then performed ‘Come into the garden, Maud’, larded with leers and nudges, provocatively nibbling her pearls to point up each innuendo, finally arguing ‘it's all in the mind’." The source prefaces its account with "The story goes that...", indicating that it might or might not be true; the word "obscene", pivotal in your account, does not appear in the source, nor is the committee shocked into silence.
  • I have restructured this. Does this read better? -- Cassianto^Talk 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• I am unhappy with your depiction of Laura Ormiston Chant. You should read the paragraph in Frances Grey's DNB article which indicates that in many respects, Chant and Lloyd were on the same side. Chant was not the bigot depicted here. She was involved in numerous causes, including that of women's suffrage, and it is quite false to say that she "accepted defeat and emigrated to America", whatever Farson says. She certainly visited America, in 1893, but did not settle there.
  • Yes, Farson did indeed say this. I have removed this claim now about her "emigration". I will open up the DNB on Grey and reference that later as I am still yet to cover the fact "Chant and Lloyd were allies". -- Cassianto^Talk 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Farson was a colourful and not always reliable character (rather fond of the drink, too) - be a lttle careful with him, if what he says is not confirmed by other sources. I am unconvinced by: "Chant sailed to America a few months before, but was in denial at the rumour that she was leaving to avoid defeat when the licence was due for renewal." Chant visited Chicago in 1893, as a delegate of the Central National Society (a women's suffrage organisation) to the World's Congress of Representative Women, where she addressed the assembly on several matters. She was very warmly received, and honoured by several Chicago Women's Clubs. There is no record (apart from Farson's) that she went back to America "in denial", etc, in 1896. I recommend that you don't use this sentence, particularly in a manner that asserts it as bald fact. Possibly: "According to Farson (though unconfirmed elsewhere), rather than acknowledge defeat Chant absented herself in America for a while".

I have cross referenced "Chant sailed to America a few months before, but was in denial at the rumour that she was leaving to avoid defeat when the licence was due for renewal" with Gillies and Pope and neither back up Farson. A quick google search for an online RS also offers no support. Do you think the whole "Chant leaves for America" claim is redundant, especially now as there is some scepticism? -- Cassianto^Talk 22:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • The paragraph in the ONDB article about Lloyd and Chant reads thus:

"The episode [concerning 'Come into the garden, Maud'] masks the real tragedy—that Lloyd and Chant were constructed by the press of their time as natural enemies, and have continued to be read as such. In fact they often shared a political position. If Lloyd asserted female desire, Chant was as concerned with the right to resist marital rape. Her concern for censorship arose out of the Contagious Diseases Act, which sought to stop the spread of venereal infection by allowing the police to subject any woman on the streets to forcible examination; she fought to prevent men excited by the sensual patter of the halls gaining access to prostitutes and infecting their wives. Chant frequently spoke out against domestic violence: in the same year as the battle of the promenade Lloyd was threatened by her estranged husband, Percy Courtenay. Chant was preoccupied by the low wages of music-hall performers: in 1907 Lloyd supported a strike by the Variety Artistes' Federation against an attempt by Stoll-Moss to create a monopoly and limit the freedom of performers; she was appalled by contractual loopholes permitting managements to extract unpaid matinées from exhausted performers, gave generously to the strike fund, and picketed theatres using non-union labour." Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I read up on him today. I did compare the Farson refs with Gillies (who is far more thorough IMO) and deleted what didn't match up. I will go through the rest of his references over the next few days. I will only use his reference if it is there, and backed up with another source. I will delete if it is a rogue claim based on your advice. I will pick out bits from DNB now. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have tweaked your revised text slightly, and it's probably OK now. In the footnote have altered Chant's obsession for censorship...", which sounds judgemental, to "Chant's pressure for censorship", which I think is neautral and fair. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "...who appeared on the same bill as Little Maudie Courtenay" Ambiguous; do you mean that she appeared, as "Little Maudie Courtenay", on the same bill as her mother?
  • Fixed. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "randlord" needs an explanation, not just a link. I thought it was a typo for "landlord".
  • piped link with explanation. --Cassianto^Talk 08:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Why give the composer of "Oh Mr Porter" at this stage, rather than at the earlier mention of the song?
  • Moved to first mention. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Lloyd returned to London two months later." - two months later than what?
  • Copy edited. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "The chorus, "not for the very best man that ever got into a pair of trousers", "tickled the audience immensely". I would capitalise the "Not..." at the beginning of your quote, and I would find a way of avoiding two adjacent quotes. Whose phrase is "tickled the audience immensely"?
  • Capitalised "Not" and credited the quote. It was pretty difficult separating the two, but have left it as this. --Cassianto^Talk 08:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "...evident that she was not so demure as she looked, for she confided to her auditors that she 'knew a lot about those tricky little things they don't teach a girl at school'." Whose quotation?
  • The Era's. Now added. --Cassianto^Talk 19:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Lloyd returned to London, moved to Hampstead with Hurley,[103] and appeared in pantomime..." Too much for one sentence. Cover her return to London and her move to Hampstead. The (fresh sentence" deal with her pantomime in Peckham.
  • Done.

More to follow, when I'll try and conclude. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Continuing

1900s

• Joe Elvin overlinked (see previous line)
  • Unlinked.
• What is meant by "after piece"? Does it mean the "main piece"?
  • Yes it does, thanks.
• "The same year, Lloyd openly took up residence with Hurley in Southampton Row, London despite Lloyd's divorce to Courtenay not being confirmed by the receipt of the final decree." Too wordy. I suggest: "The same year, although her divorce was not yet finalised, Lloyd went to live with Hurley in Southampton Row, London".
  • Changed.
• I am surprised that there is apparently no WP article for the London Tivoli Music Hall. You should redlink the first mention of the theatre, as this is clearly a potential article. You might consider creating a stub.
  • Article created. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Sudden reappearance of MacQueen-Pope's initials.
  • Deleted. --Cassianto^Talk 23:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Music hall strikes of 1907

• "fundraising" is one word
  • Done. --Cassianto^Talk 23:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Relationship with Bernard Dillon

• "Lloyd enjoyed continual success every time she performed in North America" - the word "continual" is unnecessary
  • Thanks, deleted. --Cassianto^Talk 23:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "he ended up in debt with trainers" → "he ended up in debt to trainers." And you might consider "racehorse trainers" to avoid confusion with running shoes.
  • Fixed. --Cassianto^Talk 23:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Later years

• The first sentence looks a little detached. I'd integrate it thus: "In 1912 a new show, the Royal Command Performance, showcased the best of music hall's talent at the Palace Theatre in London..." etc
  • Fixed. --Cassianto^Talk 23:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that Butt's role is worth mentioning.
  • Agree, deleted. --Cassianto^Talk 23:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Suggest "advertisement" rather than "advert", for the sake of encyclopedic neutrality
  • Thanks. --Cassianto^Talk 23:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think you should mention the extent to which Stoll's venture was successful without Lloyd

Too tired to do more - will finish tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are my final pickings

Scandal in America

• "taking to the country" sounds very odd. I'd make that "attempting to take into the country"
  • Changed. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• You say: "the tour was a success" and a couple of lines later, "The performances were an overall success", which is essentially repeating the same thing. I'd vary it to something like: "The songs were popular, partly due..."
  • Done.--Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• "gave a selfish response ..." That's POV. You must neutralise the statement. For example, "However, she was reported in The Morning Telegraph as saying:..." etc
  • Done.--Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

First World War and final years

• "but she received no recognition for doing either". I would say "no official recognition", and "for her work" rather than "doing either".
  • Done both. -- Cassianto^Talk ,
• "Although very popular with American soldiers..." This is chronologically confusing. We are in 1916; America did not enter the war until April 1917, and American troops were not seen in any numbers in Britain until months after that, probably into 1918.
  • Sentence moved into date order with a tweak. --Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "As the war raged on..." That smacks of tabloid journalism, rather than encyclopedic prose.
  • Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm surprised to read that Dillon's failed desertion attempt led to a lengthy period of recuperative leave, and apparently no repercussions. Deserters were normally shot in the First World War; is this the hand of Farson?
  • Haha, yes it was. I picked up on this during a read through earlier and added the excuse that he had to look after family, but forgot to delete this Farce....sorry, Farson claim. It's gone now. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• "In July 1919, she..." New paragraph requires name, not pronoun.
  • Done
• "Royal Variety Performance": is this what you earlier called "The Royal Command Performance"?
  • Yes, the "Command" performance was the very first show, with "Variety" being used from there on in. --Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• "She toured Cardiff in 1919 and in 1920, she was earning £11,000 a year. I think you probably mean "She toured Cardiff in 1919, and in 1920 she was earning £11,000 a year." Note the slight revision of punctuation.
  • Reversed. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think "fraudulently" is the right word in this context. I think you mean she couldn't "differentiate between those in need and those who simply exploited her kindness".
  • Changed. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Decline and death

• "Lloyd collapsed in her dressing room after a performance singing "The Cosmopolitan Girl" at the Gateshead Empire in Cardiff" Delete the words "a performance"
  • Deleted. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Her doctor diagnosed her with exhaustion" - delete "her with"
  • Deleted. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• MacQueen Pope gets a handle again!
  • Stripped. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's all. I have had to review this quite quickly, so I can't guarantee I've picked up every little prose glitch or other minor problem, though I hope my comments have been helpful. Before taking the article further, I recommend you read it slowly and carefully, line by line, to satisfy yourself that all is well. Otherwise,a fine effort in expanding the article and providing such a comprehensive portrait. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"After so much attention, there's probably not much left for me..." Not 'arf! Brian, your review has been brilliant. Your comments have been spot on and very educational. I will work on these over the next couple of days, and I will give it a proof read when I am done. I won't be rushing to FAC (I have a GAN already lined up to maximise further improvement), so It won't be rushed. Once again, thank you for your time. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Image Comments by GermanJoe

All OK. Detailed image info provided (where available) and with acceptable PD-claims (tweaked some), three comments:

• File:1830_Eagle_Tavern.jpg - The Victoria and Albert Museum has copyright notices on such images (see source). However, Wikimedia has rejected similar claims in the past, as copyright on such old images cannot be claimed for simple 1:1 reproductions. If you have a similar image from a different source, i would advise to replace it. Otherwise, don't bother - just noting this little bit of background info, incase someone brings it up later.
• For non-US works, make sure you have a copyright tag for the original country and the US (fixed 1 image).
• Avoid using PD-US (due to its vagueness it should not even be a valid PD-tag to begin with). PD-1923 or PD-old-100 are much more specific, and special tags for "copyright not renewed" or "never registered" exist aswell. Fixed a few.GermanJoe (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. Just two questions: Does the Edward Albee image need the PD-EU-Annon tag seeing as it was published in America. The author is unknown I might add. Also, are there anymore after your fixes that remain outstanding?

-- Cassianto^Talk 17:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If the US-publication was the first publication world-wide and in no other countries simultaneously, the US counts as "country of origin" and you could remove the EU-tag. I believe, i got all the rest of the minor tweaks done. GermanJoe (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The publishers of the book were based in America, so I think the book would have originated there. --Cassianto^Talk 21:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding File:Eagle_Tavern_in_1841.jpg: If you want to use it, no problem. But check out this British Museum link [2]. It has much better biographical data (the engraver is a John Shury, additional data at the website). Bowyer was apparently the publisher. GermanJoe (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

All added with correct licensing (I think). Thanks Joe. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments (2) by GermanJoe

• "Farson, pp. 42–43, as quoted in Farson, p. 43" - Farson quoting Farson?
  • Tweaked sentence and formatted quote. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• refs 3 and 13 - check usage of ODNB-template (for both?), also when using this template, you don't have to spell out name and publisher.
• in Drury Lane "She returned at Christmas to a "roar of applause" as "the audience soon found [that] the popular little lady had lost none of the brightness and chic that are her principal passports to public appreciation"" - quotes need in-text attribution (or rephrase shortish phrases in your own words). Please check throughout the article, several opinion statements are quoted without attribution (maybe the press or the audience, but the reader can't tell).
  • Cool, I have gone through and attributed all. I think I caught them all. --Cassianto^Talk 20:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• in Relationship "Despite [the cracks appearing] in her marriage, Lloyd went on an American tour with Hurley in 1908." - avoid idiomatic phrases.
  • Great thanks. Now changed. --Cassianto^Talk 19:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's really a great article with very detailed, enjoyable content. You should tighten the quoting a bit and make sure of proper attribution. The prose is excellent (for a German, what do i know), but sometimes a bit too colorful in its descriptions - but maybe that's fitting for the topic after all. GermanJoe (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm really glad you liked it. I will get onto these later as I am away from home currently. Your input, as always, has been invaluable Joe. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Two more:

• Are refs 47 and 79 (the online sources) considered WP:RS for this kind of topic? I wasn't able to pin down their exact creator and editorial background. Incidentally they are used within two bundles of cites, so maybe you can loose them completely?
  • Its behind you.com has been in existence for 11 years and is maintained by Simon Curtis, a stage actor with over 17 years experience in acting, some of it in pantomime. Talking about "It's-behind-you.com", TheFreeLibrary says: "Another resource you may wish to try is an excellent website devoted to the development of pantomime and its roots in music-hall tradition. Click on www.its-behind-you.com." See this, this, and this. Other praise includes:

this,and this, but perhaps most reliable of all is this, which is taken from Exeter University Library and is widely used in studies there. The Victoria and Albert museum is one of London's leading museums of art and design, and promotes knowledge, understanding and enjoyment of the designed world. Its chief director is Martin Roth, and is organised by the following people. The museum has been in existence since 1857, and was renamed "Victoria and Albert Museum" in 1899. Hope this helps. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Guess, i was just a bit concerned, as the websites look somewhat unstructured at first view and lack background details about their creators (or i missed it). But with your detailed additional info both should be fine within the article. GermanJoe (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hey no, that's what it's all about. I knew I would get asked about "it's-behind-you", but I checked it thoroughly before using it. Admittedly, the IBY website does look a bit cheap, so I don't blame you for your questioning. -- Cassianto^Talk 10:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• A "fun" task for a rainy day, but you should decide, how you want publisher names wiki-linked in the references section. Currently some are linked, some not. It's not relevant for anything below FA, but it would most certainly come up there. GermanJoe (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure I see what you mean here. Are talking about publications (I.e, newspapers) --Cassianto^Talk 13:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the few existing links to newspaper names and publishers, as that's a lot easier than linking all or linking some on a vague criteria. Other editors have different views about that, so please feel free to change that to your preference. GermanJoe (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic, cheers Joe. -- Cassianto^Talk 10:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have (I think) addressed everybody's so I think it would be OK to close the review now. I would like to thank everybody so much for taking the time to invest in this peer review and I hope your concerns have been met with satisfactory responses. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Law school of Berytus

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I need opinions on ways to improve the article in order for it to achieve GA status (or A-Class), I particularly need assistance with the lead and im not very satisfied with my english writing skills.

please advise.

Thanks a lot, Eli+ 16:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Subtropics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it would be good to get an outside opinion on how to proceed with this article. A look at the talk page activity from early on March 24 will show you why. It has undergone a bit of improvement today, particularly in regards to referencing which has affected content and the newly-expanded lead section. Are the tables at the bottom of the article helpful, or clutter? Is the list of cities at the bottom clutter, or useful? Does the article have too many graphics overall, or does it have a reasonable amount of imagery? Do they tie in to the text? How does the text flow? Is the article too repetitive? Is there a better way of arranging the content? We need ideas on how to proceed from an outside observer. Thanks, Thegreatdr (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Wings (Little Mix song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be promoted to GA status.

Thanks, Littlemixlove (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Claire Taylor

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it onto FAC in the near future. It passed GA a while ago, but I think it still has some work before FA, particularly relating to use of jargon. All comments and insights would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Harrias ^talk 23:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro: Some nit-picks on the lead to begin with. Feel free to disagree, shout and scream.

• "A batsman who played at the top of the order": Top order batsman (with a link) may be better. It may also be worth, if you are aiming at FAC, including a note to the effect that "batsman" is still the correct terminology in women's cricket.

• Done as suggested. Harrias ^talk 20:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• "the only woman to have been named one of the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack's Cricketers of the Year": Maybe just "a Wisden Cricketer of the Year". To avoid a long line of links, I tend not to link Wisden here, and just link COY. I then link the almanack on its next mention.

• Done as suggested. Harrias ^talk 20:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• "and played a key role in their victories in the World Cup and the World Twenty20 in 2009.": To avoid any confusion over the years (people may ask when the World Cup victory was, as the sentence could be ambiguous), and to make it more accessible for non-cricketers, maybe rephrase to something like "played a key role in the team's two world title's in 2009"

• Done as suggested (though without the apostrophe!) Harrias ^talk 20:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Despite not playing cricket until the age of 13, Taylor made her county cricket debut aged 17.": Maybe just begin "Taylor did not play cricket until the age of 13, but four years later made her county debut…"

• Done as suggested. Harrias ^talk 20:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• "a consistent member of the team": Consistent in terms of scoring or consistently selected?

• Changed to "and within two years was a regular in the team." Harrias ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• "After an unsuccessful campaign in the 2000 World Cup": Maybe cut some cricketese here: "After an unsuccessful World Cup in 2000…"

• Done as suggested. Harrias ^talk 20:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• "despite the financial strain it put her under": Perhaps too much for the lead, as it is hardly a key part of the story.

• Done as suggested. Harrias ^talk 20:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Over the subsequent five years, she developed into one of the leading batsmen in women's cricket, but after another failure in the 2005 World Cup she resumed her career alongside cricket.": Long sentence. Maybe split after "women's cricket". Again, I'd be reluctant to go into her outside career in the lead. If you keep it, maybe look at the story being told in this paragraph, as it seems to jump from her batting success to her outside career.
• "In 2006, Taylor made the highest score in an ODI at Lord's Cricket Ground, remaining 156 not out at the close.": Is she still successful? We left the last paragraph where she was a leading batsman, then failed in the WC. Other than this score, was she doing well? Also, maybe cut this back to "In 2006, Taylor made 156 not out, the highest score in a ODI" (Is it a ODI or an ODI??? I don't actually know!)

• I've tweaked this somewhat, how does it read now? (And it's definitely "an ODI", as in "an oh-dee-i", in contrast to "a One Day International", which is really "a wan..".) Harrias ^talk 15:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Her subsequent development as a batsman resulted in her being short-listed for the ICC Women's Cricketer of the Year in 2007 and 2008": We've already had subsequent development in the preceding paragraph. Maybe "Her continued success…" or "continued improvement". Or maybe use something different in the last paragraph. I might also rephrase this: "As a result of her subsequent development as a batsman, she was short-listed for…"
• The end of the lead goes into tour-by-tour mode, while the rest doesn't.
• "She was the leading run-scorer in the 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup, and the player of the tournament in the Women's World Twenty20 later in the year. Her batting was less consistent after 2009, with low scores in the 2010 Women's World Twenty20, and a tour of Sri Lanka later that year.": Maybe: "After being the leading run-scorer in the 2009 World Cup, and player of the tournament in the World Twenty20 later that year, she was less consistent from 2010…"

• I've significantly rewritten the final paragraph, how does it scan now? Harrias ^talk 15:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• We mention the 2009 WC and WT20 twice in the lead: could these be merged? For example, the leading run-scorer thing could be added to the first paragraph. It's best to avoid repetition like this, I think.

• I think now that the first paragraph just mentions "two world titles" and the last names them that it is okay? What do you reckon? Harrias ^talk 13:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Anything on technique for the lead? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing much on technique anywhere; even what comes later is weak at best. It isn't something I could find much about at all. Harrias ^talk 15:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Early life and career:

• We seem to have quite a few sentences beginning "she", and a little variety would be useful.

• I think that I've reduced this. Harrias ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• "She was part of a sporting family: her father played rugby, and her mother had played hockey.": Any particular reason that her father "played" but her mother "had played"?

• Possibly, but it's not significant, removed "had". Harrias ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• "She did not play cricket until a summer camp at the age of 13,[2] but thereafter improved to a level which resulted in her captaining the Dolphin School cricket team, playing alongside the boys": Perhaps too much going on? Maybe the information about playing alongside boys to another part. And perhaps, for elegance, "to such a level that she captained the Dolphin School..."

• Left the bit about playing alongside the boys because I haven't worked out how else to mention it (if at all) yet. Done the rest though. Harrias ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Although she primarily played hockey as a teenager, at which she represented England at Under-17 and Under-19 as a forward,[2] she began playing women's county cricket for Thames Valley, making her debut for the side in May 1993": Another long one, and I'm not sure that "although" is justified given that playing hockey does not preclude her playing cricket.
• Ref for note 1 (this can be a FAC issue)?

• Done. Harrias ^talk 13:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• "She also played for the college men's cricket team, which also included Iain Sutcliffe": also...also

• Removed the second also. Harrias ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• "She had been making intermittent appearances for England at various age group levels for the previous five years": This is sprung on us a little. At what point did she get recognition?
• "These performances were not sufficient to secure Taylor a place in the squad travelling to India to compete in the 1997 Women's Cricket World Cup": Perhaps simplify to "Even so, she was not included in the team for the 1997 Women's World Cup in India."

• Done. Harrias ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

International breakthrough:

• I think we're getting a bit listy in this section, with a string of statistics. Maybe more comment or analysis is needed, if it's available. Particularly with the county performances, it makes the section a bit uneven and feels quite random: here is one performance! But we won't tell you the others!
• What is the Inter-Provincial tournament?
• "competed in the women's Inter-Provincial Tournament, scoring two half-centuries in the competition.": Competed ... competition
• "The batting was once more culpable, but Taylor provided some relief": A touch of journalese here, perhaps? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Full time cricketer:

• "After the 2005 World Cup, Taylor wanted to focus on her desire to become one of the best batsmen in the world.[24] In order to achieve this, she decided to become a full-time cricketer.": I think "to focus on her desire" could be cut with no loss, and perhaps the two sentences could be merged? Also, why the jump from 2000 to 2005? Typo?
• No-where does it actually say that she resigned from her job. I'd be inclined to rework this section. Maybe:

In an attempt to become one of the best batsmen in the world, Taylor became a full-time cricketer after the 2005 World Cup. She resigned from her job as an IT assistant manager at Procter & Gamble, a company she had joined upon leaving university in 2001. Owing to the drop in her income—her salary at Procter & Gamble was £38,000 but she earned only £7,000 each year from cricket—she returned to live with her parents."

• "Taylor was praised as the only highlight of the English batting": Can you be praised as a highlight?
• "batting for over four hours in a gritty performance to reach 137 runs": POV?
• "Taylor missed the tour of India in January 2002": Perhaps a tour?
• "Unfortunately for England, her good form did not continue into the international matches": Looks like editorialising, especially given a statistical source.
• "She repaid the faith shown in her": More editorialising; I'd be inclined to tie this more into the source.
• "and was scored over six and a half hours": Perhaps "too six-and-a-half hours"
• I think we get into listing scores again in this section, which makes for a bit of hard reading. I'd suggest that either some detail should be cut to avoid the impression that we are just listing each innings, or add some commentary on how she did.

I'll pause there for now to let you catch up as and when. Apart from the odd bit of polish, the biggest thing may be to avoid the "her scored X, then Y, and Z against A, B and C" effect. Not too sure how, given what I suspect is a paucity of sources. Otherwise looking good so far. Ping me when you are ready for more. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Frank Loesser

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is no longer a start article. I would like to know how to improve it even more. He is a legend but and his music lives on today.

Thanks, Phaeton23 (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Middle Ages

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm thinking it's about ready for either a Milhist A-class review or for FAC. I've sweated blood over this article over the last year, working and reworking it until I am blue in the face. I'd love suggestions on anything I've left out, prose, prose flow, and all other things that are necessary for FA status.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

First major fallacy: That the Code of Justinian was "widely admired" in "The Middle Ages". Nope, in Western Europe, it was the Theodosian Code (preceding Justinian by a century) that formed the basis of diverse breviaries of Roman law, NOT the code of Justinian. THAT is the development from the High Middle Ages, but certainly not the case in the Early Middle. In your lead, you should not make generalizing statements that is merely supported by a section of the substance. If you wish to retain the Code of Justinian sentence in the lead, you'll need to make it clear, in the lead, WHEN within the milennial "Middle Ages" period, that law code became an ideal.Arildnordby (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Added "later in the Middle Ages" - the lede is expected to be an overview of the overview - it's not a "fallacy" but was perhaps a bit too simplisitic. Thank you for the comments though. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather reformulate to something like "throughout the Middle Ages, Roman law was widely admired, and in part practiced, for example byuse of the Code of Justinian" (It is too technical to mention the Theodosian Codes and Breviary of Alaric etc; thus, saying for example Code of Justinian is better. The weakness with "later in the Middle Ages" is that it seems to imply such admiration did NOT exist in EMA (which is wrong).

As for "major fallacy": In a generally good text like yours, something that would only have been a minor blemish in a worse text stand out as a "fallacy". It wasn't much else I found to criticize, so it was the "most major" fallacy I was able to find.:-)Arildnordby (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Thomas Traherne

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because...after a very arduous and scrutinizing GA review that rivals the attention given to Featured Article candidates (the GA review is seriously longer than the article itself), I wonder if the article is comprehensive enough and prepared for an FAC. I don't see any major work needed for an FAC, mostly anticipating minor emendations. Given the rigor of the GA review, I might sit on the suggestions offered in a peer review until I can regain my strength and take a little time focusing on other projects. But if someone can review the article and offer suggestions and ideas that I can address over the next month with an eye toward FAC criteria, I would appreciate it. Thanks you for your assistance. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• Only the poems in Christian Ethicks (1675) and Thanksgivings (1699) appeared during the seventeenth century, shortly after Traherne's death - a ref and seems odd at the end. If this whole section could be made more sequential it'd be good for flow

• The first para of Publication history and posthumous success needs referencing...and seems to duplicate the preceding a bit..?

• by William T. Brooke of London - an occupation of what he is would help here....

Comments from Tim riley

• Lead
  • I think some FAC reviewers will consider the existing lead section to be on the short side. I am not good at this aspect of Wikipedia editing, but you might like to consult others for their thoughts on this.
  • "to that of later poets William Blake, Walt Whitman, and Gerard Manley Hopkins" – this reads oddly. Perhaps "to that of the later poets William Blake, Walt Whitman, and Gerard Manley Hopkins" or "to that of later poets such as William Blake, Walt Whitman, and Gerard Manley Hopkins"
• Biography
  • "Very little information is known" –"information" is otiose perhaps
  • "According to antiquarian Anthony à Wood" – this formation is redolent of tabloid journalism; the ordinary English version "According to the antiquarian Anthony à Wood" is much to be preferred.
  • "matriculated in Brasenose College, Oxford, in 2 April 1652" – on rather than in before the date perhaps
  • "receiving his baccalaureate degree" – good grief! A very posh way of saying graduated BA?
  • "the Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell" – better with commas round Noll's name, I think
• Publication history and posthumous success
  • "irrevocably lost" – can a loss be revoked? Perhaps "irretrievably lost" might be safer.
  • "In the winter of 1896–97" – some Wikipedians (from the southern hemisphere possibly) get very exercised about the assumption that Dec/Jan/Feb are winter. The Manual of Style recommends using the names of the months where possible.
  • In the same para, three successive sentences begin with "Grosart". For the third one, I think "His" would suffice, and flow better.
• Theology and ethics
  • "Traherne exhibits a passion" – better with "he" for "Traherne" here, perhaps
  • "Traherne must have suffered from a lack of faith in his formative years at Oxford." His own word "apostasy" notwithstanding it would be as well to have a citation for such a firm statement as "must have suffered..." Although he capitalised the noun Apostasy, there is no need for you to do so when you use it within your text as opposed to within the quotation that follows.
  • "vis-à-vis" – I don't think the phrase has been so thoroughly anglicised that omitting the grave accent is yet accepted use.
• Mysticism and divine union
  • "which was likely written" – an unexpected, and not entirely welcome American turn of phrase; perhaps just "probably"?
  • "According to Traherne scholar Denise Inge" – another place where "the" would rescue the prose from tabloid journalese.
  • "in the Anglican church" – blue link needed here? We've met the Anglicans quite a lot already.
  • "Indeed, critic K. W. Salter" – as for Wood and Inge, above
  • "according to Gladys Wade's 1946 biography of Traherne, she distinguished" – this reads oddly; perhaps something like "in a 1946 biography of Traherne, Gladys Wade comments that…"
  • "an attempt to faithfully reproduce" – some people (not me) suffer from the superstition that splitting an infinitive is a sin. I try to avoid provoking them by writing "to reproduce faithfully" instead. Silly, but it saves trouble.
• Legacy
  • "of Trappist monk, social activist, and author Thomas Merton, crime writer and Christian humanist Dorothy L. Sayers, poet Elizabeth Jennings and Christian apologist C. S. Lewis" – four more places where a "the" would elevate the prose. I see you have already given Finzi one just below.

That's all I can offer by way of comment. Very minor quibbles, but I hope they are useful. I enjoyed this article, and learned a lot from it. It's quite short for a potential FAC, but some subjects simply don't need and can't support a lengthier construction. Please let me know when you take it to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Manta ray

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has just passed GA and I want it prepared for FAC.

Thanks, LittleJerry (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "They first appeared in the fossil record in the Oligocene." This statement isn't particularly helpful to lay readers (including myself). I'm not convinced that the fossil record needs to be mentioned in the lead section. If you insist, perhaps include the time (how many millions of years ago) as well as the name of the epoch. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "M. alfredi tends to be resident and coastal while M. birostris migrates across open oceans, singly or in groups." Both wikilinks go to "Animal migration", which isn't necessary. More importantly, I have to infer the meaning of "resident" in this context. Indeed it isn't actually described in "Animal migration". I suggest re-arranging the statement so that M. birostris and its migration comes first, and remove the wikilink for "resident". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Their breeding habits have been little studied." I don't think that this adds anything to the lead section. Better just to delete it, and leave the latter part of the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "the female manta normally carries a single pup for over a year before giving birth to an offspring already nearly two metres wide." I'm not sure what "carries" means in this context. "Giving birth" seems to imply that "carrying" is some form of gestation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and etymology", paragraph 1: "The mouths of Mobulids lie on the underside of the head, rather than right at the front as in Mantids." What are "Mantids"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and etymology", paragraph 2: "The genus Manta was first described in 1829 by Bancroft." I presume that Bancroft is a person? Could you add a first name, or at least an initial? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't find one anywhere. Or for Dondorff. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and etymology", paragraphs 2 & 4: "The genus Manta was first described in 1829 by Bancroft.... The accepted name M. birostris is ascribed to the German naturalist Johann Julius Walbaum (1792) by some authorities, and to Dondorff (1798) by others." Did Waulbaum name the animal Manta birostris before Bancroft "first described" the genus Manta? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the UFMNH source, I'm presuming the original genus name was Cephalopterus; (see taxonomy section). How would you suggest we re-format this? LittleJerry (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up. LittleJerry (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Was the genus name also named by Bancroft in 1829? I suggest that the information about Bancroft should come after Walbaum and Dondorff. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.

From "Taxonomy and etymology", last paragraph: "Both of these species occur in the normal black color with a rare white morph." How about "Both species are black in color with a rare white morph." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and etymology", subsection "Evolutionary history", paragraph 1: "Molecular phylogenetic evidence shows that the Elasmobranchii and the Holocephali had diverged by about 410 million years ago." This should be either "diverged by 410 million years ago" or "diverged at about 410 million years ago." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Biology", subsection "Physical appearance and anatomy", perhaps mention in the drawing's caption that it shows the underside (ventral surface) of the manta ray. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. It is the dorsal surface. LittleJerry (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? The text states that "mantas have... five pairs of gill slits on their ventral surfaces." Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, you changed the caption to remove the mention of gill slits. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the gill slits are not in the picture. See the UFMNH article. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaced image. LittleJerry (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Biology", subsection "Physical appearance and anatomy", paragraph 2: "Their large mouths are rectangular and face forward rather than downward as is the case in most ray and skate species." It is unclear if most rays/skates have downward- or forward-facing mouths. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and etymology", paragraph 4: "Both species are black in color with a rare white morph, so color alone cannot be used to distinguish them." From "Biology", subsection "Physical appearance and anatomy, paragraph 3: "The two species of manta differ in color patterns, dermal denticles and dentition. M. birostris has more angular shoulder markings, larger ventral dark spots on the abdominal region, charcoal-colored ventral outlines on the fins and a dark colored mouth. The shoulder markings of M. alfredi are more rounded, while its ventral spots are located near the posterior end and between the gill slits, and the mouth is white or pale colored." These statements seem to contradict each other. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed one. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Biology", subsection "Physical appearance and anatomy", paragraph 2: "They have the highest brain-to-body mass ratios of any fish." I believe that elephantfish (Mormyridae) have the highest brain-to-body mass ratio. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

How long does it take for a pup to become a sexually mature adult? How long do they live? This information should be in the "Lifecycle" subsection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say how long it takes for a pup to become sexually mature. I suppose that the potential age of 50 is the best guess given in the sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

All I could find was 8-10 years for females. LittleJerry (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Biology", subsection "Behavior and ecology", last paragraph: "M. alfredi visits cleaning stations more often than M. birostris, possibly because it has a higher load of parasites." I'm not really convinced. These cleaning stations tend to be in shallower water, especially at coral reefs. M. birostris, being pelagic, has less access to these areas. M. alfredi visits these stations more frequently simply because it can. (This is just my opinion, not based on any sources.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That what I'm going with. LittleJerry (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I removed because it has a higher load of parasites. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Distribution and status", subsection "Threats", I don't think that the picture of fishermen with whiptail stingrays is helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The new picture is much better. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased that picture has been removed because it gave a false impression. Although I have been involved in working the article up towards FA status and was aware that LittleJerry was going to put it up for peer review, I have only just realised that Axl has taken it on and that the process has started. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Distribution and status", subsection "Threats", paragraph 2: "Demand for their gill rakers, the cartilaginous structures protecting the gills, has been growing in traditional Chinese medicine practices. This market is of recent origin as the use of dried gill rakers as a remedy is not a traditional one." The statements seem to contradict each other: the use is not traditional, but it is part of traditional Chinese medicine. Moreover, the latter sentence duplicates its own information. How about this: "Use of their gill rakers, the cartilaginous structures protecting the gills, has recently entered traditional Chinese medicine." Or: "Traditional Chinese medicine has recently started using the gill rakers (cartilaginous structures that protect the gills)." Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Distribution and status", subsection "Threats", paragraph 3 is about bycatch and accidental deaths. However paragraph 2 also mentions these in its first sentence before leading on to targeted fishing. I suggest that you delete the first sentence from paragraph 2. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Distribution and status", subsection "Conservation", paragraph 3: "In June 1995, the Maldives banned the export of all ray species and their body parts, effectively putting a stop to manta fishing as there had not previously been an indigenous artisan industry." What is an "indigenous artisan industry"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have adjusted the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relation to humans", subsection "Aquaria", paragraph 1: "Only four aquariums in the world currently display manta rays." The subsection seems to imply that two of these aquaria are the Georgia Aquarium and the Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium. Do you know the names of the other two? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

One is the Atlantis Aquarium, Nassau. It does not seem to have a website and my reference is hardly up to FA reliability standard. The other is SEA Aquarium, Singapore. Do you think these ought to be inserted into the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Of course, this should be supported with reliable sources. With the statement "only four aquariums in the world display manta rays", readers may well want to know which these are, perhaps with the intention of visiting one of them. If the number of mantas in each could be stated, that would fantastic. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is RS for the other the S. E. A. aquarium. I think the other aquarium is actually the Osaka Aquarium Kaiyukan, the Atlantis released its mantas as the article states. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The source for the "four aquariums" statement dates back to 2008 and may not be currently correct. I think it would be better to just state that very few aquariums house them, naming those we know about. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The subsection is entitled "Aquaria" while the text typically describes "aquariums". Please use a consistent version. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Google gave 860,000 hits for aquaria and 2.6 million for aquariums. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's everything from me. Ideally I would like to see some information about internal anatomy. I haven't checked the references, but a cursory glance suggests that they are reasonable sources. The article is ready for FAC. Good luck. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! LittleJerry (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Robert Hooke

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Robert Hooke is one of the pivotal figures of early science. A list of his achievements seems like bragging: he invented the watch escapement, the law of springs, proposed the wave theory of light, demonstrated that breathing and fire consumed the same component of air, coined the biological term "cell", developed a mechanism for surveying cities that allowed the first plan map of London to be drawn, designed important buildings including several churches long attributed to Wren, developed a set of building controls whose influence can still be seen in London today, built the air pumps used for Boyle's gas law experiments, which Hooke also conducted and co-originated the idea of tabulating expected versus achieved results in an experiment, and could also play the organ. He was renowned as the foremost experimental scientist of his age and his fight with Newton is the stuff of legend.

Our article now has this and much other detail but needs to be polished. I believe the subject is sufficiently important that it warrants the effort to make it an FA.

Thanks, Guy (Help!) 20:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Casliber

Ok, here goes....I do think we should be aiming for GA at least, and hopefully FA status. That way we have a fixed/stable to revision to refer to in case of future article erosion.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I hate choppy paras and the single sentence at the top all by itself in the lead - maybe combine somehow? I'll think on this.....

• All segments of text need to be referable to an inline cite somehow - so at least one at the end of every para, and rather than slap the same ref at the end of three consecutive sentences, I'd leave the one at the end of the third and add a commented out note outlining how many previous sentences the source refers to.

• For an extensive study of Hooke's architectural work, see the book by Cooper - looks awkward where it is - this is the sort of thing I'd have in a footnote.

• He never married, but his diary shows that he was not without affections, and more, for others. - some elucidation here would be good.

Overall the writing/prose isn't bad, and would not require too much work.

---

Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get it to FA status. Specifically: is there sufficient context for the plot to make sense if you didn't know about the Halo universe already and are there any prose issues?

Thanks in advance, James086^Talk 20:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Giro d'Italia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take this to GA or possibly FA status. I just need someone to read through it and point out any errors he/she sees for me to fix. Also suggestions of stuff to add would nice as well; I know I'm a little lacking on the mountains section. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 21:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Liver injury

This peer review discussion has been closed.
At the mopment I feel that the article is very wel written but I would like more input on how to further improve it. Ideally I wish to get this article up to GA status. Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Peter.C • talk • contribs 16:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The content is good, but my strongest impression is that the content is far narrower than the title: "Liver injury" is a very large topic, encompassing toxic (e.g. alcoholic), vascular (e.g. ischemic), and other forms of liver injury that are far more common than (and can be just as severe as) mechanical trauma. -- Scray (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I never really thought of it that way. Based on how other injury articles have been named I thought this was the best way to name the article for the purpose of just liver injury secondary to some sort of physical injury. Perhaps a disambiguation page could fix this? Peter.C • talk • contribs 19:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Scray. Perhaps this article could be moved (over redirect) to Liver trauma and Liver injury turned into a brief disambiguation page? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Agreed - eventually, Liver injury might become a full-fledged article, comprising trauma and other forms, but it might be a challenge to tie it all together from the outset (I'm assuming here that there is no high-quality review article that encompasses this broader topic). -- Scray (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
        

---

Chalcogen

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…It's currently rated as GA and I'd like to get it to FA. I think there are a few stylistic tweaks that need to be done first. If anyone could point them out, that would be great.

Thanks, ^King Jakob _C2 20:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You can talk about periodic trends and extensions. (Get the Haire pdf. It's in one of the WT:ELEM archives. Also look at the various papers I and others have posted in WT:ELEM. I have been mining that source for months.) Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back earlier. Which archive is the Haire pdf in? I couldn't find it. ^King Jakob _C2 13:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend looking closer, since it's been cited in more than one archive, but here's the main link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 11#Actinides. Double sharp (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

For some reason comments are appearing not here but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Chalcogen FA, so you really should look there and act on the comments.

(Yes, I know you already looked at the last one. It's the easy one. Nevertheless I would urge you to, if it really is not free and the question I asked has a "no" answer, at least try to get it via OTRS or something. If you're uncomfortable with it, you can ask someone else to do it for you. But you should try to act on some of the other points that are not so easy to do. While they are harder to do and require more research, the end result is more rewarding. Also it generally results in more improvement. In spite of the fact that there is no deadline, you should at least try – it's quite rewarding and educational.) Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Jainism

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I want a peer review of this article before nominating it for next featured article. It has been improved upon significantly and meets the featured article criteria. The previous nomination of this article for FAC criteria didn't recieved much responce. I want to know concerns of editors and hope that the article will get more support in the next nomination.

Thanks, Rahul Jain (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Jojalozzo

I strongly recommend this article NOT be submitted for FAR again until it passes GAR. I do not think it is very near FA quality and we are likely to get more comments and help if we are not overreaching. It only takes a couple of minutes to find enough problems to fail FAR and fixing those few problems doesn't mean we'll have fixed everything that's not up to snuff for FA. On the other hand, a GAR would probably be more thorough and be of greater benefit for the article.

I suggest viewing the GAR and FAR review process as a way to improve the article rather than as a form of external validation.

Generally, this is an intermediate quality article. A lot of the problems I encountered are minor but numerous and in total they prevent it from earning a higher rating.

History

1. I prefer History as the first section after the introduction. That helps introduce people and organizations before they are discussed in relation to principles and doctrine.
2. However, even the history section jumps around a bit and does not present a clear historical perspective. I suggest someone start with an outline, following the historical time sequence, and revise that section based on that.
3. Names of people and places are used without explaining who or where they are and what is significant about them.
4. Events and people are mentioned without dating them:
   • Sundara
   • Muslims conquering India (Mogul period)
   • Indus Valley Civilisation
   • Pir Mahabir Khamdayat
   • Emperor Akbar
   • Etcetera

First, let's address these issues and then we can revisit this section for more detailed review.

However, I can't help but comment:

1. "Chandragupta, became a Jain in the latter part of his life. He was a disciple of Badhrabahu, a Jain acarya who was responsible for propagation of jaina faith in south India." This was the only time Jainism was propagated in South India, so Badhrabahugets credit for any and all propagation there?
2. "Once a major religion of India, Jainism began to decline." When was it a major religion and when did it begin to decline??

Core principles

1. I cannot find mention of "Parshva, the earliest Jain tirthankara now known to be a historical figure," in the source (Dundas 2002). Claims of historicity have the taint of POV, so must be well sourced. This question is addressed somewhat in the History section and is probably unnecessary in the core doctrine section.

Doctrines

1. adhgajanyāyahis is undefined.

Community

1. The content on sects (Digambara and Svetambara), i.e. everything after the first two paragraphs, should be moved into History section.

Art and architecture

1. "statue of Bahubali ... is situated 18 m above a hilltop". This sounds like it's floating in air. I think 18m is the height of the statue, is it not?

Meditation and monasticism

1. Break this into two sections.They are very different topics.
2. Nowhere does the article say that there are no priests in Jainism. I think this is a significant omission.

General

1. Edit from a non-Hindi reader's perspective. Make sure every non-English term is defined and if it is used a second time be sure to define it before that second usage. For example, see undefined usage of baladeva, vāsudeva and prativāsudeva in Prominent figures section. (I do not have time to find all the instances of this but there are many. I hope someone will make the effort to check every Hindi term and correct these significant flaws.)
2. Do not put wikilinks in quoted text.
3. Use consistent terminology (e.g. Parshva or Parshvanath, not both).
4. Do not duplicate wikilinks. Autowikibrowser will find the duplicates and help you remove them. Don't address this issue until after any reordering since we want the first instance of a linked term to be the one with the link.

Jojalozzo 01:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review and the edits. I am trying my best to make the required changes. As you can see, I have moved the history section to be the first section after the lead. The history of Jainism would itself make up a good long article, so only the major events are mentioned in this one. I have mentioned the details and/or time of the people mentioned in the history section. The IAST Pārśva seems appropriate, so I have changed all the references to 23rd tirthankara to Pārśva for consistency. I think only the history section needs to be worked upon now, or have I missed something in other sections? Rahul Jain (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll make another more careful pass and run Autowikibrowser for duplicate links, but it's looking much better now. Nice work. Jojalozzo 21:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how the history section can be further improved. Also, what's your opinion on the rest of the article (i.e. except history section)? Rahul Jain (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll review it in the next few days. Jojalozzo 19:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a copy edit pass, especially in the history section. The only issue I could not resolve is the time period that applies to the statement: "Kalinga was home to Jains in the past." What span of time is covered by this statement?

Otherwise, I recommend asking for a Good Article review. I want to reiterate that it is both prudent and beneficial to use the standard process of obtaining Good Article status before Featured Article. The feedback we get in GA review will be helpful in bringing the article nearer to FA quality. Skipping GA review means missing a significant opportunity for constructive criticism. The more eyes we can get on the article the better it will be. Jojalozzo 20:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is citation really required for pronounciation of the word Jainism? Rahul Jain (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Midnightblueowl

I second the comments expressed by Jojalozzo that this should go to GA review before FA. It will probably pass the former, but not the latter at this current stage. One thing in particular that strikes me is the introduction; it does not sufficiently summarise the rest of the article. Still, a lot of good work has gone into this, and those responsible should be congratulated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Nils Daulaire

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need feedback on how else to satisfy the requirements being requested.

Thanks, Sbcoga (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Please read the preamble on the WP:Peer review page. You will see that, among other things, "Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent (emphasis added). You will also see that articles with major cleanup banners are not eligible for peer review. In other words, this form of review is for articles on which a considerable amount of work has already been done, and which are in a fairly late stage of development; that is clearly not the situation here. You appear to be a new editor; if you are serious about improving this article you should perhaps read this helpful text which gives basic guidance on how to write a decent Wikipedia article. For the time being I am closing the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

---

2000 UEFA Cup Final riots

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA and I would like someone to run the rule over it to see how I can make it up to FA status.

Thanks, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

---

In a Mirror, Darkly

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently gone through the GA process where the reviewer recommended that I take it to FA. Now, I simply don't trust my prose and I've never taken an article through FA before so I'd like to be as prepared as possible. Plus any advise given will be rolled out to the other Star Trek episode articles I've worked on and will work on in the future.

Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

---

MC Kinky

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how it compares with other arts articles.

Thanks, Launchballer 14:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by DivaKnockouts

1. 1 dead ref
2. I've fixed two disambiguated two links and tagged 2 others with Dab solver.
3. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
4. Instead of saying "white", shouldn't it say English female?
5. Punctuation comes before references.
6. "Get Over It" reached #95 on which chart?
7. Again, what chart are these singles from? I think Billboard magazine sources should be provided for which ever chart or for whatever other country.
8. How about using Template:Cite web to format the references?
9. What makes FN4 reliable?
10. This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon. — DivaKnockouts 15:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• 1, 6 & 7: Get Over It made #95 on the UK Singles Chart, which the dead ref sources; all the songs charted on the UK Singles Chart.
• 2: Fixed.
• 3 & 10: There was considerably more there, but it got taken out after User:FERAL is KINKY complained about it.

• This shouldn't matter. Obviously there's a Conflict Of Interest. As long as the information is sourced properly, it doesn't matter. (At least in my opinion)

• Agreed but take it up with User talk:Bbb23. He doesn't.--Launchballer 17:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• It still shouldn't matter. Just because people don't like what is properly sourced is their problem. I see he removed some things in the edit history with the edit summaries not sufficiently sourced. Completing the references as much as possible (Author, Work, Publisher, etc.) may help.

• 4: Fixed.
• 5: I see you've already done it, but I strongly disagree with it. Each 'sentence bit' should end with the reference; I know this sounds stupid, but the punctuation is effectively a 'stop' and having the ref after it, to my mind, is beating a dead horse.
• 8: Very good idea.  Done.
• 9: What do you mean by "FN4"?--Launchballer 16:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• By "FN4" I mean footnote #4. (Reference 4 in the Reflist) — DivaKnockouts 17:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

At a glance, it doesn't look it. Removed. How is the article length looking now?--Launchballer 17:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• It depends on what you plan to do. You plan on taking this to GA then it would require some more work. — DivaKnockouts 17:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, alright then. What class would it be at the moment?--Launchballer 18:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Probably still a start class. — DivaKnockouts 19:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

At a glance, what further amendments need to be made for it to become 'pass-class'?--Launchballer 17:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What is a "pass-class"? — DivaKnockouts 17:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

C-class. For UK GCSEs, C is the pass mark.--Launchballer 19:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't know about that since I'm not from that side of the world. But if I had to take a guess I'd a little more information on why she is notable other than charting. Maybe a review or something similar. Generally, just a little more information on her. — DivaKnockouts 02:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Science in newly industrialized countries

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… ...because the content of the article seems to be deeply entrenched in one or few authors point of views and writing, which express heavily disputed scientific and socio-histographic interpretations. So the article needs major rewriting or even set up anew.

Thanks, Nsae Comp (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Per the instructions at the top of the PR page, articles carrying cleanup banners should not be nominated for PR. This article has a "sources needed" banner in the Science in India section. It also has numerous citation needed, unreliable source, and dead link tags. Significant parts of the article have no references, which on a "heavily disputed" topic is not a good thing. Other fairly significant issues are a too-short lead, a complete lack of images and bare-link urls for references. Dana boomer (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Kantian ethics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm considering sending this article to FAC soon. I've spent the last week and a bit making significant improvements and would now like some outside input.

Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, looks like it’s in pretty good shape. I think you did a good job of simplifying some complicated material. A few comments:
• ”Central to Kant's construction of the moral law is the categorical imperative, an imperative which” Some close repetition of “imperative” here
• ”American philosopher Louis Pojman has cited Lutheran Pietism, the political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau,” You should standardize whether you put “the” in front of their description and names.
• The lead seems a bit long to me. I’d look for ways to cut less important information out of it.
• ”Kant's approach to sexual ethics emerged from his view that humans should never be used merely as a means to an end, leading him to regard sexual activity as degrading” Did he condemn all sexual activity? That’s what it looks like in this sentence.
• Check for overuse of “Kant”, at times I think you can switch to pronouns instead.
• ”This does not mean that we can never treat a human as a means to an end, but that when I do, I also treat them as an end in themselves.” You switch from “we” to “I” here.
• ”The former are classified as perfect duties; the latter as imperfect.” I don’t think the semicolon is used correctly here.
• ”Kant believed that rationality is required, but that it should be concerned about morality and good will. “ You switch tense here.
• Could you go into more detail in the Schopenhauer section? I’m a bit unclear as to how they differ in judging an act as ethical or not.
• ”It regards deontological ethics as a danger to Christian morality which Servais Pinckaers believes align more closely with the virtue ethics of Aristotle.” Could you clarify a little what Pinckaers believes aligns with virtue ethics? I think I understand the sentence, but you might try to tweak it a bit.
• Ok, I'll try to make some copyedits and add more comments soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Has the part about Animal ethics been critiqued by philosophers from an Animal Rights perspective? (Like Peter Singer or somebody).
• "Margaret Eaton argued that a medical professional must be happy for other medics" Is "medics" the right word to use here?
• Just a thought, but a spin-off article about Kantian sexual ethics might be interesting to work on.
• "The good will, on the other hand, is always good" Should this be "The good will" or just "Good will"?
• "which only acts on people who have a specific desire or interest ('go to the doctor' applies only if I want to get well')" Not sure if we need examples like this in the lead.
• Do the Influences on Kantian ethics need to be attributed to Pojman, or is he just repeating commonly held beliefs?
• I think you use single quotes in a few places where double quotes would be preferred.
• "If one would be willing for such a rule to be a universal law, by which everyone acted, then the act is permissible; if not, then it is not" I'm not sure we need the part after the semicolon.
• "Kant argued that rational beings can never be treated merely as a means to an ends; their ends must be equally respected." I'm not sure what you mean by "their ends" here.
• "This dichotomy was necessary for Kant because it could explain the autonomy of a human agent (although..." I think you forgot to close the parenthesis here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Also watch for repetition of "Habermas" in a couple places.
• " His formula of humanity as an ends in itself" Is the grammar right here?
• Also, could you clarify what it means to treat people as "ends"?
• The second paragraph of the lead doesn't seem to flow very well, seems to jump to a variety of different points. Not sure what the best way to change it would be, but might be worth thinking about.
• "Kant's Formula of Autonomy" Are the capitals correct here?
• "either agents construct laws for everything, making morality a burden and leaving people dispassionate about it, or agents construct too few laws, leaving the, apathetic to goods which are not construed as obligatory." looks like something got mixed up here.
• Should standardize foetus vs fetus.
• Maybe try to pin down what the most common objection to Kantian ethics is? I think it might have something to do with the lying bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Should standardize "G. W. F. Hegel" with "G.W.F. Hegel".
• "Political philosopher John Rawls was influenced by Kant's ethical theory, which influenced" is there a way around the "influenced ... influenced" here?
• "To achieve this fairness, he proposed that society should be ordered from behind a veil of ignorance, from which no one knows the position they will take in society." I find this sentence somewhat confusing.
• "Jeremy Sugarman has argued that Kant's formulation of autonomy has meant that patients are always treated as people with their own reasonable goals and never as ways of promoting the goals of society." This sentence sounds a bit oddly phrased to me.
• Ok, that's it from me for now. Overall I think it is in good shape, there are a few places though where I found it confusing or light on explanation. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful. I'll go through that over the next week or two (slowly - busy at the moment with other things too). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Led Zeppelin

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article for past 2 weeks and intend to take it to FAC sometime soon. An extensive peer review of the article would be very welcome.

Thanks, MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 20:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

MadeinJapan has been proved to be a sockpuppet of Plant's Strider. This peer review should still go forward but there will be no response and no further development from the original poster. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Monte Carlo localization

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently rewritten the article and spent a lot of time creating new diagrams that will hopefully convey the concepts effectively. I am still relatively new to writing articles and would like some feedback on how to improve.

Thanks, dllu (t,c) 10:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Garamond Lethe

 Doing... I'll be taking a look at the article over the weekend and expect to have a mostly-complete set of comments by Tuesday. Garamond Lethet
c 06:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

First Impressions

0. Overall a solid article on an interesting topic. This article is certainly worth a close review. My suggestions are just that: if you disagree, that's fine. If you have question or want to discuss a point I'm happy to do so.

Lead

1. The lead is a little citation-heavy. My personal preference is to not use cites at all in the lead unless absolutely necessary; WP:LEADCITE is a bit more flexible.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I will rewrite the lead when I have time. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

2. I'd like to see a sentence in the lead that establishes why robot localization is a hard problem. While the lead does an excellent job describing what MCL is, not enough context is provided. Is the algorithm used mostly for fixed industrial robots? "Untethered" robots like roomba and its military kin?

It can theoretically be used for almost any robot that moves, I think. I suppose I can say something about robot localization is a nontrivial problem, but if I make it sound too hard then it might drive readers away. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

3. I think mentioning recursive Bayesian estimation in the lead goes into too much detail. Save that for the body of the article.

OK, I will move it somewhere else when rewriting the lead section. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

History and Context

4. The biggest hole in the article is the absence of a "History and Context" section (hopefully you can come up with a better section title). What problem does this algorithm try to solve? When and how did the problem arise? What other approaches were used before this algorithm? What has superseded it, if anything? Where is it being used now? This really needs to be addressed if you want to take the article to WP:GA.

Good point. I will do some research about the history of the algorithm and how it came into existence. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

State representation

5. Since you're an expert, you know what you mean by "state space". Your reader likely doesn't (including this reader, who used to make his living doing laboratory robotics). Is a particle just an (x,y,z) triple? A set of triples that correspond to beliefs about the locations of all the robot's components? All components of interest, even if they aren't attached to the robot? Basically, what does a "state hypothesis" look like? (I'm not asking for the mathematical representation: tell me what it is.)

For a 2D robot, a particle is typically an (x, y, theta) tuple (c.f. struct particle in the code used to generate File:Particle2dmotion.svg). For a 3D robot, a particle is typically (x, y, z, theta, phi, psi). For the 1D robot in a corridor, a particle is simply (x) -- its position. As you may imagine, the state space varies widely for different kinds of robot. For example, a robotic arm with 10 joins might have a state space that's all of the angles at the joints $(\theta _{1},\theta _{2},\theta _{3},...,\theta _{10})$. In the interest of making the article as general as possible, it is difficult to define what the state space is. Perhaps I can give some examples though (like explicitly stating what the state space of the 1D robot example is). dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

6. It's not clear to me why the algorithm has to be time-invariant (other than convenience).

It relies on an internal map and if the map is always changing, it won't work. The algorithm assumes that the future of the robot depends only on its current state and not, say, what time of day it is, or how long it took to get into its state, or what path it took to get into its state. For example, if what path it took to get to its current state mattered, it would imply that it is changing its environment (e.g. like a snail leaving a slimy trail) or that the environment changes with time and then things would get horribly annoying. An algorithm that keeps a full history of previous states will become slower and slower as time passes. And yes, the reason why we assume the Markov property is for convenience and simplicity. In any case Markov localization algorithms like this are quite robust. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

7. "Typically, on start up, the robot has no information on its current pose...." That bit of context is hugely helpful and needs to occur much earlier in the article.

It's not always the case though. Sometimes the robot starts up already knowing where it is. Maybe I will say something like, "If, on start up, the robot has no information on its current pose..." dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Overview of algorithm

8. Perhaps "Overview of the algorithm".

Since the article is all about the algorithm, I changed it to just "Overview". dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

9. Should it be "pose" or "position"? If "pose", could you explain that this is a term of art and what it implies?

It's a term of art (i.e. jargon) that includes both position and orientation. I have now linked the term to the article on pose so hopefully it will be cleared up. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

10. Can the u_t actuation be optional (or a no-op)? For the robots I worked on, moving when you didn't quite know where you were yet was usually a bad idea.

Yes, sensing without actuation works but it may result in particle deprivation as discussed later. Perhaps I should do more research on this to find out how people deal with localization when the current belief is very poor. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

11. Second line of the algorithm: This really looks like X_t gets assigned the null value twice. It wasn't until I looked very closely that I saw the bar over the first X. Not sure what you can do about this, but it is confusing.

In the textbook the author uses ${\text{bel}}$ and ${\bar {\text{bel}}}$, but here I used $X$ and ${\bar {X}}$ for consistency. Perhaps I can change ${\bar {X}}$ to $Y$. It's only a temporary variable so it shouldn't really matter. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

12. Define M in this section so I don't have to go looking for the definition elsewhere. Since M isn't an integer, you might forestall a few pedants (who, me?) by using the construction |M|.

$M$ is the number of particles. I can probably restate that or add a comment in the pseudocode... dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

13. \bar{X} is never read.

In the line "draw $i$" it's drawing from ${\bar {X}}$; but you're right, I forgot to explicitly state that. I fixed that hopefully now. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

14. I can guess what motion_update is doing with the previous timestep's particles and current timestep's actuation command.... well, no, I can't. What's going on here? (While I'm thinking about it, "actuation" is another term of art that probably could use a definition.)

Actuation just refers to an action, i.e. a movement or motion, that the robot does. The motion update moves all the particles in the same motion that the robot intends to do. I will think about how to better explain it. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

15. Shouldn't the sensor update be operating on x_{t-1}^{[m]} instead of x_{t}^{[m]}?

Nope, it's operating on the output of the motion update. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

16. Since I don't understand how the probabilities changed above, I don't understand why the draw would be different.

The particles, having been moved by the motion update, now each have a different probability than before to produce the observed sensor reading. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

17. I really like the diagrams. However, it's not obvious if they are to be read from top to bottom or from left to right. The t=0, t=1, .... didn't help enough. Could you either label each diagram with a, b, c... (each one getting a unique letter) or find a way to group the three related graphs visually (each set gets contained within a rectangle with a background color unique to each timestep?).

They are meant to be read from left to right. I will think of a way to group them together. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

18. I didn't realize that the small brown rectangles were doors. Could you add a legend at the top of this figure?

Sure. I had hoped the doorknob would make them obvious, but then I can see why it would be confusing. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

19. t=0 (b) shows the robot detecting two doors, right? Oh, wait, there are three doors. That wasn't clear at all. I thought the robot was a blue box with a brown outline.

It seems easier to explain the algorithm if the robot already starts at a door (otherwise, like the t=1 step, it doesn't help quite as much to detect an empty wall)... but I will try to think about a way to resolve this source of confusion. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

20. t=1 (a) "All the particles are moved to the right". Did the robot move a random distance to the right, or a distance calculated to disambiguate the doors?

It's a distance arbitrarily chosen here for educational purposes. This algorithm is a passive localization algorithm, so it just finds out where the robot is but doesn't actually decide where the robot ought to go next. I will try to explain this better in the article. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

21. t=1 (c) "It now believes it is at one of two doors." Which? I think the point of the example is that by using this algorithm the robot is disambiguating where it is in reference to the doors, but this isn't coming across in the diagram.

I agree that this part is confusing. The idea is that, if you look at the distribution of particles in the diagram, one of the clumps of particles has been mostly destroyed so there are only two clumps left. Also, the phrasing was bad... neither of the two clumps are at a door. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Motion update

22. Perhaps move this and the sensor update section ahead of the algorithm section?

That could work, I suppose. If the motion update and sensor update subroutines were moved ahead the algorithm section, then the reader may be confused about what the role of these two subroutines are. I will think more about this... dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

23. The figure is really interesting, but how does the probability function become more dense in the absence of sensor information?

It doesn't. In order for the probability distribution to become more dense, the only way is for it to sense the environment. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sensor update

24. Ok.

I can maybe make a picture for this part too. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Properties

25. This section contains a lot of helpful context that would have been useful earlier in the article. You might want to consider placing this information earlier in the article.

Good idea, I should move some of the main properties into the lead section. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

References

26. The technical report may raise a red flag at the GA review. On the other hand, it has been cited 146 times, so it's probably fine.

27. Again, not an issue unless you go up for GA, but you appear to be relying too much on the MIT book. Removing some of the cites from the lead will help, as will broadening the article by adding more context. There are plenty of articles out there—should you definitely consider citing several more sources.

Agreed, I will do a more comprehensive literature review and add some different sources when I have time. As you have noticed, most of the sources are from the same 4 guys (Thrun, Fox, Burgard, Dellaert) and as a rule of thumb it's always better to have variety in sources. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Overall

28. This is a nontrivial article to write and I think you're pretty close to having a GA candidate. For the next iteration of the diagram, you might want to grab a couple of Computer Science undergraduates (or even just folks who know how to program but don't know robotics) and have them read the article and explain what they think is going on. Getting the diagrams right will be the most difficult thing to accomplish here, but when you do this will be a very useful article.

I have shown the diagrams to User:Stigmatella aurantiaca, who has also identified some points of confusion in the diagrams and article text. I am actually myself an undergraduate (of Engineering). I'll show it to some of my classmates, but they are all having final exams now. The diagrams are inspired by Figure 5.10 and Figure 8.11 from Probabilistic Robotics textbook diagrams. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

29. The writing was quite good. I personally don't like exclamation points in articles, but you've kept that too a minimum here so I won't quibble.

I removed the single use of exclamation mark. Exclamation marks do seem to make the article seem less serious. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

30. Nice use of code+diagrams+graph.

Thanks. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

31. Wikification done particularly well.

Thanks. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

32. Nice work!

Thanks for taking the time to review! I look forward to any other comments you have. Since I have several final exams this week, I will not be able to work on new diagrams or any significant amount of writing until April 23 or so. dllu (t,c) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Garamond Lethet
c 07:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

---

World War II

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a core article, and hopefully can be brought to FA, however, I feel that a PR is needed before nominating.

Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I notice you haven't made any edits to the article. Please notify the some of the more active editors on this article and see if this is a good time for them to respond to comments in a peer review. - Dank (push to talk) 11:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

good idea. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've notified 5 or 6 editors that appear to be the most active on the article -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

I've been heavily engaged with this article over the last few years. Before reading through the article again, I have the following comments:

• Any attempt at bringing this article to FA standard should involve first developing the article to the Military History Wikiproject's A-class standards
• I tried this last year, but gave up as a) it was going to be a huge amount of work given that all significant changes to the article need to be discussed on the talk page and there wasn't a great deal of enthusiasm for this project from other editors and b) I was uncomfortable with nominating an article for A-class status without either checking all the sources myself, or having editors in good standing perform such checks.
• The article has way too many photos, some of which aren't well chosen.
• Don't get me started about the infobox (why is Mexico there at the moment for instance?)
• Historically there's been a tendency for editors to add material on their hobby horses to this article (including material on unimportant aspects of the war and a bit of POV pushing) and I'm sure that some of this remains and needs to be removed or re-written
• All that said, there's no reason why this can't be developed to A-class and then FA standard, and I'd be happy to help with this. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

probably not a bad idea to start with a-class for now. I think checklinks might help with source checking, you can see a small version of the page. then again. there are 300 of them. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The great majority of sources are to hard copy books. Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

ah. I may be able to dig some stuff up on jstor if need be. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I also am ready to participate in this work. Maybe, for the beginning, it makes sense to take some section and develop it to the A-class standards?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

probably the best way to do it. perhaps start with the lead, and work our way down. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving the lead until last given that it's meant to be a summary of the entire article. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

good point. hate to fix up the lead, only to have to go back and redo it because of fixes to the rest of the article.... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Ezra Meeker

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to take it to FAC and would like some feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Montanabw:

• Once the PR is done and any article text adjusted, I'd take a whack at smoothing out the prose a bit more in the lede. The first paragraph is sort of a summary of the subsequent paragraphs, which makes it a bit choppy. I have a few style and grammar tweaks I'd recommend as well, but no sense messing with the lede until everything else is done, so this is just a heads up that it should be refined a bit more. I'd also add more on his promotion of a national highway and the US 30 bit to the lead.

There is no actual connection between Meeker and U.S. 30 that I am aware of. It parallels the Trail, yes, but that is because the Trail is an easy road because animals had to climb it. There was going to be a highway that way anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, the prose is a bit stilted at times, may want to look at replacing words like "forebears" with "ancestors," or " unprepossessing" with "unimpressive," for example. I'm thinking in terms of the remedy of six rules, that clearer prose, shorter or simpler word are desirable.
• Almost all sources are hardcopy, are there URL links to Google books or to online sources based on the same information that could be used to support these print sources? Your reputation as an editor is unimpeachable (particularly after your work on Nixon, pun intended), but I wonder if some reviewers would raise a concern at FAC about an article entirely sourced via hardcopy. Do the Oregon or Washington Historical Societies, for example, have summaries of some of this same information online that could serve as backup sources?

Most of the material I either own or photographed at the libraries. I can easily provide copies to any questioning reviewers. Still, I will look for google books links for the books that are not already pd.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Consider wikilinking some historical terms such as "yoke of oxen" and "patent nostrums". The non-historian may not understand some of these concepts.
• If possible, consider replacing the word "Indians" with the name of the actual tribal people met. It's a bit more respectful. There is a lot of debate over whether to say "Indian" or "Native American" also, but if you can identify the actual tribe, a link to that group's wikipedia article would solve any potential PC concerns. If you can't, I can work on that phrasing a bit and perhaps User:Uyvsdi can make suggestions on behalf of WP Indigenous peoples of North America.

The sources are not always consistent on what tribes were involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ditto terms like "white man." When possible, gender-neutral language is better. "No white settlers" would work (I don't see the need for "European-American" in this context)
• "Early days" section might be enhanced by a historic photo (or even a current color one) of Mount Rainier, given that Meeker liked the view. (I presume the absence of any photos of the land is because of the rather unattractive old prison sitting on it now?)

Meeker doesn't include any photos of his claims in his books that I have seen (although they went through a number of editions). Maybe one of the drawings of Meeker which illustrate the text, I imagine Meeker approved them as "looks like me" when they were published.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• "treaties were signed" is pretty passive. Perhaps verify that you are discussing the Treaty of Medicine Creek and wikilink to it.

• Question: Would it be advisable to mention somewhere that hops are an important ingredient in brewing beer? There is, of course, the wikilinking, but I'm wondering if it would be helpful; particularly if Meeker had buyers that founded the major breweries of that area. (Thinking of examples such as Olympia Brewing Company and Rainier Brewing Company or their predecessors.

I saw something on this and will find it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, the article is technically quite sound, but the phrasing at times is awkward or archaic-sounding. If it would help, I could do a copyedit run-through and at least provide new eyes to a few of the sections.

Feel free, thanks. My legal training shows all over my articles, I'm afraid.

• Question: Is Pacific Creek (Sweetwater County, Wyoming) a suitable wikilink for Pacific Springs or not?

I'm not sure. Apparently there were about 25 people living there at the time … I'd rather leave it red, maybe it will inspire someone.

• As noted above, I'd put a bit more emphasis on his support of the idea of a national highway. Is it venturing into WP:OR territory to link his advocacy to the later creation of the Interstate Highway System?

I'll look to see if I can find anything in the 1950s mentioning Meeker

• I'd also add a tidbit about the half-dollar to the lead.

I am reluctant, my coin articles have been moving through FAC very slowly and I'm afraid including a mention would be a problem ...

• More to come That's all for now. Montanabw^(talk) 16:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I'll work though these in detail. If I haven't posted a response, it means I agree and will make the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by PumpkinSky:

• Web refs are in what I call cite web style. Most but not all books are in sfn. Why are some not sfn? This isn't consistent.PumpkinSky talk 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Which isn't?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, they are newspapers. Didn"t you used to have two Price books in it? PumpkinSky talk 09:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, just Larson with two. There are a fair number of stories by Price though.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is just the beginning, comments on the first few sections. I shall be reviewing in instalments. By the way, I thought the Migration section was particularly good.

Lead

• The start of the second sentence reads slightly oddly - I think it's the jump from his youthfuljourney along the trail, to "Beginning in his 70s". I think "Late in life..." would read more smoothly.
• Word order: "the following year they with their newborn son set out for the Oregon Territory" - more naturally, "the following year, with their newborn son, they set out for the Oregon Territory".

Early life

• "They had four sons..." - needs more than a pronoun, as you have mentioned several Meekers since the happy couple.
• The 1839 move to Indiana is mentioned twice in the second paragraph
• There is a link article for Printer's devil.

Migration to Oregon Territory

• Second line "intended ... intended" (quite different meanings, noun and verb)
• "That was alright with Eliza Jane..." sounds colloquial rather than encyclopedic
• "they decided with finality" → "they finally decided"
• "When the party reached the Mississippi River, they were met by Oliver Meeker, as well as by some friends..." It would be useful to know how far they travelled to reach the river, and also how Oliver came to be there to meet them. Has he travelled on ahead?

Mr. Larson was good enough to send me an article showing that Oliver actually came to Eddyville. I don't have the mileage but will check my sources. My mistake, it was the Missouri, I've corrected that now.

According to Mr. Larson, Oliver actually came to Eddysville. I have fudged this pending getting a RS on this point.

• "he possessed $2.75" - to clarify, this was his cash. He had cattle and other possessions.

More soon. Incidentally, you might want to look at the red "error" messages in the sources section. On this, see also my talkpage, and a thread I've started on the FAC talk. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw, but due to travel, I will have to let others carry forth this battle. Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I managed to fix a couple of the red messages; someone else dealt with the others, so the article is now a red-free zone. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I will have to go through other articles and see what damage has been done by the template puzzlements.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Next section:

Territorial pioneer - Early days

• "They used it as a lodging house for the workers" - maybe "operated it" rather than "used it".
• Suggest pipe link Claim to Land claim
• Why not start calling him "Meeker" from this section? The few references to Oliver can be handled without confusion.
• "the lands north of the Columbia would become its own territory" - "the lands" and "its" do not match, but the phrasing is awkward anyway; I suggest you pipe link "territory" to Territories of the United States, and reword to "a separate territory"
• "Later in 1853, they received a three-month-old letter from Ezra and Oliver's father..." This would be better expressed as "Later in 1853, the Meeker brothers received a three-month-old letter from their father".
• "They immediately responded that Oliver would be with them..." - since "they" and "them" are different, this needs rephrasing. Watch also for "their" later in the sentence.
• "filed a claim of" → "filed a claim for" (otherwise a difficult "of...of"
• "The 1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek purchased lands from the Indians". A treaty cannot itself purchse anything. It can enable the purchase of land, but you need to say by whom.
• The next sentence begins "The treaties..." Only one has been mentioned.
• "restricted" might be better than "limited"

Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall get to these as time permits. I see nothing with which I would disagree. Most likely I will wait until it is off the main page as DYK.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A few more

"Hop King of the World"

• What are "hildings"? Typo for "holdings"?
• Confusion: are "John Valentine Meeker" and "John Meeker" the same person, and whose brother was he?
• "As hops were not then grown there, the cost of transport from Britain or New York made his operations expensive." Don't see the point of this sentence, since the info is not followed up.
• As the second para is all about hop-growing, the final sentence, unheralded, seems out of place.
• Can you be a bit clearer about the purpose of the pamphlet? The narrative has lost some clarity here; for example, what was Cooke's scheme that he hired Meeker to drum up interest in?
• "platted" is an unfamiliar term - does it mean "marked out"? And the following verb should be "surrounded"
• "duplicated elsewhere" - "duplicated" implies "elsewhere", surely?
• He later admitted that the pronunciation of the name caused confusion when he visited England, while remains difficult for non-locals." Last phrase does not parse with the rest of the sentence.

Ruin and Klondike

• "With thousands of others, he floated down the Yukon River once the ice broke up..." I have a wonderful mental image...but what did they float on?
• I have made a number of small copyedits to this section

Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've got those. While the crowdsourcing during a very busy DYK day was helpful, I think a couple of small errors also crept in, but they are fixed now. I've made it clearer why he named it Puyallup. My attempts at the library there to avoid pronouncing the name led to slight embarrassment, so I've been there in more ways than one ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's the rest

Preparation for 1906 trip

• "Meeker long contemplated" → "Meeker had long contemplated"
• "By 1900 he was convinced..." - but then suddenly we're in the Puyallup of 1906. We need some sense of what Meeker was doing in thse five years, by way of reparation etc
• "Meeker was able to find a pair of oxen" - why not: "Meeker found a pair of oxen"?
• "the berry patch" - no idea what this is
• "Five dollars to one of the James children sealed the deal." That's magazine prose, not encyclopedia prose
• "it" needs defining in: "Some of Meeker's friends tried to talk him out of it"
• punc after 1905 needs to be stronger than a comma

Return to the Trail (1906–1908)

• "went by train" → "went ahead by train"?
• "...to make arrangements" - arrangements for what?
• Link odometer
• Try to avoid the "Often...often" repetition
• The explanatory note (a) provides information that ought to be cited.
• "yet another cow" seems excessive when only two have been mentioned.
• "indignant editorials met any perceived affront to Meeker" - I can't work this out.
• "After a return to Eddyville" → "After a visit to Eddyville"
• It might be as well to remind readers who "Mardon" is; I had forgotten him
• There is a lack of clarity in the prose after: "Meeker went home from Pittsburgh..." Do you mean he went back to Puyallup? And then "on his return..." - return where? And then I'm totally confused by the movements of the expedition, and by "Meeker proceeded north..." Why did he go north?

Advocate for the Oregon Trail (1909–1925)

• It is not really clear why the Exposition lost Meeker so much money. Was his exhibition and restaurant a commercial failure?

The quote from Larsen is "Ezra opened a very large pioneer exhibit and a restaurant at the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific held in Seattle in the summer of 1909. He reports that he was not financially successful, and that he lost all the money he had made selling his postcards on the Monument Expedition." I've corresponded with Larsen, and expect that he means he is taking what Meeker said in good faith, but is open to the possibility of a lie. Meeker did, you know!

• I don't know how the American legislature works, but can a bill pass the House with a condition? Or was this "condition" a proviso within the bill? I don't know how the Secretary for War comes in; why did the bill not make a simple, once-off appropraiation?

Congress did not, I gather, want to get into a money pit, making an appropriation not sufficient to the work, and have Meeker coming back demanding more. We're talking about a time when Congress spent hardly any money on preservation, and what national parks there were, were run by the military. Horace Albright wrote an excellent book on the founding of the National Park Service in 1916 which details similar struggles. I'll rephrase. However, I find the phrasing in the sources unsatisfying to my legal mind and will query Mr. Larsen on the subject.

• I see that the Bill did not become law - clarify why (defeated in the Senate?) and what effect this defeat had on the issue of the financing of monuments.

See above.

• The date or year of the Meeker-Cal meeting should be indicated in the image caption.

Meeker reaches the end of the trail (1925–1928)

• Section heading is figurative, I'm not sure how encyclopedic that is.

I suppose so. Still, it's irresistible (not original, though, one of Lori Price's articles is very similarly titled). I'm going to leave it in for now and see who salutes.

• Third paragraph: were the statue and the pergola built? The text says "sought to..." in each case.

Certainly. I have a picture of the dedication, with Meeker standing in front of it looking surprised. Even though the picture is PD as printed in an uncopyrighted pamphlet, I'm not certain about the statue as the sculptor did not die until 1946. I plan to bring it up at MCQ. In the interim, I'll rephrase.

• "carmaker": I didn't recognise this as a word at first (I'm not sure that it is). I don't honestly think Ford needs a description, but if you think he does, could he be styled "industrialist", or some such?
• "I think you fall ill "with", or possibly "from", but "of" does not sound right.
• Citation string at the end seems excessive.

I've looked it over and moved one ref. Two of the three citations at the end of the paragraph are justifying one phrase each (the erection of the tombstone in 1939, for example), and it would be difficult to do this any other way.

Aftermath and legacy

• Superfluous information - Driggs's age at death
• "The half dollars → "The commemorative half dollars..."
• "abusive" seems an odd word in this context. Does it have a particular meaning in law?

I have much enjoyed learning about old Ezra. As a general point, some of the prose could perhaps do with further polish (I've made a few fixes myself) but nothing of great consequence. This is an important historical article that will, after the necessary brushings up, make a fine FAC. The images are admirable, though I've not checked the licencing - I'm sure there'll be no problem there. Please ping me if you want me to do a final readthrough of the prose before the FAC; otherwise, just let me know when it's there. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It may not be next to FAC, I don't know yet, I'm waiting on more data from the author I mentioned, who is busy with RL things at present. But it should wind up there this spring. I'd be grateful for another run-through. All done or commented on.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

First batch, to end of Ruin and Klondike

• Lead
  • "Once known as the Hop King of the World, he became the first mayor of Puyallup, Washington." – This reads as though there is a connection between the first and second statements, but is there?
• Migration to Oregon Territory (1852)
  • "set forth in a wagon" – perhaps a touch literary: might "set out" be plainer?
  • "Oliver Meeker was stricken with illness." – I get muddled after this as to which Meeker you refer to. It was presumably Oliver recovering but was it he or Ezra estimating and remembering?
  • "Only one of the livestock did not complete the trip" – I wonder if "all but one of the livestock completed the trip" might flow better?
• Early days
  • "-the region's later capital" – either a comma or an em-dash wanted here rather than the hyphen.
  • "The Meeker claim is today the former site of" – possibly just The Meeker claim was later the site of… ?
• Hop King of the World"
  • "Hops are used to flavor beer" – oughtn't this to be mentioned earlier in the para?
  • "it still remains difficult for non-locals" – as you particularly mention the pronunciation I wonder if it would be helpful to copy and paste the IPA gen from the Puyallup article?

More soonest. – 09:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Done those except I think I will leave the IPA for the reader. Thank you for the review, looking forward to more at your convenience.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Concluding batch from Tim

• Preparation for 1906 trip
  • "grew along the Trail, it vanished" – I'm being really pernickety here but I think this would flow better as "grew along it, the Trail vanished." Merely a suggestion.
  • "He figured that public interest" – to a British eye "figured" seems very informal, but ignore me if it's perfectly formal in US usage.
  • "Meeker set forth" – again, I might be inclined to go for "out" rather than "forth" (but on the other hand, perhaps a literary flourish isn't out of place in the circumstances).
• Advocate for the Oregon Trail (1909–1925)
  • "In 1923, Meeker was master of ceremonies" – perhaps "he" rather than "Meeker" here?
• Meeker reaches the end of the trail (1925–1928)
• "a provision in the law allowing the organization to buy up the issue" – not clear which organization we are looking at here; perhaps "an organization" or "a specified organization" rather than "the organization"?

That's my lot, except for the suggestion that you might put a caption under the info-box portrait giving either the year the picture was taken or Meeker's age at the time. I extravagantly enjoyed this article. What a splendid old boy! Thank you for letting me make his acquaintance. – Tim riley (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I've implemented those. Thanks for the review. I agree, Meeker is amazing, one of a kind if you ask me, which I regret, because he was so much fun to write about! As Katisha once said, "Where will I find another?"--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

After a final readthrough: I can't see any problems; the article tells a compellling story and reads very well. One small change worth considering is the addition of a sentence to the second lead paragraph about the Meekers' original wagon journey. That story is one of the high points of the article, yet in the lead we are only told that the family set out, and where they ended up. A further sentence would do no harm. I am sure the article will be well received at FAC and look forward to seeing it there. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I've done as you suggest. I will leave the PR open for a few more hours, then will close it and nominate at FAC. My thanks to all the reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Peter Fenwick (neuropsychologist)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article a little over a year ago, and haven't touched it for ages. At the time, I was considering trying to take it to GA, but there didn't seem to be enough pertinent information out there to make it worthwhile. However, I'm giving some though to trying again, and would appreciate a peer review that considers the article against GA criteria - plus anything else you think would improve it. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

---

List of plain English words and phrases

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello everyone! New article; looking for a fresh pair of eyes. How can it be improved? Right now it's substantially complete: almost 400 entries, each with at least one cite (with page numbers for paginated sources). Fluous (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from EddieHugh The major problem you have is explaining why these words should be replaced. With no justification, no mention of context, etc., the reader is left to wonder who this list is for: would people whose first language is English regard "room" as equal to "accommodation" (maybe I want a cottage), "accomplish" to "do" (ignores the element of achievement), "address" to "discuss" (maybe there's only one person; it can be a noun)? Maybe you can find a way to address this in the section before the list, but it seems a challenging task.

Reply from Fluous Hey, Eddie. Thank you for your review! I think those are fantastic ideas. Thanks to your input, I realized three things: (1) Right now, the reasons are footnoted; but nothing connects the footnoted reasons with plain English! There's an inferential step that should be made explicit. I will make it explicit with a short section explaining how plain English avoids the footnoted reasons: verbosity, cliché, jargon, etc" (in more detail, with a link to the main article about plain english, which needs to be expanded). (2) I'll have to review the references to see which problem words are problems in limited contexts. And then make sure that limitation is stated. (3) Related: for clarity, the part of speech should definitely be added to every entry. Thank you again; just the sort of fresh-eyed view I was looking for.

Comment: I would also say that this seems somewhat unencyclopedic at the moment. It read more like a style guide or essay. It doesn't give any substantive explanation of why these words might be preferred, or any context. It also comes across rather "POV" since it doesn't discuss possible downsides or alternatives. The word choice right now makes it seem like any other style of writing is bad or confusing. Bottom line, more context is needed, and the article should come across as less of a POV push. --Peregrine981 (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Mukhannathun

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has remained stable and almost unchanged for a very long time now. This article has been referenced online many times since it was written. If the title is googled it comes up all over the internet as well as it's references.

The article concerns, of all things, transgendered people who lived and still live in the Islamic world. Even at the time of and in the presence of the Prophet Muhammad. References cited in this article have been cited by liberal muslims and used to ease the life of such people in the modern world.

It is important that this article be the best it can be. Any suggestions?

Thanks, Hfarmer (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Shamin Mannan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get comments and ratings. The article contains notable sources and may need more references from peer groups. I also want pictures to be included in the article by some member on wikipedia. I also want help in improving this article, add more information, etc.

Thanks, Ashish Raj Soni - contributing proudly 06:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• The article is very short, and that is perhaps because not much is there to write about this personality. Peer review is probably not the place for this article, yet. AT best, it can be called a start class article. If you wish, you can continue to work on this to make it more meaty.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Bodelwyddan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently added an awful lot of content and citations and am worried that it does not comply with the relevant style guides.

As I have little experience working with wikipedia directly (most of my work is on other wikis), I would like somebody else to check over it and make sure it is of a good standard.

Thanks, Korlus (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Bolton Wanderers F.C.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, having recently improved it to GA status I hope to improve it further in order to put it forward to FAC. I would particularly appreciate any comments on where the History section could be improved as this has recently been split out to History of Bolton Wanderers F.C. and probably needs cutting down further, but I am unsure what could be removed.

Thanks, Johnnaylor (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

• The Everton cup tie, while an interesting tale, had no lasting significance so can probably be cut out.
• There could perhaps be some mention of what pre-league feats made Bolton a sufficiently eminent side to be founder members of the Football League. Or, if there's nothing that stands out, perhaps some context about how Lancashire was the strongest footballing region at the time.
• The 1926 and 1929 cup wins deserve more than the half sentence they get.
• Could mention that the sale of David Jack was a world record and the first £10,000 transfer?
• Estimates of the crowd for the Burnden disaster vary greatly, could do with some indication of this. The article states 85,000, but neither of references use that figure (the latter says "The turnstile count on 9 March was approximately 65,000 with some 2,000 gaining illegal entry and an estimated 15,000 turned away when the gates were closed")
• From the second subsection to the third there is a fairly abrupt change of style. The broad overview style is replaced by a focus of what manager was in charge. This section seems a bit disjointed. I don't think the Pele publicity stunt is worthy of mention.
• At times the article drifts into journalist-type commentary e.g. Todd was unable to save Bolton from relegation as they lost their penultimate game 1–0 to Southampton, but the Bolton board kept faith in him. The Bolton board's loyalty in Todd was rewarded when... or McGovern remained in charge for the 1983–84 season, and for a while it looked as though he was the man to turn things around. This ought to be more formal, and should steer clear of adding opinion.
• Similarly, there are quite a few instances of peacock terms e.g. "As it is, no less than 15 Bolton professionals", During the European run, Bolton gained a famous draw at former European champions Bayern Munich.
• The Taylor Report ought to be mentioned by name in the Stadiums section instead of hidden as a link.
• The length of the section on the Supporters' Association seems undue weight. Consider trimming and merging with the Rivalries section.
• The list of club officials seems excessive. Do we really need to know who the club chef is?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I have acted on all of your suggestions (and some others I've been meaning to do for a while), would appreciate your opinion on the revised text if possible! Johnnaylor (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Some more:

• FAC can be very demanding when it comes to prose standards. I find the advice at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing very helpful. Before taking an article to FAC I like to run through it using some of the techniques mentioned in that advice guide. The sections on "eliminating redundancy", and the extra advice on "Noun plus -ing" may be of particular use.

I will look at this, probably in combination with an attempt to act on the history narrative comment below. Johnnaylor (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• A few references are deadlinks.
• What makes the following reliable sources? greensonscreen.co.uk, the-wanderer.co.uk, epltalk.com, footballfancast.com, stadiumguide.com, sabotagetimes.com, lionofviennasuite.com. There's also one citation to The Sun, a source better than a red-top would be preferable.

Replaced the reference from The Sun. Will try and find better sources for the others. Johnnaylor (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• For more recent things, the sourcing is heavily reliant on BBC articles. Not that there's anything wrong with using the BBC, but the FA criteria call for a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". If you heavily rely on one or two publications, be prepared to justify your choices and/or omissions at FAC. Only one Wanderers related book is cited more than once, are there any other well-regarded histories of the club? As a sourcing related aside, if you want anything on Burnden, I can scan and email the relevant bits of Simon Inglis' The Football Grounds of Great Britain if you like. Likewise, I wrote most of 1904 FA Cup Final and 1926 FA Cup Final, so if you want any info from any of the sources used there, let me know.

Simon Marland has written several excellent histories of the club, but mostly they are just incremental updates (the two currently used are the 125-year anniversary history published in 2002, and the Complete Record published in 2011, which are basically identical save for the additional 9 years of stats and facts). I'm not aware of any other substantial histories of the club unfortunately, though I haven't looked particularly hard! Thankyou for the offer, I may take you up on that as I hope to eventually improve the Burnden Park and Reebok Stadium articles at least to GA. Johnnaylor (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• relegated from the Premier League at the end of last season - use actual dates, not things that will become inaccurate unless the article is updated in future.

Done. Johnnaylor (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Do sources mention any particular reasons for the 1960s/70s decline?
• This is quite a vague and hard to address comment, but ideally the history should build a sense of narrative. Making it so that any reader can easily grasp the important points. League pioneers from Lancashire hold their own in the early years. They achieve a rare feat by winning 3 FA Cups in a decade. Continue to compete at the highest level, with a last hurrah in 1958. Then, like Preston and Burnley, a decline as big city clubs come to dominate. A 1990s revival, a decade or so of punching above their weight in the Premier League, until we come to today. I realise that this rambling comment is next to useless. Were I a more gifted writer I'd try to demonstrate with a few edits myself. In practical terms, I guess I'm trying to say trim a bit where events have no lasting legacy for the club itself, and use that space to put more meat on the bones of the major events. For instance, the bit mentioning King Faruk of Egypt is a digression perhaps more suited to Football during World War II than Bolton Wanderers.
• Bolton won the cup at their third attempt to win their first major trophy this could perhaps be reworded - presumably they attempted to win it every season ;)

Done. Johnnaylor (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Something doesn't seem right with the chronology of the stadium move. The Taylor report (1990) is mentioned before a 1986 change, for instance.

Done. Johnnaylor (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Oldelpaso (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Delhi Daredevils in 2012

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it passed the GA review some days before and now I want to make it a FA.

Thanks, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is it an article or list? If it is article, it appears too listy.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• It is an article but seems a little listy due to statistics. You may see Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009, it is a FA and this article is also based on it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Gospel of the Ebionites

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The purpose of this peer review is to prepare the article for FAC. Reviewers with experience in the FAC process are particularly encouraged to contribute. Please help to make this into a first-class article. Thanks, Ignocrates (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Tim riley

• General
  • Italicisation: you sometimes italicise "Gospel of the Xxxxxx" and sometimes don't. I think it reads more smoothly without italics, but whichever you prefer, you should be consistent.
• Lead
  • image caption: you use the English possessive form Salamis's here, but the American form Epiphanius' elsewhere
  • "during the time of the Early Church, however the identity"– I think you should either change the comma to a semicolon or change "however" to "but".
• Background – another "however" masquerading as a conjunction, in the first sentence of the second para
  • Block quotations – I think you have the whole of the second quotation in opening and closing inverted commas. The Manual of Style specifies not doing so (and you haven't for the first of the two.)
  • Second quotation: query spellings Tiberias and Isariot.
  • Block quotations– "Moreover they deny…" and the one below it. See comment above.
  • "he would not eat meat on Passover"– "during" seems the usual preposition with "Passover"
• Relationship to other texts
  • In the first para Jerome appears out of the blue. I think a wikilink or a few words of introduction would be helpful.
• Inferences about the Ebionites
  • "syncretistic"– I say! A link to syncretism would be helpful to most of us here.
• Notes
  • Format: when citing others' prose you generally follow the pattern Author, p. xx spaced en-dash, which looks good. But you haven't been consistent. See Notes 1, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 42–44,
  • Note 4 – does the source really have both possessive forms Epiphaneus' and Epiphaneus's in one sentence?
  • Note 41– opening quotes missing

That's all that I spotted. I hope these few points are useful. To this layman's eye the article seems impressively scholarly, and just the sort of standard Wikipedia should be aiming at. Happily, the scholarship has not impeded readability. Please let me know when you put the article up for FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I need to ask someone with extensive knowledge of the category about the proper use of italics in the names of apocryphal gospels. My understanding is that the names of apocryphal gospels are always italicized, while the names of the four canonical gospels are never italicized. However, is that still true for names with wiki-links and names within footnotes? I will ask. We also need to decide on the proper use of caps for the word "gospel" when referring to an apocryphal gospel. When is it a "Gospel" and when is it a "gospel"? The usage we apply here should be uniformly applied across the category. Again, I will ask. All other suggested fixes have been incorporated. Ignocrates (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is what the WP:Manual of Style/Titles#Scripture has to say about the use of italics: "Scriptures of large, well-known religions should not normally be italicized", whereas "Many relatively obscure sacred texts are also generally italicized, particularly if the work is not likely to be well-known to the Wikipedia reader,...". This is the style guideline currently being used on the article. Ignocrates (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I resolved the consistency issue by adding italics to the names of all the J-C gospels in the main text whether they are wiki-linked or not, except the first use of Gospel of the Ebionites in bold. I left the notes as is because the quotations reproduce what the sources actually say; some use no quotation marks, some single quotation marks, some double quotation marks. Ignocrates (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that addresses all the points raised so far. Ignocrates (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Tommy Amaker

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I ma trying to get some basketball articles through at FAC. If Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5‎ succeeds, I might push my luck with the same audience for Tommy Amaker. I will need some feedback.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As per Tony's request, I'm taking this one on, the second basketball article I've reviewed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead: I like to review the lead after everything else, mostly to familiarize myself with the article and subject, since the lead is a summary of the article's body. As a result, seem my review for the lead at the end of this PR.

I made one minor tweak to the lead; otherwise, it looks good. It summarizes the article well, and I see no glaring problems with the text. Nice job. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Youth

• I know I didn't insist upon this at the PR of Juwan Howard (and neither did its FAC reviewers), but I feel like I need to insist upon this article following the conventions of biographies. To that end, I suggest that you rename this section to "Early years", which is conventional.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• I suggest that you follow the convention of beginning bios with something like "Tommy Amaker was born in Falls Church, Virginia in 1965, to [ ], a high school English teacher, and [his father, occupation]." There's no mention of his mother's name, and no mention of his father at all. If Amaker's father wasn't in the picture, you can separate his birthplace and year from the information about his mother, like this: "Tommy Amaker was born in Falls Church, Virginia in 1965. He was raised by a single mother, [name], a high school English teacher." If you can find information about his father, you should add it.
  • I have added what I can. I don't have any biographical identification for the father in the content I see. I apologize, that I do not have historical access to The Washington Post of this era. I imagine they profiled him as a youth, but I can not say for certain.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Calling something "controversial" is editorializing, something you should avoid. Actually, the entire first paragraph is full of editorializing. See below for what I'd do with it; please change if the information is incorrect.
  • Controversial removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'd put the info about Amaker motivating the change in policy regarding allowing teachers to choose where their children attended school in a note, since it's important, but not important enough for the main body of the article.

Notice that I copy-edited this paragraph a bit. I think the prose is tighter as a result. Please revert if you disagree. I still think the bit about the Fairfax County rule-change should be in a note. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The way the section is now arranged, I think this content is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• His mother, a high school English teacher, was his first coach. His mother attended his practices and graded papers in the coaches' office. His coach, Jenkins, referred to him as "T-bird". You state that his mother was his first coach, and then talked about Jenkins; it seems like Jenkins was really his first coach. Perhaps you mean that she supported him? I think the implication of that is clear, and you don't have to mention it. I don't think it's important that she graded papers in the coaches' office. You've already told us that she was a teacher, so I'd remove that to avoid redundancy. Coaches? So far, you've only mentioned one. I'd fold in this information into the previous paragraph, which I've done.
  • The article says he was an impressive basketball player by age ten. First coach could be an age 7&under league or something. I have tried to rearrange a bit so that first coach comes before age ten excellence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I still have issues with the wording here. I looked at the source (which is good, I understand why you use it so much), and I don't think that it means that his mother was literally his first coach. I think it uses the word colloquially, to mean that she was his biggest supporter, before his actual b-ball coaches and since his father wasn't around. I'd cut the sentence. The point isn't to list his coaches; it's that he was an exceptional player at a very young age, that his mom was willing to do anything for him, and that these coaches were able to see his talent. Actually, this is indicative of how this article incorporates its sources, something I'll talk about later when I review the sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess our issue is whether the source says she was the first basketball coach he ever had or whether it says that in her role as a mother she gave him the first coaching that he ever had. Could we retain the content by saying that Amaker's high school coach described Alma Amaker as "his first coach and his best coach" and leave it for the reader to decide whether this is literal or figurative.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise. I went ahead and added the quote, but later in the section. Change if you disagree. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Amaker, who grew up in Fairfax, was the first freshman to make varsity in W.T. Woodson history. We already know where he grew up, so I'd remove it to avoid redundancy. I think you could put the fact that he was the first freshman earlier, to make it flow better.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• My version: "Although Amaker resided in Falls Church, he attended W.T. Woodson High School in Fairfax, Virginia because his mother was a teacher in Fairfax County. She choose the school because its basketball coach, Red Jenkins, who called Amaker "T-bird", had been impressed with his performances at his youth summer league since Amaker was ten years old. He began playing varsity for Woodson by December of his freshman year, making him the first freshman to play varsity in the school's history."
  • Mostly done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Better, but I don't think it's necessary to state why she was able to choose the school. I tweaked it a little more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• 2nd paragraph: I think that you should put the info about the All-American teams at the end of the previous paragraph. This is the first time you mention Krzyzewski in the article's body, so you should link him, state his whole name, and identify his position (along with Duke University, since this will be the first time in the body that it's mentioned). What do you mean by "First-year Duke coach"--was it his first year he coached for Duke?
  • What do you think of current A-A placement?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• You say that K. was "in town" to evaluate Dawkins, but what town--Fairfax?
  • Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think you could just say that when K. met Amaker's mother, he said, "Mrs. Amaker, you son..."
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• It's impossible for anyone, even Amaker's sister, to go to the Maryland Terrapins. I suggest that you state the name of the school and then that Tami was a student there.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• What do you mean by "an Amaker assistant"? And when did he serve that role?
  • The citation only confirms that he was an assistant. I flipped through the Michigan season aritlces to figure out which years. Do you want me to try to source the new portion of the content?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a much stronger section now. There are some issues left, but I'll let other help you resolve them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll stop here, and continue either tomorrow or the next day. I'll have to do this in spurts, which means that it'll take some time, so please be patient with me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

College career

• I know that there was some controversy about how years numbers should be represented at Juwan Howard, so you should follow what was decided.
  • Juwan Howard was just edited again yesterday in this regard. Still waiting to see where this stabilizes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• When Amaker arrived, unranked Duke, led by Dawkins and Amaker, immediately ran off the longest winning streak of 4th year head coach Krzyzewski's career as it won its first seven games. You know you have unencyclopedic writing when you need to ask questions to clarify. When you say "immediately ran off the longest winning streak", the timing of it is unclear. And what does that mean; how many games? Perhaps you should say that "during Amaker's freshman year..." Was it K's fourth year of coaching? I want to copy-edit this sentence, but I can't until you answer these questions.
  • It says 7 games. Yes 4th year, which it also says. I am not sure what you are asking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

See my copy-edit; I think it's tighter now.

• In some instances Amaker's defense changed the game regardless of whether he had notable offensive contributions. This is unclear; is there any way you could be more specific? How did they change the game? Are you talking about Duke or the teams that played against him? If so, what teams?
  • I have expanded this idea.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Identify Dick Vitale, please.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• I assume A's jr. year was 84-85. Is there a link to that team? Also, to make things a little clearer, I think you should state the years early in each section.
  • Done. Unfortunately most season in Amakers career don't have season articles and get redirected back to the Duke basketball page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Why are the Blue Devils and Louisville's standings important?

I'm glad that you removed the Louisville stats, but being the basketball idiot I am, I didn't understand that the Blue Devils is Duke's team name. Sorry about that. The 1st sentence still makes it sound like they're separate entities, so I tweaked it a little more to clarify. Remember, you need to assume that not everyone who reads this article knows about the subject. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Did the 81 steals occur through the entire season? If so, it may belong in the newly-created 1st paragraph, which separates the season into pre-tournament and tournament.
  • "newly-created 1st paragraph"??--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to find a better system with these complicated PRs. I separated the paragraphs now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you strike each resolved issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• This stood as the Duke single-game... What is "this" referring to--the Louisville or Old Dominion game?
  • Is it clear enough now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• When did Grant Hill break A's record?
  • Expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Why is the four starters graduating important? Was it because the team lost these important players, affecting A's senior year? If so, please say so.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• I wonder if you should put the spokesman info earlier, at the beginning of the first paragraph, for continuity sake.
  • I think it belongs where it is. It was in an April source. April is the end of the season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So he was spokesman during his senior year, too? Perhaps you should say that, like: "Amaker served as spokesman against drug and alcohol abuse as part of an NCAA-Fiesta Bowl drug education television program for a year starting in April 1996." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

More tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Senior year

• ...Amaker was roommates with ACC rival Muggsy Bogues. I know that A's a basketball player, but he's only one person, right? One person cannot be "roommates" with someone. To avoid that, how about: "Amaker's ACC rival Muggsy Bogues was his roommmate."
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• In the tournament he barely played in some games and started in others. Can we get more detail? What do you mean by "barely played"; could you tell us how many games and how long he tended to play in them? And how many did he start?
  • My source does not support much more than I say. It only says the following: "Amaker, from Duke, started the game after playing only two minutes in the previous game against Puerto Rico. "--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember that your sources have to support your claims. This source doesn't do that; it describes his involvement in the game against Spain and that he played for two minutes against Puerto Rico. You could say that he had a key role in the tournament, especially in the first round. Is there more information out there about this tournament, and A's part? If not, I'd be inclined to remove this sentence. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't "Amaker, from Duke, started the game after playing only two minutes in the previous game against Puerto Rico. " support "In the tournament he barely played in some games and started in others."?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is that the source only discusses two games, and your version makes it sound like he didn't play much during the entire tournament. You could describe the game against Spain, and say that despite only playing for two minutes, he played more against PR, but if you do that, it wouldn't be comprehensive and describe A's involvement in the entire tournament. I know this seems to be my standard solution, but you could put it in a note. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I see two alternate solutions: "In the tournament he barely played in at least one game and started in at least one" and "In the tournament, his participation ranged from barely playing in some games to starting others". I have currently changed to the former, but this continues to be under discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• One of the highlights... More editorializing. You don't need to state "that season", since we know what you're talking about from the heading. I suggest: "He hit a three-point shot with 1:39 remaining in overtime against 17–0 (4–0 ACC) Horace Grant-led Clemson to give Duke the lead for good."
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Amaker got overanxious... Editorializing again. I suggest that you quote that phrase, and of course attribute it, it possible.
  • Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• ...Markus pointed to this as an example. I've forgotten who Markus is. I know that you mention him earlier, but I think you should avoid mentioning him again for this very reason. You can say, "According to the Chicago Tribune, or remove his name altogether.
  • I don't understand your point. Markus is the author of 7 citations. He is mentioned twice in the text. Once by his full name and once just with his last name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just telling you my thoughts while reading it; I went, "Who's Markus", and I'd bet other non-basketball fans would do the same. That's why I suggested that you change the wording, to avoid the confusion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

We are suppose to assume if you mention a full name the reader will remember the person when we mention him a few paragraphs later by just his last name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand. It's a small thing, but taking the perspective of a reader, that's what I suggest. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• In his senior season, he was named the first winner of the Henry Iba Corinthian Award (also known as the NABC Defensive Player of the Year), given to the national defensive player of the year as selected by the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC). You don't have to refer to his senior year again. I'd cut the phrase. The entire sentence is a bit clunky. For example, you state that he was the best defensive player of the year twice. How about: "That year, the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) awarded Amaker with the first Henry Iba Corinthian Award (also known as the NABC Defensive Player of the Year)."
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• 3rd paragraph: Too many uses of the word "select*". I encourage you to try and vary the sentences a bit.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Which team did he captain? (Please forgive me if that's a stupid question and demonstrates my b-ball ignorance.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Content rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Accomplishments

• The parentheticals referring the records broken is a little confusing. I think a better way to handle it is to break up the information and group the records and who broke them together. How about: "Amaker set many Duke career and single-season assists records. He held the record for single-season assists in the years between 1986 and 1990, which was broken by Bobby Hurley. Hurley also broke Amaker's records in career assists per game (5.1, 1987–93) and career assists (708, 1987–92). Steve Wojciechowski broke Amaker's records in single-season assists to turnover ratio (2.88, 1985–97) and career assists to turnover ratio (2.11, 1987–98)." Please make sure I've done this correctly.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• His school single-game assists record of 14 tied on vs. Miami, February 19, 1986 was not broken..." This is a little confusing to me. Do you mean that he made the record in a game against Miami? Remember to tone down the b-ball speak when possible.
  • I have tried to clean this one up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• The 2nd paragraph is also confusing. Are you saying that A played 40 games in a season; if so, which one? Did Alarie and Dawkins each play 133 consecutive games? If Duhon broke that record, why do you need to mention them? You could say that Duhon has the most games played, followed by A with 138, and Alarie and Dawkins behind him at 133, if that's accurate. I also don't know why you should include the ACC 40 games info. It may be best relegated to a note.
  • Not many people start 40 games in a college basketball season (ever).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that! I stand by my comment, but will let other reviewers chime in. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Pro career: Did he get cut from the SuperSonics because the NBA considered him too small? Did he join the alternative league because of it? Why did he only spend three days with them; was it because he decided to go back to school? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your change, but it brings up another question I didn't think of before: does the NBA really have a rule about its players' sizes? If so, you should cite the rule. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No there is no size rule. Muggsy Bogues, who is mentioned in the article was way shorter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at the source. I'll wait to give you feedback, since it fits better into a discussion about sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Coaching career/Duke

• I assume that A took the asst. coach position after he earned his master's degree. If so, I think instead of saying "after graduation", you should say "after he earned his master's degree".
  • Not exactly, but I have it correctly noted now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• While an assistant, he declined numerous Division I head coaching opportunities. This might go better in the 1st sentence of this paragraph. Did he decline the opportunities because he loved being at Duke so much?
  • Assistant coach, not graduate assistant. The different opportunities are discussed in the next paragraph. At one point a high-paying summer camp is mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder, then, if that sentence should be moved to the beginning of the next paragraph?

• In 1992, he was under consideration to replace Wimp Sanderson as Alabama coach after he was forced out. Why did he not get this job?
  • Don't know, but remember his age at the time. Also, see below that in 1995, he had a side job that made negotiations difficult.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• In 1993, he was the leading candidate to assume the head coaching job at Northwestern when Bill Foster stepped aside, but at age 27, he declined the job when it was offered. Why did Foster step aside? I ask because how I'd like to reword this depends upon the answer. And why did A decline?
  • I have expanded this thought.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• I don't know why Krzyzewski's back surgery is important. I'd remove it unless you state how it affected A.
  • It doesn't necessarily flow with the topics of job offers, but in terms of discussing his career chronologically (virtually year-by-year) this is a major thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I realize that following the chronological format is important, but you're right; it doesn't flow well. You're not chronological in the previous paragraph, which is about A's success at Duke. Perhaps you can fold the info about K's surgery there, like this: "He served as an assistant coach from 1989–97, and despite Krzyzewski's leave of absence due to his recovery from back surgery in 1994 and 1995, Duke was successful during this time. The team won two NCAA Championships (1991 & 1992) and made two other Final Four appearances (1990 & 1994)." I'd omit all the other information about it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This season was a really bad one for Duke. I have rearranged the text. It might be the only season since Amaker was there that they did not make the NCAA tournament, IIRC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• The sticking point was compensation... "Sticking point" is colloquial. I assume you mean that it was the reason he didn't accept the job. If so, perhaps you can state that was the reason his negotiations with USC failed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Seton Hall

• 2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph: ... to fall to 15–15. Excuse the lack of knowledge again, but does this phrase refer to the game score, or something else? Reading on, I see that it refers to their standing--15 wins, 15 losses. I think you should make that more clear.
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• While at Seton Hall, Amaker recruited the #2 recruiting class in the nation for the class of 2000, according to ESPN. While it's not incorrect to start a sentence with a preposition (ha-ha), I think it should be avoided in encyclopedic writing. How about: "According to ESPN, Amaker recruited the #2 recruiting class in the nation for the class of 2000 while at Seton Hall."
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• You're using the word "beat*" too often; I've tried to change it where I could.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• 1st sentence, final paragraph: Was does the "east/west seeds" stuff mean? Is that how the tournament is structured? If so, could you explain it?
  • The conference had two divisions at the time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• The following season, Amaker resigned as the Seton Hall head coach and took the vacant Michigan head coaching job. When Amaker met to discuss the potential job to replace the fired Ellerbe, Michigan athletic director Bill Martin decided to save money and meet in a hotel lobby instead of renting a room. I think you should put the reason for being hired by Michigan earlier. I'd also like these sentences re-structured a little. How about: "The following season, Amaker resigned as the Seton Hall head coach and became head coach at Michigan, replacing Ellerbe, who had been fired. Amaker met with Michigan athletic director Bill Martin in a hotel lobby instead of renting a room because Martin wanted to save money."
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Why was the N.J. press "unkind"? What did they say? It was obviously important to A. that he work at Michigan. Does any source state that, and why? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Another source integration issue, but I recognize that it's a matter of interpretation. Again, I'll talk more about it later, but for now I'll say that characterizing the N.J. press in this way is editorializing. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Michigan

• He inherited a Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team that was emerging from the shadows of the University of Michigan basketball scandal. This is the kind of statement that needs attribution. I also think that you need to explain the scandal.

I see that you've linked it, but the statement that the team was "emerging from the shadows of..." still isn't attributed. You still haven't explained the scandal; you only need a few words. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased and reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

* 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: Seems picky, but I need to bring it up: the word "which" is supposed to refer to something previously mentioned. I think you want to contrast the two ideas about playing against Duke and losing, so I substituted the word "but". You should also avoid starting a sentence with a preposition; I changed that as well.

• • Fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: Don't assume that the reader will know why Michigan banned itself from the tournaments. If it was a consequence of the scandal, you need to tell me. If you do that, I think you can combine it with the 2nd sentence.

• So the NCAA imposed a 2nd year ban, even though they volunteered to not participate the first year? That doesn't make sense; please explain.
  • Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• The team rattled off successive wins... "Rattled off" is unencyclopedic. How about replacing it with "had", "experienced", or "went through". If you can think of a better choice, do so.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• When you say that "Amaker his highest victory total to date", what do you mean--up to that point in time, or the highest all-time total? Please clarify.
  • Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

* Amaker, who avoids the spotlight, was not on the court as his team partook in the ceremonial cutting of the nets at the 2004 NIT. First, you mix tenses here. Secondly, I'd make a different choice than "partook", but that's just me being picky. Thirdly, as a non-fan, I have no idea what this ceremony is.

• • I am not sure mixing tenses is ungrammatical in this case.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree; you say that he "avoids the spotlight" and that he "was not on the court". I went ahead and fixed it.

• I think you should be consistent throughout the article about whether to refer to the teams as "it" or "they". I personally prefer "they", but either is correct, so it's up to you.

Your solution caused another problem--now, you overuse the word "team" too much. I suggest that you vary it a bit; use "they" or "it" along with the name of the team, and other variations you can think of. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It is correct when referring to Harvard or any single team (e.g., the 2010-11 team). They is correct when referring to the Harvard Crimson. I.e., Harvard is, the Harvard Crimson are. Also. the 2010-11 team is and 2010-11 Crimson are. This was at issue in prior FAC debates. When refering to a team by its mascot/nickname the plural is correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

*5th paragraph: When you say, Along the way...", are you talking about the National Invitation Tournament, or the entire season? Please clarify.

• • Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• 6th paragraph, 1st paragraph: I switched "where" with "when" because the 2007 Big Ten isn't a place.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• However, he was unable to take the Wolverines to the NCAA tournament in six seasons, which had caused him to draw criticism. The last phrase is passive voice. How about: "However, he was criticized for being unable to..." It'd help it we knew who criticized him.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Is the characterization about how Amaker's teams performed about his Michigan teams or every team he had coached to that point? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you satisfies with Michigan? I didn't finish and don't want issues coming up at FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right; I wish there was a better way to deal with resolved comments in a review. Notice that I changed to strike-through, which is more clear. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Harvard

• Was A. Harvard's first black coach? The way it's worded now sounds like he was one of 32 coaches who worked there at the same time. I doubt that's true, so you should state that despite 32 previous coaches, it was the first time in the school's history. Or something like that.
  • Revised.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Harvard's recruiting process included interviewing with the underclassmen on the team who felt Amaker was a preferred choice to the competition that included Mike Jarvis and Mike Gillian. Unclear wording. Did the underclass interview A? Did he interview only with the students who preferred him over the competition?
  • I think the underclass players who would be coming back to be part of the team were part of the interview process.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• What's a "BCS school"? Can you link it?
  • In truth it is a bit of a misnomer, but we are summarizing sources. BCS conferences are the major Division I football conferences. The assumption here is that they are also the major Division I basketball conferences. In basketball the proper term would truly be power conference, but the basketball conferences might not mesh 100% with the BCS conferences although they sort of do. I have linked the term.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: The phrase "more seriously" is editorializing. I'd just cut it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• I like the phrase "winniest season ever", I really do, and would personally be inclined to keep it, but I'll go on the record here as saying that it's peacock-y. Up to you if you want to change it, or wait to be pinned by others. ;)
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• During the season, Harvard had won its rematch with Boston College. We already know that this paragraph is about the 2009-10 season because you introduced it in the first sentence. However, when did the rematch occur, and what was the score?
  • Detail added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• They also played #14 ranked Connecticut very tough... More b-ball speak. And you were doing so well for a while! ;) Sorry, I don't know what "rough" means, so please explain.
  • Fixed although it may now have other basketball speak. Let me know what you think now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yah, I still think you need to fix it. Are you saying that Harvard came from behind? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to reword again.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Also, note that I have reorganized the paragraph chronologically.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Amaker led the 2010-11 team team to a share of the 2010–11 Ivy League men's basketball season championship... What does "to a share" mean? I didn't know you could share a championship, so please explain.
  • Is "to earn a share" better?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

But it currently says "to a earn a share". Is that right? Couldn't you just say that they tied with Princeton for first place? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I did jumble it up a bit. I have fixed it now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• 5th paragraph: You overuse the word "team". Please vary the prose a bit, even if you replace the word a few times with "it/they" depending on which you use as per the feedback above.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• By finishing as Ivy League Co-champion, they faced Princeton in a one-game playoff and lost by a 63–62 margin. This may explain my confusion above, but you need to be more clear, perhaps by saying that Harvard and Princeton were co-champions above and then stating here that Harvard and Princeton had to do a playoff to determine who went further. Or something like that.
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Notice that I added the word "but" to connect where Princeton played and where Harvard played, done because you're contrasting the idea. I think that you should put the fact that it was Harvard's first time playing in that tournament here.
  • I think those points are better conjoined with while.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have joined the content as suggested.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• You tend to use the phrase "first ever", which is redundant. I removed "ever" as many times as I saw.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• The tenses are mixed in this paragraph; I suggest that you stay with your practice and use past tense. Please fix.
  • What paragraph are you in now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

2nd to the last in this section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Amaker's 2012-13 Harvard team entered the season under the cloud of the 2012 Harvard cheating scandal. More editorializing. How about replacing "under the cloud of" with "affected by", or something like that.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think you should combine the reason for the players' withdrawal with the sentence describing their withdrawal.

• Didn't Harvard end up losing at some point this season? I think you need to update it.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Whew, one more section, then I'll tackle the lead and sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal

• It's customary to entitle a section like this "Personal life".
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that much of the information in this section is notable. I don't think that A's food preferences and where he eats breakfast is important. Some of the information has already been mentioned, like his degrees, so that's redundant. Most of the information can also be folded into other parts of the article. For example, the stuff about how his mother made his spaghetti can be put into the discussion about her devotion to him. I'd put it in a note, but you seem to be resistant to my suggestions about that; at the very least, it could go into a parenthetical. I also think that the information about his political leanings can be put into the Duke section, when you talk about his relationship with Coach Krzyzewski. His fashion choices (especially his turtlenecks) can go in Duke as well, and his avoidance of the press. I can help you with this if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree on whether there is any encyclopedic information in the fact that he ate breakfast at a hotel. That is unusual.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it's unusual, but to be blunt, who the heck cares? I understand that this is just a PR, so you can leave and take what you will. I suspect that other editors will feel the same, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• • I folded the degree content into the body. I don't think we previously stated his achievement of his bachelors degree in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not sure where the motherly care stuff should be, but feel free to take a stab at moving it. I think it is fine here. I'd be interested in seeing how you integrate the rest of that content in the main body. Yes feel free to help do that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I know I said that I would help, and I can, but it may be a while, since I have other things pending. I am unemployed for the summer, but I'm still busy and involved in lots of projects. I think that for now, this PR is done, since I've said everything that needs to be said. I still think you should have at least one more editor look at it before you take it any further, like to FAC. I also think that what I say below about the sources is still true, but I don't think that I'm the person to help you with that, since I'm not at all knowledgeable about basketball. Good luck; I'll keep this article on my watchlist and follow its progress. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• I think that this article suffers from WP:OVERCITE. Remember, as per WP:PAIC, sources should be placed at the end of a passage. The exception is when you make a statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all direct quotations. Example: 1st short paragraph in "Early years" section; you could put ref2 at the end of the 2nd sentence, since the first statement (A's mother being a teacher) isn't likely to be challenged. (I went ahead and did it myself, since it was easy to do.) It happens often throughout the article; I suggest that you go through and trim your citations. Another related problem is citation clutter. Remember, Wikipedia isn't a data dump; it's a summary of what's been said about a given topic. For example: the last sentence in the 1st paragraph in the "Senior year" section has three references supporting it. I think that ref 29 is enough to support the statement that A won a gold medal and that the tournament was also part of the Goodwill Games. A good rule of thumb is that using one source to support a statement is better than using three; there are times when you use more. WP:OVERCITE recommends limiting them to three. I suggest that you go through your sources and check for that.

• As I've hinted before, one of the biggest weaknesses of this article is the way that its sources are integrated. I'll use ref2 as an example because it's a good source with lots of information that can used here and because it's used so often. As I've also said, I don't blame you for using it so much. I think that you missed a great opportunity with the profile. The first part of the article talks about how intensely private A is, so much so that he avoids the spotlight. The story about missing the tradition of snipping off the net after the championship game is just an example of that, as are the stories about avoiding the press and interviews and about how even those around him protect his privacy. That's what you should focus on, not on all those little stories. That's the kind of thing that belongs in a "Personal life" section, not where he eats breakfast. As I referred to earlier in this review, his mother straining his spaghetti sauce is really about her devotion to him, which was also shown in her attendance at his high school practices and getting him in the right school.

• Why do you focus on things like the spaghetti sauce and not his car and memorabilia collection? How did you decide what was important enough to include and not to include? It really is an editorial choice; as this article's main editor, it's up to you to decide what information is notable and what isn't. What does the sources tend to say about A consistently? I think the sauce is important because it's about his relationship with his mother, which is discussed over many sources. His relationship with Coach K. is also important, despite their political differences. I think that you need to emphasize that and his politics in the context of that relationship. Why is his wardrobe important? Does it go back to his privacy, or is it about his formality? Is he private because he's formal? The sources will tell you, and if they do, include it here. You miss completely something I see as crucial and should be added: the end of the profile, which discusses his relationship with his players, who see him as a father figure. One player even said that he loved A. How could you not include that?

• I hope that I've been able to explain what I mean about better integrating your sources. Remember, as I've also said above, that Wikipedia isn't a data dump, or a repository of facts about a subject. There's an art to writing an encyclopedia. Become so familiar with the topic, though the sources, that you're able to see patterns and themes, but without inserting your own personal opinion about it. I suggest that you start by re-reading your sources; in other words, do a literature review and see where it takes you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Tomorrow, I'll have time to go through the new responses and strike the resolved ones, which will close my part of this review. I think we've been able to make this article much tighter. Sorry it's taken me so long to complete; this was a complicated review. That's what you get for asking a busy person! ;) I think that before you take it to FAC, you should have at least one more person look it over to catch things we missed this time around. Thanks for all your hard work, Tony! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Urapmin people

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it significantly, and ideally I'd like it to get to Good Article status. The sources I've been able to find are patchy, so I'd particularly like some advice on what important information is missing.

Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Iodine

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a Top-importance article in WikiProject Elements, but it's only C-class. This, of course, is to be remedied as soon as possible. Iodine is essential for the human body, often used in analytical biology, sometimes added to increase IQ levels, yet the article's never grown in a well-structured manner. I've rearranged the sections so a more orderly addition of information can be achieved, and this peer review will serve as mission control.

As well as that, the transperiodic highway - a link between alkali metals and noble gases - is broken at two points: groups 2 and 17. The one at group 2 should be relatively easy to fix; calcium and strontium are pretty well done. But it's the halogens that are frustrating, the Darién Gap. This review is step one in clearing the roadblock.

Let's get fracking. Princess Parcly Taxel 11:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that didn't turn out well. Maybe we should be concentrating on something talked about at WT:ELEM? Princess Parcly Taxel 14:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Oba Chandler

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review ahead of a potential A-Class or FAC nomination later in the year. This has been a good article for a couple of years, and undergone significant improvements of late. I'm interested to know what else may be needed before the next stage in the assessment process. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Wilhelm Busch

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I translated this article into English, and it received an excellent copyedit (if not rewrite) from User:Acabashi. I would like to send it to GAN, but another pair of eyes are welcome. Regards.Tomcat (7) 11:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

---