Wikipedia:Peer review/February 2014

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

List of emperors of the Qing Dynasty[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi everybody! I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback on a few issues before I apply for featured list status. The content I added is the kind of info that reviewers requested on the FL reviews for List of emperors of the Han Dynasty (here) and List of emperors of the Song Dynasty (here), both of which are now featured. I think the list of Qing emperors is actually more complete than those two featured lists, but there are also more details and therefore more text. So I would like feedback on three main issues: (1) Is the text that accompanies the list too long? (2) Would a brief section on the political roles of the Qing emperor be useful? (3) Is everything clear even to people who don't know anything about Chinese history?

Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just a few quick comments about the images.
Excellent article overall.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed feedback! I had taken a brief look at the images, but I hadn't realized that they had so many problems. I now notice that in many cases, even sourcing is problematic, as many images were downloaded from websites that no longer exist. This will definitely be a problem in a featured list review. I will take care of this as soon as I finish the two GA reviews (on Shamanism in the Qing dynasty and Deliberative Council of Princes and Ministers) that I'm involved in right now. Thanks again! Madalibi (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review:

  • "it only succeeded the Ming dynasty": I think something like this might be easier to follow: "It was founded in [wherever] in 1636, then succeeded the Ming Dynasty in China proper in 1644."
  • "The Qing was founded as the "Later Jin" in 1616 by Nurhaci (1559–1626), khan of the Jurchens, in reference to the Jurchen Jin dynasty": Keep words close to the words they modify when possible (and as a bonus, this changes the sentence from passive to active voice): "Nurhaci (1559–1626), khan of the Jurchens, founded the Qing in 1616 and named it the "Later Jin" after the Jurchen Jin dynasty (1115–1234)
  • ""Shunzhi", "Qianlong", "Guangxu": "Shunzhi", "Qianlong", and "Guangxu"
  • "If we count Nurhaci": The editorial "we" doesn't make as much sense on Wikipedia as in scholarly works.
  • I'm trying to think of other formulations, but they all sound awkward. "If one counts Nurhaci" is falsely impersonal. "Counting Nurhaci" or "Including Nurhaci" doesn't make it clear that Nurhaci may or may not be counted depending on how we define "emperor". Do you have any suggestions? Madalibi (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:FIRSTPERSON. Would you say scholars are roughly evenly divided on whether he was considered a ruler? The correct definition of scholarly words is a subject that fascinates scholars more than some of our readers, so if he is usually considered a ruler, just count him as a ruler (and you can attribute that to "most historians" if you like). - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I see what you mean. I actually meant "we" in the sense of "everyone including the reader", not as some kind of scholarly group. But maybe this is too didactic. Anyway I included this point not because there is a scholarly debate on this issue, but because I've seen editors and IPs raise this very issue on the talk page of several articles on Qing emperors, and other editors couldn't really answer why or whether "we" (i.e., Wikipedia as represented by its editors) should consider Nurhaci as an emperor. To clarify, Nurhaci was obviously a ruler, and he founded the state that eventually became the Qing, but he never called himself "emperor" (huangdi). That's why some purists, including some scholars and many history aficionados, will say that Nurhaci's son Hong Taiji was the first real emperor of the Qing dynasty. As the article explains, later Qing emperors considered Nurhaci as "Taizu" ("first progenitor"), a name that was reserved for the first emperor of a dynasty. In that sense he can be considered an emperor. Anyway I digress. Let me think of a good way to rephrase all this without sounding like I'm splitting hairs or being to didactic. Thank you again for your helpful comments! Madalibi (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "soon before dying": shortly before dying. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Dank! Madalibi (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on taking the article to FA.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty solid. A few things you might want to look at.

  1. The text on the map is too small to read, and (more important to me) there's no key indicating what the colors mean. This has nothing at all to do with the gravamen of the article, but it is a little distracting.
  2. The map gives the impression that Ramah is not in the "far eastern part of the Navajo Nation", the reservations (?) in Oklahoma have that distinction.
  3. "The Ramah Chapter has learned to fight for its rights" comes across as editorializing.
  4. If footnote 1 stays, perhaps add a year to Ramah Navajo School Board to give it a bit more context.
  5. Direct cost and Indirect costs are terms of art that need to be explained. There is an article for indirect costs, but I don't know enough to know if it's relevant here.
  6. pro rata should be italicized throughout.
  7. This is probably my unfamiliarity with the topic, but I don't understand what is being conveyed by this sentence: "When there were shortfalls in the amounts paid by BIA to the tribe, services to tribal members were usually cut in order to pay the tribe's indirect costs." A specific example would be really helpful here: program x had $y direct costs and $z indirect costs, but the BIA only allocated $w, so thus and such services were cut.
  8. "Indian tribes are treated differently--the court noted" Should that be an mdash: "—" ?
  9. "not a case of first impression" Perhaps link to First impression (law).
  10. "Sotomayor stated that although the situation that Congress placed the BIA in is frustrating," Sentence fragment.
  11. " If the appropriation exceeds the amount of the individual contract, then the government is bound to honor the contract." Is this correct? I would think that the problem only exists if the contract exceeds the appropriation.
  12. Which justices joined the majority and which joined the dissent? (Ah, I see that's in the infobox. Perhaps in the text as well?)
  13. Perhaps a summing-up sentence stating what the case requires in terms of direct and indirect costs.
  14. Looking at both scotusblog and Indian Country Today summaries of the case, the idea of "contract support costs" leads off the discussion. That term doesn't appear in the article until the second appeal to the circuit court. Should this be discussed up in the lead as well? (The "plain English summary" at scotusblog is particularly good; I'm not sure how something like it might be included here, though.)
  15. "on July 20, 2012 on the issue." Perhaps "to discuss the issue"?
  16. I'd like to see more information on the aftermath, but I don't know if the sources are out there or not.

Overall, nice work! Best of luck to you at FA! Catherine Quotidian (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing:

  • The text on the map is too small to read, and (more important to me) there's no key indicating what the colors mean. This has nothing at all to do with the gravamen of the article, but it is a little distracting.
Added explanation that Navajo reservations are in orange. The other colors are all Apache tribes. GregJackP Boomer! 12:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map gives the impression that Ramah is not in the "far eastern part of the Navajo Nation", the reservations (?) in Oklahoma have that distinction.
See above. GregJackP Boomer! 12:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Ramah Chapter has learned to fight for its rights" comes across as editorializing.
Fixed. GregJackP Boomer! 12:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If footnote 1 stays, perhaps add a year to Ramah Navajo School Board to give it a bit more context.
Fixed. GregJackP Boomer! 12:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Direct cost and Indirect costs are terms of art that need to be explained. There is an article for indirect costs, but I don't know enough to know if it's relevant here.
Linked both. GregJackP Boomer! 12:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • pro rata should be italicized throughout.
Fixed. GregJackP Boomer! 12:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably my unfamiliarity with the topic, but I don't understand what is being conveyed by this sentence: "When there were shortfalls in the amounts paid by BIA to the tribe, services to tribal members were usually cut in order to pay the tribe's indirect costs." A specific example would be really helpful here: program x had $y direct costs and $z indirect costs, but the BIA only allocated $w, so thus and such services were cut.
I don't know that I can find a sourced example, but I'll look. Reworded for now. GregJackP Boomer! 16:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Indian tribes are treated differently--the court noted" Should that be an mdash: "—" ?
Fixed. GregJackP Boomer! 12:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. GregJackP Boomer! 12:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sotomayor stated that although the situation that Congress placed the BIA in is frustrating," Sentence fragment.
Fixed. GregJackP Boomer! 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " If the appropriation exceeds the amount of the individual contract, then the government is bound to honor the contract." Is this correct? I would think that the problem only exists if the contract exceeds the appropriation.
No, that's correct. There are over 500 tribes and numerous contracts. What the Court said was that if the amount of the appropriation was larger than any single contract, the government had to pay the full value of the contract. The problem exists because the amount needed to pay all of the contract exceeds the amount of the appropriation (by a large amount). GregJackP Boomer! 13:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which justices joined the majority and which joined the dissent? (Ah, I see that's in the infobox. Perhaps in the text as well?)
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a summing-up sentence stating what the case requires in terms of direct and indirect costs.
I'm not clear on what you are suggesting here. GregJackP Boomer! 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at both scotusblog and Indian Country Today summaries of the case, the idea of "contract support costs" leads off the discussion. That term doesn't appear in the article until the second appeal to the circuit court. Should this be discussed up in the lead as well? (The "plain English summary" at scotusblog is particularly good; I'm not sure how something like it might be included here, though.)
  • "on July 20, 2012 on the issue." Perhaps "to discuss the issue"?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more information on the aftermath, but I don't know if the sources are out there or not.
Comments by Wehwalt. Nice job. My usual quibbles
  • "The Ramah Chapter, due to its location, is the only Navajo Chapter with its own Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) agency and a semi-autonomous government." What about the location is significant?
The Chapter was autonomous for a number of years before rejoining the Navajo Nation, and it is geographically separated from the main reservation. GregJackP Boomer! 16:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The contracts required two parts, first the direct cost of the program being administered by the tribe, and second, indirect costs of administering the program, subject to funds being appropriated by Congress." I'm not quite clear what these "parts" are.
  • "Aid to Tribal Government" why is this capped? If it is the name of a program, you might want to signal the reader, either by adding something like "program" or perhaps adding an abbreviation. Just to let people know it's a proper noun.
  • "It is unclear to me where the sentences prior to text note 6 are sourced to.
  • "was an issue on" perhaps "was an issue of"
  • The one sentence statement at the start of "Supreme Court" could, I believe, correctly be moved into the previous section. I think the date of cert being granted could be usefully included as well. Possibly also the date they filed for cert. Any orders of interest (that is, not granting live to file a brief amicus curiae?)
  • " resolved in the tribes favor" needs an apostrophe. Pardon, I usually fix the small things myself but I'm doing this online and will go cut and paste my review in when I'm done.
  • "Amicus curae briefs" Isn't it curiae?
  • I think the year of the Leavitt decision should be added, perhaps in parens. If this is going to be used by law students, we're talking about people who aren't necessarily good with numbers.
  • The image of Sotomayor is pushing the next section's heading right.
  • " Sotomayor stated that although the situation that Congress placed the BIA in is frustrating,[fn 12] The " some modification needed here, I think
  • I would eliminate one or the other uses of "court" in the following sentence.
  • You should probably mention, in text, the court members who formed the majority, and those who joined the opinion of Roberts, C.J., dissenting
  • "since Cherokee Nation did not have a similar restriction on reducing other payments." This needs to be better explained.
  • Footnote 1. If part of it was about who got federal payments for Indians attending school, I think it would be a good thing to say so. As it is, they just sound mean and bigoted. Let's cut them a break if we can.
Very well done, not much to criticize considering the length.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing:

  • "The Ramah Chapter, due to its location, is the only Navajo Chapter with its own Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) agency and a semi-autonomous government." What about the location is significant?
The location is a geographically separated from the rest of the tribe and the main reservation. GregJackP Boomer! 13:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The contracts required two parts, first the direct cost of the program being administered by the tribe, and second, indirect costs of administering the program, subject to funds being appropriated by Congress." I'm not quite clear what these "parts" are.
Linked both direct and indirect costs (noted above). GregJackP Boomer! 16:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aid to Tribal Government" why is this capped? If it is the name of a program, you might want to signal the reader, either by adding something like "program" or perhaps adding an abbreviation. Just to let people know it's a proper noun.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 16:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is unclear to me where the sentences prior to text note 6 are sourced to.
  • "was an issue on" perhaps "was an issue of"
  • The one sentence statement at the start of "Supreme Court" could, I believe, correctly be moved into the previous section. I think the date of cert being granted could be usefully included as well. Possibly also the date they filed for cert. Any orders of interest (that is, not granting live to file a brief amicus curiae?)
  • " resolved in the tribes favor" needs an apostrophe. Pardon, I usually fix the small things myself but I'm doing this online and will go cut and paste my review in when I'm done.
  • "Amicus curae briefs" Isn't it curiae?
Yup, fixed. GregJackP Boomer! 13:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the year of the Leavitt decision should be added, perhaps in parens. If this is going to be used by law students, we're talking about people who aren't necessarily good with numbers.
  • The image of Sotomayor is pushing the next section's heading right.
  • " Sotomayor stated that although the situation that Congress placed the BIA in is frustrating,[fn 12] The " some modification needed here, I think
  • I would eliminate one or the other uses of "court" in the following sentence.
  • You should probably mention, in text, the court members who formed the majority, and those who joined the opinion of Roberts, C.J., dissenting
  • "since Cherokee Nation did not have a similar restriction on reducing other payments." This needs to be better explained.
  • Footnote 1. If part of it was about who got federal payments for Indians attending school, I think it would be a good thing to say so. As it is, they just sound mean and bigoted. Let's cut them a break if we can.

Asus Transformer Book Duet[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit a good article nomination soon but want a peer review first.

Thanks, Ross HillTalk to me! 03:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rega Planar 3[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, as the editor responsible for 99% of this article's edit count, I feel it could benefit from an objective review, with the view to eventual submission to WP:GAC. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,  Ohc ¡digame! 07:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article is currently a Good Article, but I'm very concerned about the article's stability, the controversy of the topic, and the article's balance. I intend to have the article's GA status reviewed, but I don't want to notify too many editors. Therefore, I am requesting the peer review here instead of GA reassessment. As for me, I was uninvolved in the content, but involving in the titling. You can make suggestions to relevant editors who did hard work to have the article promoted to GA. I am abstaining from this discussion, but this should not affect the peer review.

Thanks, George Ho (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This request appears to be as unspecific, almost to the point of incoherence, as the requester's remarks on the Talk page[1]. Given that s/he "was uninvolved in the content" but only "in the titling", why this vague mention of being "very concerned about the article's stability"? It may be worth some "peer review", but the Talk page would be the place to make comment on the title, if any further comment were needed. Who would be eligible to participate if the request were accepted? Qexigator (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an article about the bill that creates huge impact is not an easy league for me. Look at citations and amount of writing. I just focus on fiction mainly and low-profile people, while you research the current bill, which is not easy to research and summarize. George Ho (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The statement "I intend to have the article's GA status reviewed, but I don't want to notify too many editors" suggests a private agenda, and is completely out of order. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but this does not seem to a be a valid PR request. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I was hoping for your comments about the article, not the whole request. I want your opinion about this article; that's all. George Ho (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Richardson[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I saw Ralph Richardson on stage several times when I was a young man, and I thought him magical. He deserves the very best article WP can provide, and I have done my utmost to that end. Comments are invited on anything at all, but I'd be particularly glad of comments on these points:

  • Do the details of roles, productions and reviews become boring to the reader?
  • The quote boxes are, frankly, in lieu of usable pictures. Comments welcome on pictures I could legitimately use. And should all quote boxes be the same background colour or ought I to introduce a bit of variety?
  • Are the section hatnotes irritating or useful?
  • Have I given enough coverage to his films?
  • Should there be an info-box? There was one, but it contained nothing very much and I binned it. If we have one, what facts should be in it?
  • Order of sections: should "Reputation" come before (as now) or after "Radio etc"? (Content of these sections now moved to main text.)

*Radio etc - would the info here be better subsumed in the main text or is it helpful as a separate section? Ditto. All contributions on these or any other points will be gratefully received. – Tim riley (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Usual solid work.
With regard to images, have you checked in the Billy Rose collection at the New York Public Library, for pre-1978 programmes for plays in which Richardson featured from the US, perhaps The School for Scandal, that do not have a copyright notice? I regret not being able to check for you due to internet limitations for the moment (this is being composed offline), but we've found it very useful and mostly online and available in decent resolution, for the R&H articles.
Excellent tip. Shall follow up. Thank you very much. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnotes are fine. I'm OK with mentioning the roles.
Specific comments, starting with lede
  • "From an artistic but not theatrical background, Richardson was unsure what career to pursue until a production of Hamlet in Brighton inspired him to become an actor." the "was unsure what career to pursue" feels like there should be a better phrasing, though I confess I could not come up with one to offer as an example. It's at an important enough point in the article that I at least suggest another look without specific suggestion.
    • Yes, I think you're right. I'll ponder and redraw. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence of the second paragraph might benefit from avoiding the repetition of "learned".
  • "Old Vic company, with which his most celebrated roles included Peer Gynt" Hm, perhaps "Old Vic company. There, his most celebrated roles included Peer Gynt"
  • "Richardson's film career began as an extra in 1931" In view of the length and complexity of the filmography to follow, I'd make this a sentence on its own.
  • "from 1948 until posthumous awards for his final films" I am not sure that quite works. It certainly "feels" wrong to me, Perhaps "from 1948 until his death, and received posthumous awards for his final films" or some variant. Another matter is that you don't actually mention any posthumous awards, just posthumous award nominations.
    • I'll adopt your wording, and, ahem, will amend the sloppy drafting in re awards/nominations. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early career
  • "Richardson wrote to all four managers:" This sentence has two semicolons. I simply point it out.
    • I'll inspect my conscience and consider. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ashcroft's notices were laudatory, while Richardson's were mixed, but they admired each other" not sure I see the reason for the "but". Surely whether there is mutual admiration is not dictated by the shortsightedness of the critics?
    • You home in unerringly on a sentence I was not quite happy with. I think I'll replace the conjunction with another semicolon. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1960s
  • "but showed little ambition to recruit his former colleague" Possibly "little desire"?
1970s
  • The title of the play in the first sentence should be italicised.
  • "two more extrovert female patients" extroverted?
    • I think the shorter version is more usual. Perhaps a UK-v-US English thing. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reputation
  • The parrot seems far more eccentric than Sir Ralph.
    • Certainly. It had (scout's honour!) its own pencils to chew, but preferred Sir Ralph's.
Film
  • The appearance in Time Bandits is mentioned earlier in the article.
    • Thanks for spotting that. Will amend. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all. Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marvellously helpful input. Thank you so much. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

I owe you several hundred reviews, so it's time to repay a few favours! This may take a couple of visits, but I'm finding very little wrong. No problem with the hat notes, but I wonder if the quote boxes could be a colour other than grey if we are to offset the lack of images. I've no preference regarding the infobox, and as far as I've got so far the roles are not boring. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. One colour or a variety, do you think? Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think one. But I’m not sure about that blue background; it looks a bit garish to me. But that might just be me. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone pastel instead. Very tasteful. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically:

  • ”He learned his craft in the 1920s … from whom he had learned much about stagecraft”: Fairly close almost-repetition of craft.
  • ”After leaving the Old Vic he had a series of roles leading to stardom in the West End and on Broadway”: I wonder would this be better written as something like “After leaving the Old Vic, a series of roles led him to stardom in the West End and on Broadway”. I also wonder should these roles be defined, for example as “leading roles”, or by naming a couple of them? Otherwise it is quite an abrupt jump to him working with Olivier as co-director.
    • Definitely. I hate writing leads and am not much good at it, and am always glad of suggested tweaks. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”He and Olivier led the company to Europe and Broadway in 1945 and 1946, before their success provoked resentment in official quarters in London, leading to their dismissal from the company in 1947.”: This reads a little strangely. What “official quarters”? I think we need to specify who/what this means.
    • Quite so. Perhaps some reference to "the Old Vic governors" would be clearer. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder should the lead be a little longer? For instance, there is nothing on his personal life or personality.
    • Excellent idea. Good material for a bit on his eccentric nature. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”He was an altar boy in Brighton, which he enjoyed,”: Brighton, or being an altar boy? I’m not sure there is an easy way to reword that, and also to make it clear that he was living in Brighton. We also have two Brightons in the same sentence.
    • I smiled at that. I'll nail the ambiguity and redraw to avoid duplicating Brighton if I can without strangulation of the prose. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The pay, ten shillings (50p) a week, was attractive”: I wonder if the 10p is useful. It would not be the equivalent value today, and many editors use those dreadful inflation templates for this sort of thing; this may confuse readers.
    • Fine with me, though I'll give you decent odds that some eager beaver will put the template in before the article is done at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”…as well as engaging in pranks that alarmed his superiors”: Could we have an example? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice idea. Will do. Looking forward to any more points at your leisure. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest: A thoroughly enjoyable article. I planned to do the rest in two batches, but ended up reading to the end. The rest of my comments, which can be freely ignored if appropriate.

  • ”In 1933 he had his first speaking part in a film, playing the villain, Nigel Hartley, in The Ghoul, which starred Cedric Hardwicke and Boris Karloff.[48] The following year he had his first starring role in a film, as the hero in The Return of Bulldog Drummond.” Can we avoid the (relatively) close repetition of “he had”?
  • ”Esher terminated their contracts while both were out of the country”: Was any reason ever given, and what did they have to say about it? Did they go quietly? And as a matter of interest, what was said to them?
    • This occupies pages of the biographies. Reasons (largely spurious) were given by Esher. As far as I can see they were not technically fired: their running contracts were not renewed, but this is a bit technical for me to give you a definite answer. The top and bottom of it is that Esher and Guthrie were miffed at being eclipsed by Richardson and Olivier and wanted rid of them. This almost certainly delayed the creation of the National Theatre for at least a decade. The members of the triumvirate kept a dignified silence in public, as Olivier did again when effectively sacked from the National in the early 1970s. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”but the production was thought weakly directed”: A bit ambiguous. By the cast? The critics? The audiences?
  • The reputation section is not really about his reputation alone, but also his character. Maybe rename it “Reputation and character”?
    • I dithered about this when writing it. I think you're right. Will amend. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that this should be a hagiography, but we seem to be a bit sparing in praise here. No-where (unless I’ve missed it) do we just plainly state that everyone thought he was a bloody good actor. In fact, the reputation section seems a bit harsh.
    • I hope not. I'll re-read with as objective an eye as I can, and add something suitable if need be. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Towards the end, I did flag a little with the lists of performances, etc, but only slightly. And to be honest, I don't see how else it could be done. I think they should be there for comprehensiveness, and it never becomes a plain list. It remains engagingly written.
  • Perhaps the only thing that would improve it for me is to explicitly state, at some points, how famous and/or well-regarded he was. For example, when did he become a household name. It is easy enough to work out from the splendidly written narrative, but I’m a lazy reader and I like someone to occasionally summarise what I’ve just read! Perhaps just a sentence here or there. Or perhaps not, if you’d prefer not. Make me work for it!
    • No, you're right. The reader shouldn't have to work for it. I'll see how I can cover this. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m slightly puzzled by the last section. Given that his film and TV careers are covered throughout, why do we have that section? If it is to summarise, why is there not a part in the same section on his theatrical work? I think having all the information in that last section, or having it all spread throughout, could possibly be better. But then it is possible that there is a very sensible reason for doing it this way, and I’ve spectacularly missed it. It wouldn’t be the first time.
    • It is, to be honest, a legacy from previous versions before I began my charge towards FAC. Cards on the table: I could weave the television and film into the narrative, and even the radio, but the gramophone recordings refuse to be shoehorned into the main text. Perhaps I should leave them on their own at the bottom and incorporate all the rest in the main narrative. What do you think??
      • Later: I've had a go. I think it works. See what you think. Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's looking just about perfect to me. Pretty seamless. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when this makes its way to FAC, and please come and shout at me if I've said anything stupid. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I come and shout, it will be shouts of "bravo". Some really fruitful stuff here, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changes looking good to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very pleased! Thank you for your suggestions, which have greatly improved the article. Tim riley (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Offhand I'd say remove the Ralph Richardson – roles from 1970 type links throughout (just once will do at the bottom of the page) which clutters it I think and maybe try to introduce some film critic reviews of his more notable roles. I understand he was primarily a stage actor, but he did have a notable film career and I'd expect to see a bit more coverage of his film work perhaps, with more written about the nature of his roles, what he did in preparation for some of them, roles he was offered and rejected, what directors/actor he worked with etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, Doctor. Good point about reviews and RR's approach to the cinema. He was less high and mighty about film work than some other leading actors, and there is room for a few lines on his views. I shall enjoy writing them. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to conduct a more thorough review this coming week if you can keep this open for a few days longer, I also have The Tower House to peruse over and will let you know when it's been nommed! Here's a bit of trivia I betcha didn't know, Richardson, Sir Laurence and Enid Blyton shared the same accountant!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I didn't know that; all three of them were fairly clued-up about money, so a good accountant was most necessary. No rush at all for further comments. I closed the Hugh Walpole PR too soon, and regretted it; I'll not make the same mistake this time. Tim riley (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added quite a lot about his film work, some new stuff, some moved up from notes to main text, and some incorporated from the vestigial "Films" section inherited from previous revisions. Tim riley (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will read later on today and hopefully post some helpful comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • link British stage to Theatre of the United kingdom?
    • Good. Didn't know it was there. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He worked in films throughout most of his career, and played more than sixty cinema roles", why not simply "he starred in over 60 films throughout his career"?
    • That's certainly pithier, but I worry about saying he starred in all of them. Some were mere cameo roles. I'd be happy with "he appeared in over 60 films throughout his career". Is that preferable, do you think? – Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He learned his craft in the 1920s with a touring company and later the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, before joining the Old Vic, where he led the company in 1931, succeeding John Gielgud, who had taught him much about stage technique. " This is a bit heavy to read in one sentence, can you split into two or rephrase to reduce how many commas are in it?
  • "In the 1950s Richardson played in modern and classic works in the West End and occasionally on tour." is it worth mentioning some of the most notable ones during this period?
  • Yes I think you should definitely mention some of the most notable plays he starred in with the years in brackets like you've done with films. I understand he appeared in many plays, but it would be good to inform the reader of at least some of the most notable ones.
    • I worry (see my list of questions at the top of this page) that too many details of productions might become wearisome to the reader. Indeed, one reviewer here has said he was flagging slightly from the details by the end of the article. I'm chary of adding more. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that mentioning some of his most notable stage performances, say three or four through the years is going to be wearisome to the reader. The reviewer was talking about the article though not the lead... As a quick reference I think the average reader might want a few example of his plays as I'd expect with a few examples of his films (which you've done). I know he appeared in a tremendous number of plays over the years, but if you could highlight the ones he is most famous for I think this would help.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead now mentions five stage roles to balance the five films mentioned there. Tim riley (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He received nominations and awards in the UK, Europe and the US for his stage and screen work from 1948 until his death, and received posthumous nominations for his final films." Such as? Worth mentioning if he had an Oscar/ Golden Globe or BAFTA wins/noms I think.
    • He was nominated for Oscars but never won one. Had he done so I'd have singled it out in the lead, but I think as things stand a blanket reference is best here. We have a complete list of nominations and awards elsewhere. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Life and career
  • "Since 1893 Arthur Richardson had been senior art master at Cheltenham Ladies' College" - since and had been seem to conflict, how about "Arthur Richardson had been senior art master at Cheltenham Ladies' College from 1893 onwards"?
  • "in which religion" I don't think you need to use the word religion here, "in which she raised Ralph" should suffice.
  • Lydia wished Ralph to become a priest -Lydia had aspirations for Ralph to become a priest? Not a fan of "wished"!
    • I think "aspirations" has overtones of social striving. I'll go for "wanted" instead. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Banquo, Malvolio, Lorenzo and Marc Anthony? I think if the characters he played have articles they should probably be linked throughout, or at least link the better known characters.
    • I wondered about this as I wrote, and am still unsure. I'm not going to link to Mark Antony as that article is on the real man not the Bard's character. But there are articles on, e.g. Caliban and Prospero. My question is, would it help the reader to have links to half a dozen or more Shakespeare roles when the plays are already linked? On balance I think it might be a distraction, but I am by no means unpersuadable on this point. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it might be overdoing to link all of the characters but it might be helpful to link a couple of the main Shakespeare ones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • And now I look again, perhaps the reader might find Falstaff a useful link. Incidentally, my next planned project is opera of that name, and then on to Gielgud, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the end of the run" Do we know when the 610 performance run came to an end?
    • I can check from the classified ad pages of The Times. Do you think it important? Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well as the reader I was curious as to how many years 610 performances would take!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The biographer Ronald Hayman writes that though a fine singer, "Robeson had no ear for blank verse" and even Peggy Ashcroft's superb performance as Desdemona was not enough to save the production from failure." Not sure why this quote is really necessary for Richardson. You can say it was a failure without.
    • I'm trying to emphasise that this should have been a big break for RR, but the failure of the production cut the ground from under him and Ashcroft, though they both rose above it and had a long and glorious association afterwards. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The producer was Alexander Korda; the two men formed a long and mutually beneficial friendship. " not sure why you need the semicolon here, "Richardson formed a long and mutually beneficial friendship with producer Alexander Forda" I think flows better.
    • I hate the tabloid style "with producer Alexander Korda", avoid it at all costs, and bore the bejasus out of other editors on the subject at PR, GAN and FAC. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enid Bagnold's The Last Joke was savaged by the critics " -can you state production otherwise I think readers will think film.
    • Good idea. The benefit of a fresh pair of eyes! Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a revival of Six Characters in Search of an Author in 1963, judged by the critic Sheridan Morley to have been a high-point of the actor's work in the 1960s,[6] Richardson joined a British Council tour of South Africa and Europe the following year; he played Bottom again, and Shylock in The Merchant of Venice.[18] -I'd remove the semicolon and replace it with a new sentence -just a suggestion..
  • "thirteen cinema films" -why is cinema needed?
    • He made a television film, Witness for the Prosecution. I'm a bit hazy about how a television film differs from a television programme, but the sources definitely have it down as a film, though not a cinema one. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a film of enormous length" - perhaps state length in brackets?
    • I'd have liked to, but it was put out in various lengths, all inordinate. I think (from memory) the shortest was five hours and the longest was knocking eight! Perhaps I should add a footnote to that effect do you think? Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be ideal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Tim riley (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the funeral Mass was at Richardson's favourite church" -which was?
    • As you may imagine, I asked myself the same question when I was writing. Strangely the sources don't say, and even more strangely The Times doesn't seem to give details (presumably because it was a private affair), and what's more Googling "RC church Walton Street" draws a blank. For want of anything better I think I have to stick with the existing wording (from Miller). But it's a very good question, and I'm going to go on looking into it. It's the sort of small but niggling point that's an itch one needs to scratch. There are later editions of O'Connor than the one I used: perhaps it'll be in there. One for my next trip to the British Library, I think. – Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Later: cracked it! Miller had got himself muddled. He writes "Sir Ralph's favourite church in Walton Street", but a further combing of The Times archives reveals that it was actually in Warwick Street, Soho. Shall add forthwith. Very pleased you prodded me on this. Tim riley (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. I'd like to see a little more detail on some of his film roles and critical reception of his performances but it already looks much improved and aside from this I think this is well on its way.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warmest thanks, dear Doctor. Some really good stuff in there, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jack1956[edit]

A thoroughly good read, clearly written, well researched and carefully referenced. After following up some of the points raised above this will be an excellent article. Jack1956 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dear Jack. Tim riley (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ssilvers[edit]

You asked:

  • Do the details of roles, productions and reviews become boring to the reader?
No. I think they give the right level of detail, and the quotes chosen are of interest to read.
  • ... should all quote boxes be the same background colour or ought I to introduce a bit of variety?
I don't know if you need variety, but you probably need a more interesting background color, like "cream/parchment" or some pastel color. Also, you do not need the quotation marks within the quote box - they look awkward there and create too much white space within the boxes (see the text boxes in Hair (musical)). Finally, I think that some of the boxes should be a little wider, so that the text does not wrap around so soon. I edited one of the boxes as an example of the width issue.
  • Are the section hatnotes irritating or useful?
Extremely useful, IMO.
  • Have I given enough coverage to his films?
Probably yes, but I would not segregate them to the bottom - I would describe the films and TV in the periods above, so the whole thing is more chronological. Recordings (and maybe radio) can be separate where you have them.
  • Should there be an info-box? There was one, but it contained nothing very much and I binned it. If we have one, what facts should be in it?
No need for an infobox.
  • Order of sections: should "Reputation" come before (as now) or after "Radio etc"?
I like Reputation where you have it, after his work is discussed.
  • Radio etc - would the info here be better subsumed in the main text or is it helpful as a separate section?
See above.

All of this is merely my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt! I will not watch this page, so e-mail me if you have follow-up questions. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful input! Many thanks, sir! Tim riley (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both suggestions now put into effect. Tim riley (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

A very nicely (and speedily!) put together article which is a much more fitting coverage of the man than the previous efforts. A few comments and suggestions below: act or ignore as you see fit.

Not all that speedily: I was working, more meo, in my sandbox/litter tray for a month before going public. Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

  • "Lydia Richardson left them": do we need the surname repeated?
  • Xaverian College: any clues as to dates or his age?
    • None, I'm afraid. Both the full-length biographies mention the event but give no dates.
      • Later: while looking for something else I found a 1972 newspaper interview that gives RR's age at the seminary episode a 15 or 16. I've added accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he saw Sir Frank Benson as Hamlet": you've linked to Hamlet the play (in which case Benson was in it). Prince Hamlet is the character.
    • Didn't even know the article was there. Thank you: now linked there. Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "knew at once that his future lay in acting": a little on the crystal ball here?

Early career

  • Wondering why you've not linked Mark Antony, although you've linked other parts?
    • That article is about the real chap, rather than Shakespeare's character. A bit misleading to link to him, I think. Similarly I haven't linked Hotspur and Prince Hal later in the text. Real historically, but how much resemblance to them the Bard's creations have is anybody's guess. Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be noticed by the critics, and to gain favourable reviews": any examples, even as a footnote?

More to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it, at your leisure. No rush. Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

Second World War

  • "Charles (1945–1998)": you have used shortened dates elsewhere
    • True. The MoS prefers the shorter form and I've now complied. Tim riley (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Vic, 1944–47

  • "Richardson did not wish to attempt Lear, and never did so": I think you've already told us that he never did Lear.

1948–59

  • "The Fallen Idol, had notable commercial and critical success, won awards in Europe and America." "and won awards" may read a little better?

More soon. - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final, minor points

1975–83

  • "seeing whom at the Brighton Hippodrome was one of his earliest theatrical memories." Grammatically correct and perfect English, but feels a little laboured, perhaps?

Character and reputation

  • "Tynan, who was sometimes brutally critical of Richardson in roles that Tynan thought him unsuited to" I had to read this a couple of times to get the meaning straight. (It may just be me being a bit dense!)
    • Fair comment. Now simplified. I'm not sure it's quite right even now, and may polish further. Tim riley (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to your specific questions:

Do the details of roles, productions and reviews become boring to the reader?

  • No. There's a nice balance between detail and big picture to keep it interesting.

The quote boxes are, frankly, in lieu of usable pictures. Comments welcome on pictures I could legitimately use. And should all quote boxes be the same background colour or ought I to introduce a bit of variety?

  • The boxes are fine (and I'm glad you moved away from the previous, more luminous version!) I'd stick with the same colour.

Are the section hatnotes irritating or useful?

  • Useful, I think.

Have I given enough coverage to his films? Should there be an info-box? There was one, but it contained nothing very much and I binned it. If we have one, what facts should be in it?

  • I'm not sure the IB, as it was previously constituted, was much of a help.

Order of sections: should "Reputation" come before (as now) or after "Radio etc"? Radio etc - would the info here be better subsumed in the main text or is it helpful as a separate section?

  • Looks like these two have already been sorted, but personally I'd go for the chronological run-through of his life and works first, and then go to the examination of his character and reputation.

I hope all this helps! Please drop me a note when you decide to go to FAC. – SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these points. Peer reviews are always stimulating and productive, but this one is turning out to be especially so. Tim riley (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments[edit]

I found it hard to come up with anything of significance in this typically well-polished biographical article. So most of my points are veritable nitpicks that even your beloved Beckmesser would blush to mark down. The one point perhaps worthy of a little attention is the very last one:

Early years
  • "the biographer John Miller" → "John Miller's biography"
  • A date/year for Xaverian College would be useful
    • Can't be precise about this. The nearest I can find is "aged 15 or 16" in a newspaper interview in 1972, and I've added that. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early career
  • Should Charles Doran have a redlink? He looks notable enough for an article
Old Vic, 1930–32
  • "a variable season" → "a varied season", maybe?
West End and Broadway
  • Is there a name for the "Hungarian fantasy"?
  • (last para): Maybe just "Bees on the Boatdeck", rather than Priestley's, since the old boy is mentioned again later in the paragraph?
  • "part of the 1930s" → "part in the 1930s"
Second World War
  • Not sure about your adoption of the slang term "pranging" into the actual text. Perhaps if it were encased in quotes – otherwise I'd use a more formal term.
    • I've tried it with quotes and it takes the fun out of the prose. I think I'll chance it as it is at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously I shall oppose...no, let's see what happens. Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Old Vic suffered "severe damage" rather than "destruction"; at any rate it wasn't obliterated.
  • "with Thorndike at its head" - as it's a while since she was mentioned, perhaps identify her as Sibyl
Old Vic, 1944–47
  • Is the Comédie-Française a "company" or a theatre?
    • Like the Old Vic, it's both. I see that strictly speaking the main building is called the Salle Richelieu, but I think that's a technicality. I've added "theatre" for clarity. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1960s
  • Jason Robards: perhaps add the Jr. to avoid necessity of using the link
  • Keats and Shelley should be linked (especially as Norman Shelley already has been).
    • Definitely. An inadvertent omission now remedied. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He recorded ... the superscriptions for Vaughan Williams' Sinfonia antartica". It's not clear to me how a superscription can be recorded.
    • Well, in the score RVW put a brief quotation from Shelley, Coleridge, Donne et al at the head of each movement. It used to be the done thing to have an actor read them out before the orchestra got cracking (Gielgud read them on Boult's Decca recording) though that seems to have gone out of fashion, probably for the best. Printing them in the programme or liner notes suffices. They are always referred to as "the superscriptions", and I can't think of a better way of putting this. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1970–74
  • "with his wife as co-star" – compare with earlier: "Richardson co-starred with three leading ladies in succession: Celia Johnson, Wendy Hiller and Meriel Forbes".
    • Not sure what you mean here. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was that you name her as Meriel Forbes earlier, and now she's "his wife". Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Character and reputation
  • Nothing to quarrel with in the section, but could there be a line or two somewhere which refers to Richardson's life away from the stage? We don't know where he lived, how he relaxed, whether he had any social or political views – do his biographers give any hints? I remember in my youth seeing him on a talkshow alongside Enoch Powell. As Powell pontificated at length, Richardson stared at him in apparent rapt attention, occasionally interjecting "Marvellous!", or "Extraordinary!". I formed the distinct impression that he was taking the piss. But are there any clues to what he actually thought?
    • Splendid idea. I have added a brief note on his politics, religious views, and hobbies. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, well-prepared, a joy to read. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's remarkable, isn't it, how much a peer review can improve an article? I am finding this one particularly productive and I am most grateful to you, as to earlier reviewers, for top-notch input. – Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly do get an unusual amount of input in your peer reviews!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtless because I need more help than most editors. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could be that your writing is so exquisite and pleasurable to read that you attract more people willing to read and review than the average editor!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think it's Sir Ralph's magic that is the attraction. Tim riley (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber comments[edit]

Pity the "theatrical knights" doesn't lead to more specific destination than just Knight Bachelor as I thought the theatrical knights were themselves notable as a group (?)

It's a pleasing idea, but the problem, I think, would be whom to include. "Theatrical knights" of the mid 20th century were not only Richardson, Olivier and Gielgud, but also Cedric Hardwicke (knighted 1934), Seymour Hicks (1935), C Aubrey Smith (1944), Lewis Casson (1945), Godfrey Tearle (1951), Donald Wolfit (1957), Michael Redgrave (1959) and Alec Guinness (1959). Of the same generation, though knighted rather later, were Felix Aylmer (1965) and Noël Coward (1969). There may be others I've missed. To be honest, I know precious little about most of these, and certainly not enough to make a worthwhile portmanteau article. That's not to say that another editor mightn't make a good job of it, of course. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ok - will look into it - my mother has been a film reviewer and is a fan of Sir Ralph - will ask her. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just asked my mum - had to go pick up some rice she's cooked for our moroccan tagine chicken - she wasn't aware of the term used officially, but of course it meant "Larry, Ralph and John" ...intrigued now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but the two elder boys remained with their father and Lydia Richardson left them - any reason we've left her surname here?

Now pruned. Tim riley (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Films in which Richardson appeared in the later 1970s and early eighties - looks funny with one in numerals and the other words.

His last radio broadcast was in 1982 in a documentary programme about Little Tich, whom he saw at the Brighton Hippodrome before the First World War - "whom he had seen?

Both done. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated scribbles from Cassianto[edit]

  • "Arthur Richardson had been senior art master at Cheltenham Ladies' College" -- Could we get away with nailing the definitive article here just before "senior art master", or was he one of a few?
    • I think he was probably the senior art master, but the sources don't say. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ostensible cause of the couple's separation was a row over Lydia's choice of wallpaper for her husband's study." -- No comment, just empathy :-)
    • Unless a very considerable bribe is secreted in the lower-ground washroom of the British Library I shall send Mrs Cassianto a message revealing your shameless views. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He left Doran in 1923 and toured in a new play, Outward Bound by Sutton Vane. He returned to..." -- "he" being Richardson and not Vane or Doran?
    • Well, I think it's adequately unambiguous. If I put his name in at the start of the second sentence it would impede the prose, I think. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As usual, I am probably way off the mark here but is "Richardson began to be noticed by the critics" quite correct? Why am I wanting to say "Richardson was beginning to be noticed by the critics"; or, "Richardson was soon noticed by the critics"; or, "Richardson was starting to earn interest from the critics", or something similar? I note the following line "and to gain favourable reviews", but even this I'm wanting to say "gaining favourable reviews".
    • Yes, you're right. The prose can be tightened up here. Shall ponder. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps link Bottom?
    • I think so. I have been a bit iffy (see the Doctor's comments above and my replies) about linking to articles on Shakespearean characters, e.g. Prospero and Caliban apropos RR and Gielgud at the Old Vic in 1931, but I have undeniably dithered about linking Titania and Bully Bottom. I'll have a final ponder, but I think you're right. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now, clutching it straws thanks largely to the earlier excellent comments of my esteemed colleagues. More soonest...CassiantoTalk 18:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent straws, but, yes, I have had some top-flight input from our First Eleven, or rather our First Ten till you got here. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West End and Broadway

  • J B Priestley →J. B. Priestley

1948–59

  • R C Sherriff →R. C. Sherriff
  • "Outcast of the Islands directed by Carol Reed and The Sound Barrier directed by David Lean" -- We have "directed by" used twice in close succession.
  • N C Hunter →N. C. Hunter. I'm starting to see some consistency here so I am wondering if I am in fact incorrect in thinking that the full stops are actually needed.
    • In American usage the full stops are still customary, I believe, in "Mr. Smith", "H. G. Wells" etc, but in British usage they are old fashioned. Government typists were instructed to stop using them in official documents more than forty years ago. The dear old Times, it's true, still uses full stops for people's initials (though not for Mr, Mrs etc), but The Sunday Times, Telegraph, Independent and Guardian have long since abandoned them, and the BBC website doesn't use them either. Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "playing Buckingham to Olivier's Richard in the 1955 film of Richard III." "of Richard III"?

1960s

  • "His performance won critical praise, but the rest of the cast was less well received." Should it not be "were less well received" as a cast is a collection of people?
    • Both are correct, but perhaps "were" is more idiomatic. Shall adopt. Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Ref 67 - missing comma
  • Ref 107 - Do we know the article title?
  • Ref 112 - Missing period for first page number
  • Ref 138 - Do we know the page number?
    • All excellent catches. Keen-eyed work!

Sections that I haven't mentioned all look great. Top notch stuff! CassiantoTalk 16:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these points. I'll go and deal with the last of them now. Excellent stuff! Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba[edit]

I really enjoyed reading this Tim! Thanks so much for your work on the article. First, your questions...

  • Do the details of roles, productions and reviews become boring to the reader?
    • Nope, this is an actor article - we expect as much!
  • Quote boxes
    • This is purely a matter of taste, so I'll by no means insist on a change (!) but the pink colour isn't ideal IMO. Most articles go with light blue, which I think is good.
  • Are the section hatnotes irritating or useful?
    • I personally find them superfluous.
  • Have I given enough coverage to his films?
    • I'm afraid I don't think you have. Throughout the article there is frequently reference to his theatrical co-stars, some indications of the play's success, the role he played, and a good amount of critical commentary on his performances. His film work gets hardly any of this. I'm also suggesting below that you mention his award wins and nominations: it's very useful to highlight to readers which roles received this special acclaim and attention.
  • Should there be an info-box? There was one, but it contained nothing very much and I binned it. If we have one, what facts should be in it?
    • If you don't like it that's fair, but do keep in mind that just about every actor article without an infobox ends up with unhappy people on the talk page! Basically be prepared to face disputes over this.

Specific comments:

  • First para of lead: perhaps the second "Old Vic" could be replaced with "the company"? I don't think there would be any ambiguity over what is being referred to.
  • Maybe it should be stressed in the lead that most of his early work was in Shakespeare?
  • "until shortly before his sudden death" - Could we mention the age? This would be useful if there's no infobox.
  • I wonder if we should name his brothers?
  • "Lydia wanted Ralph" - This is the only time he is referred to by first name, and it doesn't really seem necessary to me.
  • Was he ever stationed abroad during WWII?
  • 1948–59: we could make this section heading more interesting by adding "international fame", or something? If any of the other subsequent subheadings could be made more informative/descriptive, that would also be good (although I know this can be tough).
    • Have changed this one. Will ponder others. Tim riley (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anna Karenina "although Richardson's notices were excellent" - I think we should mention the role. It may also be of interest to state that Leigh was Olivier's wife - not everyone will make the connection.
    • Added role. Shall have to ponder how best to fit in the Olivier/Leigh angle. Tim riley (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fallen Idol is one of his best known films: we should have a brief plot description and state RR's role. I'd also mention that its directed by Carol Reed, considered one of the top British directors of the era. The paragraph here also ends without a citation.
  • Olivia De Havilland and Montgomery Clift are notable enough co-stars, and William Wyler a notable enough director, to name for The Heiress. I'd also extend the final sentence - "The film did not prosper at the box-office despite good reviews and four Academy Awards. Richardson's performance was praised, and he received an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor." The film is considered a classic by many people today, which may be worth mentioning if you can find a source.
  • Mention that he won a BAFTA for The Sound Barrier.
  • I find myself asking why he turned down Waiting for Godot? And I wonder if the sentences on this could be moved up to the former paragraph, which is very short...
    • Expanded on Godot. Added a bit. I'd rather keep this para on its own, as its such a different topic from its neighbours. Tim riley (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for doing this, although I personally feel it would be more effective to mention his reasons for dismissing the play before the comment about his regret? --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long Day's Journey wasn't a Hollywood studio film, and it was shot in New York.
    • The benefits of PR! Thank you for correcting that error. Now redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely it's worth mentioning that Dr Zhivago is one of the highest-grossing films of all time? That's pretty impressive that he appeared in such a film. I'd also mention that Lean directed, that it starred Julie Christie, and that RR received a BAFTA nomination for the three roles.
  • Regarding What the Butler Saw - the term "hated" jarred for some reason! I think "strongly disliked" would be more appropriate.
    • I think we must agree to differ on this. "Strongly disliked" is much too mild. There were people shrieking at RR, "Give back your knighthood!" and other abuse. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a personal comment, that production of Home sounds fascinating! Is this one of the ones you caught, by any chance? I see that RR was Tony nominated, this should probably be mentioned.
    • It is a wonderful, moving play, and has been revived with other actors in the West End, but somehow I didn't want to see anyone other than Richardson and Gielgud in their parts. There is a made-for-television recording of the original production available on DVD, and I recommend it with all my heart. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll definitely try and find some way of watching that, thanks. --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enormous hit" is a bit strong.
  • We have no mention at all of Lady Caroline Lamb (film), which won him a BAFTA nomination (and also featured Olivier, which you may want to mention).
    • Added. (Never heard of it till now, I blush to tell you.)
      • Oh neither had I! I just noticed on the filmography page that it won him a nomination so thought it should be mentioned. It only has 216 votes on IMDb so it must be an obscurity these days (which is somewhat strange considering the cast). --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony nomination for No Man's Land? And how long did the play run for?
    • It ran for three years in three London theatres (I saw it in two of them) and on Broadway before ending in the TV studios (see you-tube). If I had to nominate the greatest theatrical experiences of my 62 years to date, it would be one of my top three. As to the Tonies there's a nuance here, in that to English theatregoers and, more to the point, English actors, I don't think Tonies impinge all that much - nothing like the impact of the Oscars. It would, I think, look slightly odd to keep mentioning Tony nominations here. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are still considered one of the major awards an actor can receive though, no? Personally I always mention major award wins and nominations in actor articles as I think it's useful way of indicating their most important roles. But if you really think it's unnecessary I shan't insist. --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to have a quotation or two from notable individuals after his death. Did Gielgud and/or Olivier make statements?
    • I'm a bit chary of pious comments dutifully offered when a person has just died, but will look around and see if I can find something more considered from the years after RR's death. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more information on Greystoke feels warranted - brief summary of film, the role he played, etc..
    • Good. Added. Grateful if you'd check it's all right, as I haven't seen the film. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't seen it either but your description looks good to me. --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But honestly, great article that gives you a great picture of the man. Hope this review is useful - cheers! --Loeba (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's extraordinarily useful. If you can bear to skim through the thing again I'd be grateful to know if you think I've done enough. Quite understand if that's asking more than flesh and blood can stand, naturally. Please find attached one Old Codger Card, entitling you to my best attentions at a peer review of any future article of your choice. – Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's no hardship, I genuinely enjoy looking over the article. Thanks for acting on these suggestions - RR's film work definitely takes a back-seat to his theatre work in the article, but I suppose that's reasonable. I'm happy with the additions made yesterday - his most important films now have a couple of sentences each and that's the main thing. I left a couple more comments above but they aren't major. Be sure to ping me when this is at FAC. --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After an astoundingly good and stimulating peer review, longer than the whole text of at least one of the featured articles I have contributed to, I am closing the PR down, with profound thanks to the all-star cast who contributed. Tim riley (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fore River Shipyard[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I just recently expanded this article and I wanted to see if others would be willing to tear it apart and correct my mistakes. Normally, I would ask for it to be reviewed at GA-quality, but it would be nice if it could be reviewed for FA-quality (so, feel free to point out anything that might help, if you are familiar with those processes), as I can easily tackle anything pointed out here. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • Lead's a bit on the long side for the length of the article
  • Lots of repeated wikilinks - see WP:OVERLINK
    • I tried to make sure that it only appeared once, so let me know if it is still there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, still - for example, Watson's name twice in consecutive paragraphs. You might find this script helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I was under the impression that section breaks reset this rule. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure to italicize ship names in all captions
  • Date for O-Class image?
  • WWII image caption shouldn't end in period, and use the correct name of the monument in the Kilroy caption
  • You seem to like the word "also" a lot, at one point concluding a trio of "also" sentences with "the yard also also built" - try cutting down on those, and definitely don't double them. Same applies to "additionally", and avoid "Additionally, the yard also"-type constructions. There's several instances of "including"/"included" and "in order to" as well; seek variety in your phrasings.
  • File:JapanFirstSubmarines.jpg needs US PD tag
    • I have no idea what you mean, as it has been on the image for years. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only licensing tag present says "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". Nikkimaria (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:O_type_submarines_at_Boston.jpg is sourced to a deleted file - is there an original source?
    • Do you want me to request its undeletion? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's a Navy image, there should be an original source somewhere, but I don't know whether the original file included that source or not, so unfortunately I don't know whether undeletion would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I couldn't find it on Google, so I just requested its undeletion on Commons. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Fore_River_gantry_cranes_circa_1922.jpg should use original not upload date; same with File:USS_Northampton_CLC-1_-_0412511.jpg
  • All Navsource links, like that used to source File:Muscle_Shoals_AGM-19.jpg, appear to be broken
    • Two of the three links to that site work, and I don't know what's up with the other one, as I never uploaded that image. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why link US in infobox, particularly when Quincy itself isn't linked?
  • I suggest trying to read the article aloud - while it might feel silly, it will help to eliminate many grammar, flow, and clarity issues. For example, reading out loud should highlight a problem with the first sentence of the last lead paragraph
  • "The shipyard itself can trace its beginnings" - "itself" isn't needed unless there's something to contrast it with, which you haven't done (at least not clearly). And presumably the shipyard is not sentient enough to compile its history ;-)
    • Fixed, although I think I wrote it at the time to distinguish between the yard and the company (as in later years there is a bit of a difference in operation between the two). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after a man approached him about it" - this seems odd; someone just randomly walked up and said "hey, build an engine"? Or was he noted as an area inventor before that?
  • "Work on the engine began in 1884, and continued into 1885, when it was deemed a financial failure, and Watson decided to work with his business partner Frank O. Wellington on ship building, creating the Fore River Engine Company" - too many commas, too many clauses. There are several instances of this type of issue.
    • Fixed, and I thought I was done with being comma-crazy, from the days of my youth. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "work with his business partner Frank O. Wellington", then in the next paragraph "Watson and his business partner Frank O. Wellington" - check for other instances of repetition. Also later in the sentence: "after realizing the profitability of the enterprise after building". Reducing your wordiness should help to solve some of these.
  • Enough prose comments for now, but this needs considerable smoothing out in that respect
  • "soon an order came in for the seven-masted Thomas W. Lawson. This was immediately followed by an order for the six-masted William L. Douglas" - why is one of these italicized and the other not?
    • Fixed, as I think they must have been written in two runs, so I wasn't consistent on them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't link common terms like United States
  • Ranges should use endashes. If you want to head for FAC, you'll likely need to read up on the convolutions of the WP:MOS
  • Provide conversions between metric and imperial, where possible. Also consider providing dollar values in modern values (per inflation) where feasible
  • Skipping ahead to references...Consider columning the Notes, providing a separate heading for the bibliography (I'm assuming?) at the bottom, and move the Further reading to after cited sources per WP:LAYOUT
    • I'll do that in the future, although I forgot what the code is for this stuff. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that iUniverse is a self-publisher, what makes that source reliable?
    • No clue, as that pre-dates my work on this page, so I have gone ahead and removed it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For FAC citation formatting will need much greater consistency. Sometimes your citations are templated, sometimes not; you italicize the Globe in one citation then not the next; some books have locations while others don't; etc
    • A lot of the citations were holdovers from the original article, so I'm going to clean that up now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very heavy reliance on that first source - be prepared to defend that at FAC if not at GAN
    • Noted, although any more research would require I spend a day in Quincy, and I really have no reason to go up there at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the first one, and the second one uses the DANFS and Bethlehem's own statistics, as cited at the bottom of the shipbuilding lists page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent laryngeal nerve[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Novangelis and I are trying to get this article to GA status, and would like some feedback on the article as it stands in preparation for a review, perhaps from the wonderful Finetooth or any other charitable souls?

Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments:

Lead Done

  • I would expand the lead (lede) to include a brief summary of the lower three sections of the article. For an article of this length, a lead of two or three paragraphs would be typical.
  • "gives cardiac branches" – "Gives" doesn't seem like quite the right word. Would "extends to" or "includes" be better?
Expanded and reworded. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Structure & Nucleus  Done

Structure  Done

  • The text sandwich between File:Gray505.png and the infobox is generally considered a layout problem. It would probably be better to move Gray505.png to the right under the infobox.
Done. --LT910001 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleus  Done

Done. --LT910001 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Development  Done

  • "Arches 4 and 6 produce the laryngeal cartilages." – Link laryngeal cartilages or, since this link is to a disambiguation page, list and link all of the laryngeal cartilages thus: "Arches 4 and 6 produce the laryngeal cartilages: the arytenoid, cricoid, thyroid cartilages and the epiglottis." In saying this, however, I note once again that I have no expertise in anatomy, and it may be that the epiglottis does not belong in the list since the article about the epiglottis lists "hypobranchial eminence" as a precursor rather than "4th and 6th branchial arch". Perhaps "hypobranchial eminence" is incorrect, though, or imprecise; it is flagged in the epiglottis article as relying on a possibly unreliable source. Not sure.
Have rewritten this section, and hopefully this will now make sense. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other disease  Done

  • "a rare cause of left RLN palsy" – Link to palsy in Wiktionary or to something else in Wikipedia, perhaps bulbar palsy?
Clarified. --LT910001 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In animals  Done

  • Since "wheezing sound" is linked to stridor in the dog paragraph in this subsection, perhaps "sound", which is linked to stertorous, should be written as "heavy gasping sound" in the horse paragraph.
  • "when middle-aged dogs are breathing in" – Slightly tighter would be "when middle-aged dogs inhale".
  • Single-sentence paragraphs tend to be deprecated. Could something more about dogs be added? Are any particular breeds more susceptible than others?
  • "In the vertebrates with the longest necks, the sauropod dinosaurs, the nerve length would have been... " – Should "the nerve" be more specific here? I assume this means the left recurrent laryngeal nerve rather than the sum of both left and right. Or perhaps this includes the length of the vagus nerve as well. Not sure.
Thanks, we inherited this paragraph from a previous editor. Have clarified and made the formatting of symptoms consistent throughout the article. --LT910001 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of evolution  Done

  • "The extreme detour of this nerve... ". – Same question here. Should "this nerve" be made more specific?
  • "fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods" – Link tetrapod?
Resolved. --LT910001 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References  Done

  • Generally, Wikipedia uses its own house style for book and article titles even if the reliable sources use other styles. Inconsistency in the style could raise eyebrows at FAC, perhaps at GAN as well. Citations 24 and 25 illustrate the difference. Citation 25 is in Wikipedia style, uppercase for the main words and lowercase for the little connector words. To make citation 24 conform, I would change the chapter title to read: "11. History Written All Over Us" and the book title to read "The Greatest Show on Earth". Ditto for all similar situations. Come to think of it, I might not have mentioned these nitpicks in relation to Stapes and Foramen spinosum, but they would apply there as well unless individual project guidelines take precedence.
  • Some of the book citations, such as citation 24, include the place of publication, and some, like citation 27, do not. It's best to include the place of publication for all of the books.
  • Citation 15 lacks the name of the publisher.
  • Citation 12 has an "edit" link at the end of the citation. I don't know what that's for.
The 'edit' is, I think, inserted automatically. Have neatened two citations; will give them a check-over before nomination. --LT910001 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional images  Done

  • Should anything be linked in this caption: "The right sympathetic chain and its connections with the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic plexuses"? Sympathetic chain perhaps? And plexus maybe?
  • Since File:Rekurrens.png is used already in the "Clinical significance" section, I would delete it from the "Additional images" section.
Done. Removed all images, they did not improve the article's quality or readability. --LT910001 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links  Done

  • The link to "Example of Vocal Cord Paralysis" returns a "Http/1.1 Service Unavailable" message when clicked.
Done. --LT910001 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this helps. Please ping me if any of my comments don't make sense. Finetooth (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your detailed review and copyediting. We'll (myself, Novangelis and perhaps others) will get to work on the article over the next week. --LT910001 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More[edit]

  • Consider adding inline citation to lead.
Can almost guarantee that if I do this we will get a reviewer who states that this should never happen

=P. The in-text citations cover what has been written here. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, if anyone has previously asked you to remove inline citation from the lead, they were wrong. Lead should always have inline citation as far as I read the MOS... Lesion (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the counter-argument that I've seen used on GA nominations is that the lead is supposed to be in summary style etc. At any rate these are well-cited in text and shouldn't be a problem. Anything you're working on at the moment that could do with some extra eyes/hands? --LT910001 (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realized I was not entirely sure on this point, so I asked at the help desk. WP:CITELEAD has this to say: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." so I think you are correct here, apologies. Lesion (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could File:Laryngeal nerve.jpg be vectorized? It looks a bit pixelated, if that is the right word. See here: [2]. They will probably do this for you nicely at the graphics lab: [3]
Tbanks, have left a request on the page. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably irrelevant trivia, but what impact does situs inversus have on the recurrent laryngeal nerves?
Not too sure of the statistics (this itself is very rare), but it makes a non-recurrent left nerve much more likely. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one picture caption, the word struma is used. Is Goiter not the more common term? Lesion (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --LT910001 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lesion, frustratingly my internet access is quite limited at the moment, so I might not be able to make timely changes to the article. That said, these will eventually get addressed =P --LT910001 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

Finetooth and Lesion, Thanks again to you both; I feel this article is ready for a nomination, so have closed the review and marked for GA nomination. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons (franchise)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to help this article get from a B-class to a GA-class.

Thanks, (t) Josve05a (c) 23:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Millennium characters[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first list of its type I've worked on to this level; it's a list composed of prose entries rather than tables or the like. My main concerns are the prose (which I may seek to address down the line with a GOCE copy-edit) and the lead, which I do feel is lacking but can't quite figure out just what should go in there. The list itself is as comprehensive as it's likely to ever be, as the series itself hasn't seen much depth of coverage, and the one-man focus has meant that most characters were left out where the buses don't run as regards third-party coverage. Any suggestions at all that can be offered would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! GRAPPLE X 00:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Altgens[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone a lot of work since the last time it was a Featured Article, and it's far more comprehensive, more meticulously cited and devoid (once again) of POV. Naturally, the preceding statement represents my POV and I need fresh eyes. xD

Thanks, —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 09:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

… and, nothing… xD —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 05:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Rooney[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to make it a GA but it went in vain. So I want someone to guide me to achieve the goal.
Thanks, RRD13 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lemonade51 – Many thanks for your work on this. I don't watch Rooney's article, but I'm aware of his career to date and have some experience of bringing football articles to GA level. The layout of this is pretty good, but more work is needed on prose.

  • Have a look at other football articles which are of GA standard. Pablo Ibáñez and Patrik Berger are two which have been promoted in the last year. Compare the style and structure, look at its reviewing process and take some ideas on board.
  • The 'Early life' section falls foul of WP:OVERCITE. Why is "He is of Irish descent" and "was brought up as a Roman Catholic" double cited? There are plenty of generalised statements, which could be expanded. Rooney has an autobiography out; I do think this would beef the section up and clarify his religious upbringing – how was it important to him? Why did he support Everton? What was his relationship with his family like? If you don't have access to his book, he is bound to have discussed his early life to the media. Would give much needed balance to the article.
  • "Rooney began playing for Liverpool Schoolboys and until May 2010 he held the record of 72 goals scored in one season", rewrite this sentence as it can be open to interpretation. Rooney played for Liverpool Schoolboys until 2010? He held the record for most goals scored in one season, but is it an England one or Liverpool Schoolboys one? Use simple past instead of continuous.
  • "and by 15 years old he was playing for the under-19s" → at the age of 15...
  • "He scored eight goals in eight games during Everton's run to the FA Youth Cup final in 2002.[30] This included one goal in the final defeat against Aston Villa", I'm confused, eight goals in Everton's run to the final, as well as a goal in the final?
  • "These goals meant that Rooney was Everton's youngest-ever goalscorer at the time" and "His first career red-card", words that are in bold are not hyphenated.
  • "In that match he was booed by the Spurs fans", Spurs? I know this refers to Tottenham Hotspur's nickname, but it's not hinted in the previous sentence.
  • "On 21 February 2004, Rooney netted his first Premier League brace", link?
  • "Rooney's agent snubbed a three-year, £12,000-a-week contract offer from Everton in August 2004, leaving Manchester United and Newcastle United to compete for his signature.", not cited and I'm sure Chelsea were interested in signing him?
  • "Sir Alex Ferguson, then manager of United, says that" said that
  • "...the club's board of directors to sanction "a multi-million pound" move to try to sign Rooney from Everton", avoid repetition
  • There are plenty of deadlinks. Several sources are Bare URLs – the links are copied and pasted and inserted between the ref tags. The problem with this is they are susceptible to link rots and bots cannot archive them, in the event of sever issues. The GA criteria expects references to be stylised consistently – in this case, they aren't.

I went as far as his first season at United as it would be pointless of me listing all the problems I could find. What's evident is this article is in dire need of a copyedit. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do so, but I'm sure you can find a willing editor. You also need to go over the sources and make sure the material in the article is covered by it. His autobiography would be of great use; it contains direct quotes and can spilt the repetitive stuff about him scoring goals. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Profumo affair[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

To any in the UK under 50, the names Profumo, Christine Keeler, Stephen Ward won't mean much except to students of political history with a particular interest in the late political career of Harold Macmillan. The Profumo affair broke in the spring and summer of 1963, with relevations of an affair between the dashing Secretary of State for War, John Profumo, and a 19-year-old "model", the delectable Christine Keeler. As the press gorged itself on lascivious details, rumours of all sorts of high-level jiggery-pokery filled the papers; Macmillan's slogan "You've never had it so good" was rewritten as "You've never had it so often". There was a dark side, too; a scapegoat was required, and was found in the form of Dr Stephen Ward, who on pretty thin evidence was convicted of vice offences and committed suicide before he could be sentenced. There are currently plans afoot for his legal rehabilitation. Anyway, as the paper boys used to say (though I never actually heard them say it), "Read all abaht it" – and comment as you will. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • There is, meseems, more than a touch of post hoc ergo propter in the last para of the first sentence. WP:SYNTHESIS, I believe, is the jargon. I think the most you should say is that the affair weakened Macmillan and his government. Otherwise I think the lead is a masterly and wholly fair summary.
      • You may well be right. There were three statements in that sentence: MacMillan's confidence was dented; he resigned through ill health; the Conservatives were defeated in 1964. The first two are related, the third is independent – Macmillan's resignation did not cause the Conservative defeat. I believe, however, it is correct to mention that defeat as a possible consequence of the affair. I have reworded accordingly, please tell me what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nicely neutral now, I think. Objection withdrawn. Tim riley (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Profumo
    • "Profumo's tenure as War Minister" – as that wasn't his formal job title, but just an encapsulation of it, I think the caps are inappropriate. (Same goes for the first line of the lead, now I think about it.)
    • "an ex-professional soldier" – i.e. now an amateur one? "formerly a professional soldier" or "a retired army officer" perhaps?
  • Keeler, Rice-Davis, Astor
    • "shops, offices and cafés, none of which lasted long" – she really was the kiss of death if they all closed when she worked there. Perhaps "a series of short-lived jobs in…"?
  • Brief liaison
    • "Profumo is equally adamant" – the present tense seems strange
    • Quote box – aren't the Russian limos "Zils", not "Zis"?
  • Personal statement
    • "She was required to forfeit her recognizance of £40" – being a G&S buff I am familiar with "liberated then on bail, on my own recognizances" (and I see we have Pooh-Bah's corroborative detail later), but for many readers a blue link will be useful.
  • Retribution
    • "Most newspapers considered the extent of the defection significant, and forecast that Macmillan would soon resign" – a swift and unsystematic rummage in the archives of The Times, Guardian, Observer, Express and Mirror bears out the first half of this sentence, but I didn't spot any predictions that Macmillan would soon resign. Does the source really say "most" papers said this?
      • The source quotes the Daily Telegraph ("Premier likely to resign soon"), the Daily Mail (It's all the immigrants' fault! Down with Europe! "Mac: The End"), and the Mirror ("His future, short of a miracle, will be brief"). That's three – there were probably others, but I have altered "most" to "several". Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a widespread amorality" – more like immorality, I'd say.
  • Aftermath
    • "The report was read with great interest by the public" rather understates the case, I think. Apropos of the (unprecedented) small-hours release of the report The Observer reported, "Crowds clamoured outside the Stationery Office and the British public so far forgot its aversion from staying up late that it used up enough electricity watching special programmes to supply a fair-sized city." Citation is to hand if you're interested, but no obligation to purchase.
      • I have slightly altered the text ("awaited with great anticipation"). There is an existing footnote that mentions the midnight crowds. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dramatisations
    • I hear from a friend who went recently that the Lloyd Webber musical is playing to poor houses, so you may need to update that sentence shortly.
  • Notes
    • Footnote 6 – you mention that Paget didn't say this, but what he did say was wonderful: "When self-indulgence has reduced a man to the shape of Lord Hailsham, sexual continence involves no more than a sense of the ridiculous." Also, the refs are in reverse numerical order at end of second sentence.
      • Yes, I have that quote and other juicy morsels from Hansard. Much as I would like to shaft the egregious Hailsham, such comments are not really part of the Profumo affair, and regretfully I don't think any more should be included. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find. I don't see how this topic could be better dealt with than it is here. You will, I hope, let me know when you get to FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review. Minor fixes all done, otherwise see my comments above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

I don't think I've repeated anything that Mr Riley says above, but apologies if I have done so! Most of these are just nit-picks.

  • ”Ward's conviction has been described as an act of Establishment revenge”: The old chestnut: described by who? (Although this one could safely be ignored, to be honest, as it works as it stands. But someone usually comments. Although when I think, it might be me that usually comments…)
    • A fair point, but as the issue is covered in the article I think this can stand. Let us see if the matter comes up again. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The repercussions of the affair severely damaged Macmillan's confidence, and he resigned as prime minister on health grounds in October 1963. His Conservative party was marked by the scandal…”: I’m not sure that the main body quite connects these events as closely as they are connected here.
    • I am still pondering this, as Tim has issues around the same point. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”In October 1962 Vassall was jailed for 18 years…”: For spying presumably. I think it is worth saying so explicitly.
  • ”the former Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Thomas Galbraith resigned from the government pending enquiries”: This is a little confusing as at first sight, it looks like he resigned as Civil Lord of the Admiralty, but I see he had a different post at this stage. Without becoming bogged down in detail, could we say what role he held? Or maybe drop the Civil Lord of the Admiralty part and just say that he was his boss?
  • ”and combined his political and military duties through the Second World War, in which he served in the Northamptonshire Yeomanry.”: This is the first mention of his military duties, but as written it looks a little like he had military duties before the war. Maybe just drop “his”?
  • Minor point: Will non-UK readers know what a “safe seat” is?
  • ”involving the ending of conscription”: Is there any way to avoid two close “-ing”s? Maybe “Profumo's tenure as War Minister coincided with a period of transition in the armed forces, when the ending [or abolishment?] of conscription led to the development of a wholly professional army.”
    • Above five points all dealt with, more or less as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”His performance was watched with a critical eye by his opposition counterpart George Wigg, an ex-professional soldier.”: I’m not sure we need this here; the same point is made later when the scandal began to break.
    • I think it reads better if I remove the second mention of the point, which I have done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Stephen Ward, born in 1912, qualified as an osteopath in the United States.”: I wonder is there a way to re-arrange this so that we don’t introduce him as an osteopath twice.
    • I don't think it can be done easily, but I'm open to suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”and sought Ward's help to this end, allocating him to a case officer known as "Woods”.”: The wording seems a bit off here; if they were looking for his help, would it not be “allocating to him a case officer”?
  • ”Keeler maintains that although Ward asked her to obtain information about nuclear weapon deployment from Profumo, she did not do so.”: This is presumably Stephen Ward, but is a little confusing at first sight as we have just mentioned Viscount Ward.
    • I have clarified this, though I think it looks distinctly odd and I may have further thoughts. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Profumo is equally adamant that no such discussions took place.”: I think this is the literary present, but given that he is dead, I’m not sure he can still be adamant. Perhaps these opinions should be in the past tense?
  • ”Edgecombe was similarly violent and possessive; he and Gordon clashed violently on 27 October 1962, Edgecombe slashed his rival with a knife.”: Is there a word missing (such as “when”) after the semi-colon. Also, we have “violent … violently”.
  • ”Her unexplained absence caused a press sensation;[67] every newspaper knew the rumours concerning Keeler with Profumo, but were afraid to report any direct connection; as a result of the Radcliffe inquiry they were, in Wigg's later words, "willing to wound but afraid to strike”.”: We have two semi-colons in the same sentence, which may be one too many.
  • ”Such statements are, by long-standing tradition, made on the particular honour of the member and are accepted by the House without question.”: Given the sorry state of British politics in later years, is this still the case?
    • Indeed it is; a member's "personal statement" is still accepted as the unquestionable truth. Profumo broke a very strict taboo by lying in a personal statement; this particular convention holds as firmly as ever, even though lies are common currency in the House in general debates. Brianboulton (talk)
  • ”On Tuesday 4 June Profumo saw the prime minister, confirmed that he had lied, and resigned from the government and from parliament.”: Did he still think he had been found out, or had something else rattled his cage?
    • I find that I rather over-telescoped the sequence of events. I have now expanded a little. I guess that he either thought that he had been found out, or that he was about to be. Either way, he confessed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A generally excellent read; I planned to do this in stages, but read the whole thing at once. Very interesting stuff; I'm a little too young to have been there first time around, but remember some of the revival of interest in the late 80s with the film. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, as always helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cliftonian[edit]

I read through this yesterday and found very little to quibble with—really excellent stuff as usual. I will try not to repeat anything Tim or Sarastro have already said; apologies if I do. Just a few thoughts:

  • "Eugene", being a nickname, should really be in quotation marks, shouldn't it? (we don't give his actual name, Yevgeny, at all in the body of the article). I would put Captain Yevgeny "Eugene" Ivanov
  • "Eugene" is an anglicization rather than a nickname, but I take the point and have made him Yevgeny in the main test. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps tweak the lead image caption slightly to make clear this is a relatively contemporary picture—John Profumo at his desk in 1960, as Secretary of State for War
  • There are quite a lot of places where "Russian" is used rather than "Soviet"—I think a few usages of "Russian" would help to reduce awkward repetition, but we should really prefer the proper contemporary term "Soviet", in my opinion
  • Agreed. There is only one "Russian" left in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Personnel" seems an odd choice for the section title; as if we're describing members of a military unit. Perhaps substitute "People" or similar, or perhaps just remove this and turn the level three subheaders ("Profumo", etc) into level two subheaders (I actually think the latter solution would perhaps be tidier)
  • The "name" subsections are currently level four. I have tried them at level three, and I think this works. I agree that "Personnel" was a poor title; I struggled with it, but your solution avoids me having to find a substitute. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keeler, Rice-Davis, Astor" perhaps "Keeler, Rice-Davis and Astor"?
  • Perhaps mention Ward was English (mentioning he qualified in the U.S. might lead some to believe he was American); I think an unobtrusive way to do this would be to expand the first sentence of his section to "Stephen Ward, born in Hertfordshire in 1912 ..."
  • Perhaps mention the Slade School is in London (also check capitalisation of "School")
  • Not necessary I think to mention that the Slade is in London, given the link and "in his spare time". The school's formal title is the Slade School of Fine Art. As "School" is part of the formal title I think capitalisation is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would start the second paragraph in this section at "Ward hoped to visit the Soviet Union ..."
  • In the caption on "the scene of the notorious swimming-pool party", perhaps expand to "the notorious swimming-pool party where Profumo first met Keeler"
  • "it is possible that Profumo hoped for a longer-term commitment and that he offered to set Keeler up in a flat" I would recommend giving more details as to where this suggestion comes from and on what reasoning
  • The source gets the information from Keeler, hence the "it is possible". I have reworded, and cited it direct to Keeler's claim. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Profumo did not pay Keeler for her services" seems to me to imply that she was a prostitute. perhaps just "Profumo did not pay Keeler"

I hope these help. If I see anything else I will note them here. Well done again; I think this is already ready for FA myself. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Except as indicated I have adopted your suggestions and thereby improved the article. It will around PR for a while yet, so if you do have further thoughts, please leave them here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Beautifully put together, as always, and I struggle to find much in the way of fault. The following are particularly 'nit-picky', so accept or ignore as you see fit.

  • "Profumo did not pay Keeler for her services, apart from a few small presents and once, a sum of £20 as a gift for her mother.[38]" It may just be me (probably is), but this does seem, in it current form, to suggest that the presents and £20 are payment for services.
  • I've tinkered with this - I think it's better now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "information about nuclear weapon deployment". Should this be "weapon's deployment"?
  • I've made it "the deployment of nuclear weapons" which reads better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she entertained friends and perhaps clients": I think a little clarity may be needed here. As it reads, there is a suggestion of prostitution, but I don't think that's been suggested before.
  • It has been suggested before, in the sentence you raised above: "Profumo did not pay Keeler...", etc. What she got up to in Dolphin Square is referred to ambiguously in the sources, which sort of hint that although she wasn't a prostitute in the accepted sense of the term, she sometimes got paid for sex. I have adopted the same slightly nuanced approach. If anyone wants to expand the Christine Keeler article (which I have recently tidied up) there is no doubt more to be said on this issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

Only one more comment and a couple of minor ces made: feel free to revert if you don’t like 'em).

  • "Telegraph's critic recommended the production as "sharp, funny – and, at times, genuinely touching"[168] Robertson records that..." A full stop or semi-colon after the 168 reference?

All good and a worthy piece to cover the incident. I shied away from asking JP any questions on the two occasions I met him, and I'm always rather glad that I didn’t raise the spectre of it yet again for him. Please drop me a note when you take this to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ces are fine and I have dealt with the missing punc. Interesting that you met Profumo. I used to run into him from time to time on the Metropolitan Line in the late 70s and early 80s, when I was teaching at North London Poly and he was heading for Toynbee Hall. Never spoke to him, though. Thanks for your review comments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Bencherlite[edit]

  • The lead says "The Criminal Cases Review Commission has requested that the verdict be referred to the Court of Appeal" when in fact all that has happened is that the CCRC has been been requested by campaigners to look at the case and refer it to the CA.
  • My newspaper source quotes the government's spokesman, Lord Ahmad, as saying that the case "was being reviewed by the CCRC", which is not as far as I have indicated in the lead, but slightly further than you suggest. I have amended the wording accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The later wording, "In January 2014 the case was being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with a view to allowing an appeal" is potentially ambiguous, since one talks about the Court of Appeal "allowing" an appeal but here it's being used in the sense of the "the CCRC allowing an appeal to take place" i.e. to use their statutory powers to bring the matter before the Court. Perhaps "In January 2014 the case was being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has the power to investigate suspected miscarriages of justice and refer cases to the Court of Appeal." [4] is a basic ref for the CCRC's powers if you need one.
  • I've adopted your wording, and added the explanatory ref. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly off-topic, but the navbox gives the title as "The Profumo Affair" - if the lowercase version is thought best, then the navbox perhaps ought to be tweaked to follow.
  • I find I can't edit the template. The "E" link goes to a page that says WP has no such template. I don't understand these things. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BencherliteTalk 22:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these most useful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have fixed the template (the template is {{Profumo Affair}} but was calling itself "The Profumo Affair" in its code, hence making it uneditable from articles! BencherliteTalk 23:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • Most interesting, as I did not know the finer points of this scandal. Well put together. Note that I am working from a copy of the article several days old since I'm doing this offline.
Lede
  • The year "1963" dates the controversy twice in the first two sentences. Possibly cut it to once, but also date the dalliance the two had. I would suggest cutting "In March 1963" but adding "in March" after "Commons".
  • Is there a link which would make clear the implication of it being a personal statement, rather than, I suppose, one in his capacity as minister?
  • No link available. The character of "personal statements" is described in the article; however, for the benefit of lead-readers I have added an explanatory footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The repercussions of the affair severely damaged Macmillan's confidence" Confidence in him or Macmillan's confidence in something else?
  • I suggest cutting the (Eugene) and the word "thus" from the present first sentence of the second paragraph.
  • The Cliveden sentence seems a bit out of place and may be happier batting first in that paragraph.
  • The considerable use of the passive voice in the lede seems worthy of another check.
  • "The exposure of the Profumo-Keeler affair, and rumours of other scandals, drew official attention to the activities of Ward, who was charged with a series of immorality offences." Perhaps for lede purposes, you could shorten to "Ward was charged with a series of immorality offences." I think the rest is too much detail for lede purposes.
  • I think we heed to flag "other scandals" in the lead, since there is significant mention of these in the text. I have revised/shortened the lead in other ways. Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "parliament" lower case?
Government and press
  • Civil Lord of the Admiralty". I think a link would be helpful if available.
  • No link, so "the responsible minister"
  • Since you mention "government" and "political masters" before linking Macmillan government, I would move that link up.
  • Does "various" add anything?
Keeler etc.
  • "although their relationship was not sexual." this seems like an awfully definite statement given that any relationship would have been behind closed doors and all that. And especially given her next gig.
Ward etc.
  • "Slade school" properly capped?
  • "a possible defector" possibly " a potential defector"?
Cliveden etc.
  • "simultaneously" I think this construction might not be the best, possibly it could be deleted and "the same weekend" inserted at some appropriate point?
  • "He also said that Ivanov had asked him (Ward) for information" mildly awkward, perhaps "Ward also stated that he had been asked by Ivanov for information …"
Brief etc.
  • The references in support of the first sentence are not properly ordered.
  • Who are those who have stated their belief with respect to the characteristics of the Keeler/Profumo affair? Historians? Politicians? The Mail?
  • "Profumo did not pay Keeler for her services, apart from a few small presents and once, a sum of £20 as a gift for her mother" Were these payments or just … gifts? Payment implies a bargained-for exchange to my mind.
  • "watching her every movement" Peacock words or no, it's certainly dramatic. Perhaps excessively so for an encyclopedia. In the era before CCTV, I imagine he used his eyes. Would "stalking her" go too far?
  • "awkward hours" I'm more familiar with "awkward moments", usually involving the spouse coming home unexpectedly. But "hours"?
  • "engaged with Rice-Davies" perhaps some risk of double entendres. Especially since "relationship" is used later in the paragraph (twice) to refer to an association which looks likely to have been sexual.
  • "Keeler ended her relationship with Edgecombe shortly afterwards on the grounds of his domineering behaviour" Cannot this be shortened to "Keeler broke up with Edgecombe shortly afterwards because of his domineering behavior."
Mounting pressures
  • "Mounting pressures" see suggestion re double entendres.
  • "press behaviour during the Vassall case was making the press nervous" Avoid 2 x press.
  • " who failed to" Perhaps "who did not"?
Investigation etc.
  • "Ward then attempted to give details to the press, but no paper would print the story." I don't know about "attempted", it seems he did give the info to the press.
  • "from parliament". Correctly lower cased? Also, this might be an opportunity to pipe to "Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds" or similar.
  • Not sure that the technicalities of resignation from the UK parliament are that interesting, and the piped linked would create rather an unsightly blue smudge. Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the account of Profumo's resignation should be followed by the press reaction, either within that section or to start the one immediately following.
Retribution
  • "widespread amorality" Amorality or immorality?
  • "and released on bail pending trial" The last two words seem unneeded.
  • sub judice a link may be needed here since American newspapers do not follow that practice.
  • "pursued other related stories" I would slice "other".
  • The accounts of Ivanov's fate seem a bit inconsistent. Can this be cleared up?

Looking forward to the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time and trouble. Some of your points had been caught in earlier reviews. Except as indicated I have adopted your suggestions (sometimes with a little variation). Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Thincat[edit]

I stayed up rather too late last night reading this! I think more could be said about the affair's influence beyond politics. In Britain in the early 1960s influence was shifting away from the establishment, and from age to youth. I recall the affair being very central to all that. Is anything sourceable? A lot of what I learned probably came from That Was the Week that Was, not the BBC news or Panorama. It wasn't so much that the affair created this shift, but rather that it provided something for the counterculture to feed from.

A couple of points on wording.

  • "Keeler was generally outspoken about her conquests". Is she being quoted? Did she regard them as "conquests"? Would "liaisons" be preferable or perhaps you are trying to avoid using that word too often?
  • "When he was denied entrance" seems very formal. "When he was not allowed in"?

Also,

A really nice article indeed. Thincat (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you comments and kind words. I have replaced the over-formal wording as you suggest. As to TW3, some people imagine that it had a major role in the exposure, but memory can play strange tricks. The programme went off the air shortly after Profumo's denial, and didn't return until late September, when Profumo had gone, Ward was dead and the Denning Report published. So its involvement with the affair was limited to a few vague references before the scandal broke, and to some later analysis and mockery.

You mention the centrality of the affair to the loss of influence by the establishment. That is a good point, indirectly addressed in Pamela Cooper's comment about the incipient transformation of the old aristocratic Tory party, and the Economist's references to the changed (i.e. less deferential) relationship between press and politicians. I have added a quote from Davenport-Hines's book (by far the best dispassionate analysis of the affair, in my view), commenting on the gradual death of deference to the Establishment after 1963, and its consequent loss of influence. Brianboulton (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I remember it well. To my surprise, the Davenport-Hines book is held by our library so I've reserved a copy (but I've had to go on the waiting list). Thincat (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On your suggestion for a photo of Wimpole Mews, I'd be inclined to desist for the moment. I could use this, but the three existing in-text photos are all of buildings of one kind or another. That's because suitable uncopyrighted images of the main figures in the affair are pretty well impossible to find—there is a photo of the 45-year-old Keeler that may be free, but she's too old in it for our purposes. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later: having studied the Commons photo of Wimpole Mews I find that it actually shows No. 17, so I have included it after all. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christiane Amanpour[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am unsure if her article is ready to be upgraded. Thanks, Theparties (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imelda Marcos[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I need help in determining what else is needed to be done. Thanks, Theparties (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people under FVEY surveillance[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review and I hope that it will meet the featured list criteria, so that we can include it for an upcoming project (Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day)

Any feedback is greatly appreciated! Thanks.

-A1candidate (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a very important point indeed, thank you for your comments. I've originally included Angela Merkel and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Indonesia's President) in the list, both of whom Snowden revealed were targeted by surveillance, but I later removed them since there was not much to illustrate their notability (other than merely being national leaders). I've put them back now since I agree that the list should include some of the more notable targets revealed by Snowden. I've also included Osama bin Laden, but I'm not sure if he meets the criteria (Person must be public figure/celebrity), as defined in the lead section. What do you think? Should he be included? As for Snowden himself, there is no doubt he is considered by the government to be a fugitive, but unfortunately, I can't find any reliable source to demonstrate that he is being actively tracked down by surveillance. I'm absolutely sure they're doing everything to get him, I just can't find any documented evidence of this. -A1candidate (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A related barrier to FA status is the serious imbalance in citizenship - I'm guessing around 90% are US citizens. Jojalozzo 20:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've restructured it and I think I've struck a good balance between the inclusion of U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens, but the list has become too short, so I'm currently working to expand it. -A1candidate (talk)
  • From the description of the FVEY program as a way to get around domestic surveillance restrictions, I think that the inclusion criteria should require that surveillance be conducted by a foreign agency and shared with the targets' home country. I don't see how surveillance of notables by their own government agencies (e.g. Einstein, Keller, Roosevelt, Hemingway, Lindberg, who I think are all US citizens and for whom only FBI surveillance is mentioned) would qualify for this list. This over-broad criteria gives the appearance of pumping up the list and suggests an anti-surveillance POV.
Even the invitation to this peer review suggests a bias against surveillance since the purpose is to get featured article status in time to participate in an anti-surveillance event.
Perhaps a column listing citizenship and a column listing surveillance agency would help sort this out.
Jojalozzo 19:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've decided to restructure the list by strictly limiting the surveillance targets to those of FVEY only, so this has resulted in the removal of many domestic FBI targets. The list now appears to be quite short, so I'm currently working to expand it. What do you think of it so far? -A1candidate (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is making sense but the the topic is less notable since, as you say, the list is so short. This puts FA rather far off I think, but you have paradoxically brought it closer at the same time. Good work. I think it might be useful to add a comment at the start of the table to discourage editors from making the mistake of adding entries of citizens surveilled solely by their own agencies. I'd still like to see a column listing citizenship and a column listing surveillance agency. Jojalozzo 05:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jojalozzo...the list is over-broad, is of questionable historicity...the broad criteria for inclusion makes the list feel rather artificial like those conspiracy theorists who think Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, and Claude Debussy ran the Priory of Sion. It seems to perpetuate a post hoc ergo propter hoc lie...claiming anyone who was under surveillance was automatically under FVEY surveillance. Einstein was watched because he was German and knew too much about physics. That was an Army intelligence decision to keep him watched and keep him away from the Manhattan project. It was not because of some global Anglophone conspiracy, and definitely not in the surveillance environment complained about recently. Lindbergh was a Nazi sympathizer. Hemingway was a communist. Both were watched only because J. Edgar Hoover thought them dangerous. Hoover's surveillance was not FVEY surveillance. MLK was surveilled by COINTELPRO...which was looking for potential red links to 60s radicals and civil rights leaders...largely again because of J. Edgar Hoover's personal interest, not an international conspiracy. While he was tangentially connected to mobsters and his name popped up now and then in investigations, Sinatra only really came under surveillance by Hoover because Hoover hated Kennedy and Sinatra was close to Kennedy. A lot of these are entirely questionable and random. Surprisingly, I only see two terrorists on the list (Mandela and Bin Laden....so KSM doesn't qualify for inclusion? al-Awlaki? the radical imam in London?).--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments. After evaluating all the points brought up in the above discussions, I've decided to restructure the list by strictly limiting the surveillance targets to those of FVEY only, so this has resulted in the removal of many domestic FBI targets. The list now appears to be quite short, so I'm currently working to expand it. What do you think of it so far? -A1candidate (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat comments[edit]

  • I'm concerned about the inclusion criteria here and this would probably fail as being too incomplete for any real purpose. We're supposed to think that millions of dollars and pounds are spent on surveillance, using the most high- (and low-) tech equipment possible, and we've got a list of six people? I'd question using "celebrity" as a criteria: this is an encyclopaedia, not Hello magazine. Go with notable in the wiki definition of the term and there will be less resistance - and the content will match the title too.
  • This is an article about the five eyes, yet there are only agencies from three countries listed, and nothing from the other two. We do allow some incomplete lists to go through (when it's clear what the issues are), but I think we're too incomplete to get past criteria 3(a) of the FL criteria.

As to the most nuts and bolts, easily fixable stuff, the following is a top-ten rough list for you:

  1. Refs 1, 2 and 3 are probably best at the end of the sentence.
  2. No bold text needed in the opening lines
  3. Flags are not needed in the first table
  4. Images are not needed in the section table. If you're going to have them, have them as the last column - or second last if you use the idea below
  5. Think about a final column to hold the references (see List of works by E.W. Hornung for an example)
  6. Why is Chaplin English, but Lennon British?
  7. FN7: retrieved date should include a day, not just month and year
  8. FN16 has inconsistent date formatting
  9. FNs 11, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26 & 27 need dates for the reports
  10. FN23 needs sorting - spaces before commas.

- SchroCat (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@SchroCat - I've removed "celebrity" from the criteria, so for now, as long as someone is notable enough to be a public figure, he or she could be included. The list of agencies involved has been expanded, since more notable people have now been added. Still, one should take into account the fact that much of the information contained in this list is supposed to be highly top secret stuff that are not meant for public eyes (The UKUSA Agreement itself, which the Five Eyes alliance is based upon, was not even publicly disclosed until 2010). Unless government secrecy is totally eradicated and we have more people like Edward Snowden, whose unauthorized disclosures have contributed to 50% of the names on this list, there is no way we can have a fully complete list. If there is a list that may meet the FL criteria despite being incomplete, I think this one may qualify.

Other changes:

  1. Moved refs to the back
  2. Removed bold
  3. Removed flags
  4. I've kept the images because I think they add value to the article. I understand that they probably make the list a little bit too untidy, so these images may be still be removed after all, depending if I can find a better way to display them.
  5. Column added
  6. Changed to British nationality

All references have now been fixed accordingly, as far as my untrained eye can tell, or did I miss something?

@Jojalozzo - I agree that a column listing citizenship and a column listing surveillance agency would help to make things clearer, the list has now been changed accordingly. I do feel that the table may become a little bit cluttered as a result. Perhaps we could merge the "name" and "nationality" columns into a single one. Do you know of a better way to rearrange the data?

-A1candidate (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jojalozzo comments[edit]

  • I do not think the table is cluttered, nor do I think name and nationality should be combined. One of the advantages of table columns is they can be sorted by each column. Combining columns eliminates some of this flexibility in information presentation.
  • I do not think the photos are a problem either. Most of the screen real estate is consumed by the text in the notes column and the photos take up relatively little space while illustrating the article and adding human interest.
  • It appears that the agencies in the agencies column are listed in alphabetical order. I think the foreign agency should be listed first to enable sorting on the foreign agency rather than whatever happens to be alphabetically first. To maintain this over time, a comment would be advisable to guide editors in adding new entries.
  • Given this is a worldwide encyclopaedia, could you clarify what you mean by a "foreign" agency. - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We mean "foreign" as in "not domestic". A foreign agency is any agency other than one from the surveilled person's own country. E.g. for a NZ citizen, all of the agencies of AU, CA, UK, and US would be considered foreign. Jojalozzo 02:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since an unknown number of notable persons under five eyes surveillance may be missing from this list due to the secrecy of the information as of this writing, I suggest adding a comment at the end of the introduction explaining this.

Jojalozzo 22:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagalog language[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This is one of the most important languages in Southeast Asia. Thanks, Theparties (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drama dari Krakatau[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FAC and am interested in getting feedback to help with the preparations.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Hi Crisco, which variant of English is this in? Just want to check before I comment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • British English as written by a Canadian from the border of the US and living in a country where English is not standardized (i.e. let's try for British, although I recognise that it will be far from it in some instances). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good stuff, all in all. I made a few copy edits: feel free to revert if you don't like them. Only one main issue with the article as it stands: I got a bit lost in the plot and needed to read it a couple of times before I got it. It may need a bit of a re-working for clarity.

  • I had a heck of a time summarizing it... are there any places which are more unclear than others, so that I can clarify? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it another run through in a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

I've done some further copy edits around and about: again, feel free to revert or re-edit as you feel fit.

Plot

  • I've made a fair few edits around this, as I tried writing out my thoughts and ended up with gibbering nonsense instead: it was easier to just do the edits and let you revert my rubbish later.
  • (What is it about Malay literature that means it must include a kidnapping, or attempted kidnapping?!)
  • Sure is an easy way to kick off the plot, I must say, and inherently dramatic. Even Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang and Sitti Nurbaya had female characters taken away from male characters against their will, although neither could be considered "kidnapping". I wouldn't be surprised if there was some influence from silat (martial arts) stories. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moelia informs his father, revealed to be Hasan, of the eruptions, and the regent comes over to the former's home.": This one could probably do with some re-working—took me a second or two to remember who the regent was.

Writing

  • "Kwee was known as a realist": Asks for a "whom?" tab to be put in there! As you follow up with (what looks like) a quote by the man himself, why not "Kwee considered himself a realist and thought it…"?
    • I don't think I've seen anyone say otherwise, but I agree that your phrasing works better with the "Themes" section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are OK, and that you don't mind that I've gone heavily into the ce rather than comment route! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I quite like it, actually. Nice and succinct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Very meagre gleanings, I'm afraid, though of course that's rather a compliment in its way.

  • Lead
    • "(vernacular Malay for Drama of Krakatoa) is a 1929 vernacular Malay novel" – "vernacular Malay twice" in one sentence is a bit of a jingle, but if it's unavoidable for accuracy, so be it
      • If another reviewer takes issue, I'll be glad to remove either the first or second instance. I agree, the repetition is nasty, but... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the novel had already been performed on stage" – an adaptation of the novel
  • Plot
    • "a short visit with Noesa Brama" – if you're going for BrEng, "with" and "visit" are rarely used together in these isles, except for nasty things: visited with a plague of boils, for example. I'd say "then briefly visits NB before returning home"
    • "the men then convince … Moelia convinces the police" – one of them might be "persuade" for variety. (Strictly in BrEng they should both be persuade, but I do not press the point. We persuade to but convince that. Ignore me. Just the old codger rumbling on.)
      • I trust this is acceptable? No more convincing ;) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Spot-on. I'm both persuaded and convinced. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "before the mountain erupts" but you've just told us it's already erupted.
      • Sorry, "erupts a second time".15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • "hoping that Noesa Brama will accept Moelia to be Retna Sari's husband" – I had to read this twice before getting your meaning: perhaps "hoping that Noesa Brama will consent to the marriage of Moelia and Retna Sari"?
      • Done, but would "consent to Moelia marrying Retna Sari" work better? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Grammatically you need a gerund in that formation: "consent to Moelia's marrying Retna Sar", which I think makes the prose bumpy. Sorry for pedantry, but you did ask. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication history and reception
    • adapting the 1972 spelling reform – adapting or adopting?
    • "become king of the Baduy, before surrendering all his power to his daughter" – ambiguous. Perhaps, "become king of the Baduy; he then surrenders all his power to his daughter"

That's my lot. You know, one of the privileges and pleasures of reviewing for Wikipedia is running across subjects one knows nothing of and finding them absorbing. I know a lot more (still not much, but more nevertheless) about your topics, and mediaeval art, polar explorers, astronomy, railways and much else than I did before engaging in this marvellous enterprise. On to FAC. Please let me when I can look in there. – Tim riley (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure thing, and thank you for having a look at this (admittedly obscure; I doubt anyone else in my program has read the novel) topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto comments[edit]

(Sliding into the empty seat at the back of the class, hoping not to be noticed by the nominator.) Sorry for my lateness :-/

  • "...in total he consulted 15 books, all in English or Dutch." – To clarify, were they mixed English/Dutch, definitely English, definitely Dutch or don't we know. I only ask as we seem so certain of the amount, yet so vague of the nationality.
  • I'd assume each individual book was either entirely English or entirely Dutch. Kwee was, by standards of the time, quite well educated, and neither language would have been a problem for him. He even used gratuitous English similar to what you'd find in more modern, popular works (though not nearly as often). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are missing a full stop from the end of ref 16.

Annoyingly short review, owing to the stellar cast before me. CassiantoTalk 19:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Agency[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we are having a featured article drive.

Thanks, Jehochman Talk 23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corps Altsachsen Dresden[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article was written by people using English as a second language. We are a few Germans, a Half-Canadian, a Half-Englishman and me (German in the US). My friends and me first wrote/designed it in a team effort in word and a sandbox, then I copied it to the article space. If you have good input regarding the language, please feel free to edit the page.

As fraternities in Europe are quite different from US Greek societies, we believe that this article strengthens the overall understanding of fraternal societies and how they developed of the centuries to what they are today.

Thanks, WikimanGer  Talk • Mail   17:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revievers:

Review by User:GrapedApe
  •  Doing...--GrapedApe (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done--GrapedApe (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your feedback! I added two more thoughts below as specific reply. --WikimanGer  Talk • Mail   00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: Thanks to everyone who can provide additional thoughts in a secondary review of the article in its updated form.

This is in response to the request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities#Corps_Altsachsen_Dresden for a review by native English speakers

  • Under Fundamentals and Principles, what does "world view" mean within this context? Religion?
Tolerance with regard to religious background or affiliation, yes. Furthermore, tolerance for the various ethnic and national backgrounds as well as political interests of their members. There are several kinds of fraternities in Germany that limit by either (1) religion, or (2) national/ethnic background or (3) political affiliation. Some of these more intolerant fraternities are linked to a former Nazi background, the so called "Burschenschaften". They claim tradition, that essentially goes back to an attitude just before or during the Third Reich. The German Student Corps are different in that sense that they do not judge or select based on national, ethnic, religious or political background; and they go back to the late 1700s. The Corps Altsachsen Dresden as a typical German Student Corps has members from several continents and expects a tolerant / open / unprejudiced understanding of their members. This is meant by a "tolerant world view". Does that help? --WikimanGer  Talk • Mail   19:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It might be worth expanding on that, if sources exist.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I did follow your suggestion by expanding and rewording things a bit. It's now the first (because most important) paragraph of the principles. --WikimanGer  Talk • Mail   00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the licenses at File:Band des Corps Altsachsen Dresden.png, File:Fuchsband des Corps Altsachsen Dresden.png and File:Zirkel of Corps Altsachsen Dresden.png.
  • OK, I finished reading. Overall, very well-written. Honestly, it's better written than most Wikipedia articles, including those by native English speakers. You even used e.g. correctly, which is something that most English speakers mess up. There were some issues with the tone (some places are overly familiar with the subject, whereas encyclopedia articles ought to be more objective), but it's not too big of a problem unless you're going for GA. There are some places where additional supporting citations would be appropriate, but it's still very good for now. Good luck with this article, and thanks for bringing this uniquely German article into the English Wikipedia!--GrapedApe (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. What are the specific points that should be referenced better for GA qualification? --WikimanGer  Talk • Mail   00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevill Ground[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was considering taking this for FA in the future. I know there are a few areas that will need filling but I would like some feedback on what is currently in the article and what might be needed to be included for any future FA consideration.

Thanks, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey[edit]

I don't know anything about cricket (actually, I don't know much about sports). Feel free to larf at any of the silly things I might have to say.

  • The History section moves rather quickly—did nothing remarkable happen between the two world wars? Or between 1946 and 1995?
  • Unless you have a really good reason, it's not a good idea to set image sizes—it overrides user settings for one, and if you've chosen a particular size because it happens to look good on your screen, it will almost certainly not look nearly so nice on a different screen size or screen orientation.
  • rather than [[cricket]] [[List of cricket grounds in England and Wales|venue]], I'd do [[List of cricket grounds in England and Wales|cricket venue]]. "Cricket" itself may be overlinking, and it's a bit surprising for the general word venue to link to something so specific.
  • "is used by Tunbridge Wells CC as well as annually": on first reading, this reads as "is used by Tunbridge Wells CC as well" (as in "also Tunbridge Wells CC")—I had to read it twice to make sense of it. How about something like: "is used primarily by Tunbridge Wells CC, and annually for Tunbridge Wells Cricket Week ..."?
  • "Tunbridge Wells CC": does "CC" stand for "Cricket Club"? It's hard to tell, since it's spelt out with "Kent County Cricket Club" later in the same sentence—ususally you would spell it out first, and then shorten it (although I wouldn't shorten it without making it clear that's what you're doing first).
    Would Tunbridge Wells CC be worth a redlink?
  • "It was opened in 1898 and was first used by Kent in 1901 and has been used by them annually since then": "and ... and ..." is not that elegant. I'd split this sentence in two after "1901".
  • "It played host to one One Day International": I wouldn't start a paragraph with "it". Also, what's a "One Day International"? Is it a tournament? Can it be summed up with a word or two so I don't have to click through?
  • "the group stage match between": which is the "group stage match", the One Day International or the 1983 Cricket World Cup?
  • "The Nevill Ground is known for having rhododendron bushes around the perimeter": this doesn't need an inline citation if it's already cited in the body (which it should be if it's in the lead—the lead should be a summary of the body). Also, I'd move this to the first paragraph, if it's a defining feature. It seems random to tack it onto the end of this paragraph.
  • Actually, I'd move the historical stuff (suffragette arson) to the second paragraph as well—good to keep the paragraphs thematic. I might expand the historical stuff as well—it's usage in the two world wars, the 1993 Women's World Cup.
  • "Tunbridge Wells Cricket, Football and Athletic Club": worth a redlink?
  • "started in 1896 with it being officially opened": did it "start with being opened"? I'd reword to something like "started in 1896, and it was officially opened"
  • "were also planted": why "also"? In addtion to what?
  • I'd reorder some of the info in the first paragraph of "History", which doesn't seem to me to follow any logical order—we're told about the border running through it, the the rhododendrons, then the Railway End. Maybe order the border & railway stuff together?
  • "C. H. Strange": worth a redlink?
  • "It was built in 1903 at a cost of £1,200 and was destroyed in a suffragette arson attack in April 1913.": are these events so strongly linked they should be one sentence like this?
  • "a temporary grandstand at the Nevill Ground": can this be expanded on?
  • "1913 Arson": I don't like this being pulled oout of the chronology of the "History" section. Could it not be placed within the flow of "History", and break "History" into further subsections? "World Wars", "Post-War", etc, or whatever you think is appropriate
  • File:Bluemantle stand Nevill Ground - geograph.org.uk - 1174829.jpg: per WP:IMAGELOCATION, should be placed within the section that refers to it, not before the header.
  • "by militant suffragettes": is there something good to link here? Very tantalizing ...
  • "The fire was started in the dressing rooms with the perpetrator setting fire to cricket nets that were being stored in there." I'd shorten this to something like: "The perpetrator set fire to cricket nets stored in the dressing rooms."—killing the passive and quickly getting to the point.
  • "the fire in an hour": did it take them an hour before they managed to tame it? did it take them an hour to get it? Did it burn for an hour before it was noticed?
  • "Emily Pankhurst": who? Can she be briefly summed up so I don't have to click through?
  • "to have said "It is": I'd put a comma before the quote, although apparently it's acceptable without one (I don't understand why).
  • "fund raising concerts": isn't "fundraising" one word?
  • "It was formerly used to host association football however the Nevill Ground stopped hosting football in 1903.": I might shorten this to "It hosted association football until 1903."
  • "one of its outgrounds": what's an outground? Is there something to link to, or a less jargony way to put it?
  • "County Matches": Since It's Capitalized, I assume a County Match is something important. Worth a redlink, r a short explanation?
  • "the demise of Mote Park": when did this happen?
  • "In 2012, Kent's Friends Life Twenty20 match against Sussex was moved to the St. Lawrence Ground after the Nevill Ground was flooded after heavy rainfall leading to the 100th Tunbridge Wells Cricket Week being cut short.": how significant was this? Is it included only because it's recent? Is it rare for something like this to happen?
  • "1983 World Cup", "1993 Women's World Cup": I'd make these a subsection of the "History" section"
  • "one of the host grounds": along with ...?
  • "the Nevill Ground being ruled as too small with India and Zimbabwe being deemed": "being ... being ..." reads awkwardly to me.
  • "Despite this there ... no proof of this occurring": this is pretty wordy—it could easily be condensed into a single sentence.
  • "one of the venues used in the 1993 Women's Cricket World Cup": alng with ...?
  • "Kapil Dev scored 175": He's linked in the lead, but should also be linked at first mention in the body. I might also throw in an image: File:Kapil Dev at Equation sports auction.jpg is free, though it's from 2013.
  • Maybe an image of Lord Harris as well? File:Ranji 1897 page 231 Lord Harris.jpg (1897) is free, and has him posing with a cricket bat.
  • "This record was later beaten by Viv Richards.": When?
  • How about a "Description" section? You could put the rhododendron, pavilion, etc stuff in there, as well as seating capacity, and remove that ugly citation out of the infobox.

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Year's Eve in London[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like any views and/or opinions on what may be required in order to improve this article to good article and potentially featured article status.

Thanks, Wes Mᴥuse 13:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olfactory reference syndrome[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Rationale for peer review request:

  1. this is a psychiatric disorder and I am not a psychiatrist,
  2. neither do I have any real experience editing articles that are about psychiatric disorders,
  3. Previously a short "start" class article, I have promoted to B class now
  4. perhaps I would like to take this article to GAN next.

N.B.

  • there were very limited secondary and tertiary sources available which met WP:MEDRS, most info is in the form of case reports & I have tried to avoid these wherever possible. We have 4 reviews (2 calling themselves systematic) and 1 book chapter that are used extensively to form the basis of the article.
  • I believe there are one or 2 primary sources to support some very obvious content that I felt was required, but could not find any secondary source for.
  • Given the paucity of sources, I took the liberty of extending MEDDATE to about 10 years (or more in a few cases) instead of last 5 years.
  • Have used the MEDMOS layout for diseases, disorders and syndromes. Not sure if this is the norm for psych articles, and not sure it is entirely appropriate for this condition.

Kind regards, Lesion (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm closing this peer review because I want to nominate for good article. Although a few editors from WPPSYCH read over the article, they did not in the end use this page, so no matter. Lesion (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disabled Sports USA[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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

Thanks, Davejsimonson (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your willingness to do a peer review on this article. I am asking for advice on how I can improve this article from its current C-class status to B or maybe even GA. If the article is missing important information or if there is irrelevant information to remove, I would be interested to know. I believe the article was given the C-class grade before I made major modification and added sources, so any advice would be gratefully accepted and acted on.

House of Plantagenet[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a Good Article but failed to progress to a Featured Article. Since reaching good article status it has gone quiet on the editing front. It would be good to refresh it and resubmit. The fundamental challenge (as with all House of/dynasty articles) is differentiating between content about the House and content about their impact. I think the Plantagenets made England by their actions good and bad and their inactions and this belongs in this article. Others disagree on the basis the article should be about the family. So an impartial review would be good. Help, please :-)

Thanks, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead comments from Nikkimaria
  • Some duplicate linking going on - for example, the houses of Lancaster and York are both linked twice in just the lead
  • "comes from a 12th-century nickname of Geoffrey" - this comes before you explain which Geoffrey you're talking about
  • "Richard III's death in 1485 (at the Battle of Bosworth)" - parentheses aren't needed
  • "From Magna Carta onward, the role of kingship transformed under the Plantagenet—driven by weakness to make compromises that constrained their power in return for financial and military support" - this is rather awkward as written
  • "was to help shape a distinct national identity and re-established the use of English" - why the shift in tense?
  • "from a realm ruled from abroad, into one of a deeply engaged and mature kingdom" - grammar
  • Churchill quote should be followed by colon or other punctuation, not a semi-colon
  • "development of Early modern Britain" - why that capitalization?

Based on the lead, I would suggest a thorough copy-editing and WP:MOS check for the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Been added to the list for ce, thanks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. - Dank (push to talk)

  • All of this is from the paragraph following the lead:
  • "They were Counts of Anjou since 870.": That's not right ... I'm not sure what's right, something like "Their family line held the Countship of Anjou from 870." - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The male line of Ingelger became extinct": Species become extinct, not families.
  • "a Count": "a" usually means the noun that follows isn't a proper noun.
  • "to address competition from Normandy": I don't know what that means.
  • "the prince drowned in the wreck of the White Ship": Medievalists will know what the White Ship was, but most readers of Wikipedia won't, so a quick description of the event would help.
  • "Matilda. This brought about the convergence of the Angevins, the House of Normandy and the House of Wessex to form the Plantagenet dynasty.": Matilda, joining the Angevins to ...
  • "and sailed to become": and sailed off to become
  • "The chronicler Gerald of Wales borrowed elements of the Melusine legend to give a demonic origin to the Angevins, and several of them were prone to joke about the story.": This doesn't seem connected to the rest of the paragraph (or anything else). - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle comments[edit]

 Doing... I'll have a go at this. Victoria (tk) 16:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • 2nd para, 1st sentence: "The Plantagenet name for the dynasty dates from the 15th century and comes from a 12th-century nickname of Geoffrey." > at this point the reader doesn't know who Geoffrey is, so it's confusing. Moving it might help because he's introduced in the next sentence.
  • "A common retrospective view" > wondering whether this phrase is necessary. Is the view contentious?
  • "a long line of 14 Plantagenet kings ruled England" > maybe simply "14 Plantagenet kings" without the "long line"
  • "that was later called the Angevin Empire." > later when? during his lifetime or centuries later? Or maybe drop the "later"?
  • "The Plantagenets transformed England from a realm ruled from abroad, into one of a deeply engaged and mature kingdom, although not necessarily always intentionally" > having trouble parsing this but I see it's explained in the next sentence. Suggest combining the two into something like this: "The Plantagenets transformed England from a realm ruled from abroad, into one of a deeply engaged and mature kingdom, although not necessarily always intentionally,[2] as Winston Churchill, articulated in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples; "[w]hen the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns".[3] "
  • "transformed under the Plantagenet" > Plantagenet or Plantagenets?
  • "The king changed from being the most powerful man in the country with the prerogative of judgement, feudal tribute and warfare into a polity where the king's duties to his realm, in addition to the realm's duties to the king, were defined, underpinned by a sophisticated justice system." > another hard to parse sentence. Maybe try something like this: "The king's role changed from being the most powerful man in the country with the prerogative of judgement, feudal tribute and warfare into a polity where the king's duties to his realm, in addition to and the realm's duties to the king, were defined, underpinned by a sophisticated justice system." Not crazy about that though - there's too much going on in this sentence imo.
  • "Destitute soldiery returned from France had turned to crime to survive, while feudalism declined into bastard feudalism, where the nobility acquired private armies used to pursue personal feuds and defy the Plantagenet government." > Another long hard to parse sentence, maybe try: "Destitute soldiers returning from France had turned to crime to survive, while feudalism declined into bastard feudalism, where as the nobility acquired private armies used to pursue for personal feuds and to defy the Plantagenet government."

It looks like a lot of work has gone into this and it's an important article, and so worth getting through the polishing stage which can sometimes feel excruciation and endless. I hadn't read the previous comments before I started to read and make comments, but I have now, and I'd suggest maybe submitting this to the GOCE for a copyedit (in other words, agree with Nikkimaria.) In the meantime, I'll disregard the prose and read with an eye on presentation, comprehensiveness, organization, sourcing, etc. Victoria (tk) 17:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angevin origins
  • I'm a little lost here, but realize it's difficult to present. I have a few questions:
  • How did they become counts of Anjou?
  • Do we know the name of the sister of the last male count of Ingelger? Is she responsible for carrying the line to Anjou?
  • How does Fulk come into it?
  • Name of the prince who died in the White ship? Do we have articles about these events? If so, then links would be helpful.
  • Who was the rival claimant to Henry's throne?
  • Empress Matilda deserves a link.
  • The mention of Melusine and the demonic origin seems oddly placed - but I have read that the Angevins weren't terribly nice, so might be worth some development. Also explain why in the chronicles they were seen as such and the reason for the joking.
  • Big jump from Matilda to Richard III > maybe mention that dates so the reader doesn't have to link out.
Angevin arrival in England
  • Matilda named heir > wasn't that after sinking of the White ship and because Henry didn't have any other legitimate sons (lots of illegitimate sons, though)?
  • Clarify whether Matilda and Geoffrey were married yet - again dates are helpful.
  • Prose (though I said I'd ignore it!): "Henry saw an opportunity to re-establish what he saw as his rights over the Church in England by reasserting the privileges held by Henry I when Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, died, by appointing his friend, Thomas Becket to the post." Remind the reader which Henry, repetition of "saw", lots going on in this sentence!
  • Also, when did Becket become archbishop? The previous sentence has Henry becoming Stephen's heir, but surely some time (and many events) transpired until the Becket affair?
  • "When Henry II attempted to give his land-less youngest son" > explain why John was called Lackland and that he was Henry's fourth (?) son. Date for this, because the para ends in 1189, but I though this situation dragged on for a while.
  • And what about Eleanor? When did Henry imprison her and why?
  • Louis VII > explain he was Louis VII of France. Also, isn't this the same Louis formerly married to Eleanor?
  • Why didn't Henry II want a sole heir?
  • William the Lion > I had to link out. Mention that he's of Scotland.
General comment
  • I've read through a few more sections fairly closely and skimmed the entire article to the end and I think it needs some sort of restructuring. I have to agree with this comment from the FA. My suggestion might be to focus more on the personalities of the members of the House of Plantagenet and less on the history - which in the Hundred Years War sections strays quite a bit. I see potential here for a focused article about the House of Plantagenet, but think it needs trimming in parts and build up in other parts. The comments above should give some sense of how to build up the house members more and carry that throughout to the end. I hope this is helpful. Victoria (tk) 19:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Piorus:
  • the lead may be on a long side. I'd recommend copying all the cited content to the body; leads look best without any cites, and they should summarize the body of the article anyway.

Looks good otherwise, I am sure it's a GA material. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties is a WP:GA article about freedom of speech and censorship related to use of the word "fuck" in society.

This peer review comes after a recent successful quality improvement project which brought the article Fuck (film) to WP:FA.

I'd appreciate any help to further along the quality improvement process for this related article.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:Imzadi1979, User talk:Piotrus, User talk:Red Phoenix, User talk:Rejectwater, User talk:John, User talk:Indopug, User talk:Quadell, User talk:GermanJoe, User talk:Jimfbleak, User talk:Wehwalt, User talk:Gen. Quon, User talk:Taylor Trescott, User talk:Lugnuts, User talk:Diannaa, User talk:Baffle gab1978, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Talk:Fuck, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech, User talk:Cirt.
Note: Above users' talk pages notified, as these individuals had participated in previous levels of quality improvement and/or review at this article and/or Fuck (film), an article on a related topic. — Cirt (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Update: Notified Newyorkbrad due to interests in topics of law and legal history. — Cirt (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comments by Piotrus[edit]

Nice job. The only comment I'd have is that see also is a bit long, suggesting there's scope to integrate few concepts into the text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Piotrus, I'll look into that and note back here afterwards. — Cirt (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gone ahead and trimmed a few from the See also sect. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Good job.
Lede
  • "After initial difficulty with publication including a rejection by the Kansas Law Review 25 minutes after submission," I would cast this more actively, "Fairman had trouble finding a publisher for the article; it was rejected by the …" or similar.
  • The various dates of publication of book, article, and paper (for so you tell us) make for some confusion. Can you look over this passage and see if it can be improved?
  • "The book was positively reviewed by Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, which concluded, "Highly recommended. All readership levels."[1] " None of this is making the reader sit up and take notice. Suggest delete this sentence (also possibly the Horn Book Review, as a bit obscure).
  • "Employed as a professor at" It strikes me that the first two words could be deleted without any loss of meaning. I gather he's a lawyer. This should probably be specified, and perhaps where he went to law school. It helps establish his professional qualifications.
  • "His supervisors at Ohio State University" I would delete or shorten "at Ohio State University". It's understood. Also, the reader's attention should be drawn to the connection between this sentence and the one preceding, with some such word or phrase as "Nevertheless"
  • Why is it considered a 2006 article? Aren't articles conventionally dated by their publication?
  • "finally published". I'm not sure the "finally" is justified. After all, an article written one year might have to be published the next just due to the turn of the calendar. And even if that's not the reason, a year is not that long (cue the starving authors thrusting their bedraggled manuscripts)
Content etc.
  • A couple of choice examples of chapter titles would be good, I think.
    fuck have connotations separate from its meaning of" perhaps "distinct" for "separate". Be nice if you could toss in some form of the word "denotation" near "meaning".
  • "court decisions related to its use have contradicted each other" this can be more succinctly stated, especially the part about "related to its use" which should be understood.
Publication etc.
  • You state in the lede that the book is an expansion of the article. You don't seem to state this anywhere in the body.
  • If the article was published online, wouldn't that make it more difficult to publish in a law school review as it is no longer "original"? I don't think you're being fair to the reader at the end of "Background", if there are plausible alternative grounds for not publishing. You are clearly implying that they did not publish because of the title or subject matter. If you are presenting events in 2006 and 2007 as "Background", you can't leave out a material fact (publication on the network) that happened before a material fact you do present (the rejection by law reviews").
Reception
  • "of his prior article of the same title." We know all about the article. Shorten to "of the article"
  • "censorship of the word and advocated continued use of the term" I think you need to specify what word. Also, instead of "the term", I would say "it".
  • "and warned that curbing" One "and" too many.
  • "Impact" The "impact" seems to be that the author has done pretty well out of it. That's good for him, but it affects no one else, so where's the impact?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thanks very much, will respond to above soon. — Cirt (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comments by Wehwalt
  1. Done. Used proposed wording.
  2. Done. Reworked this passage
  3. Comment: Per WP:LEAD, we should retain this info in order for the lede sect to function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
  4. Done. Added more info as requested.
  5. Done. Shortened wording as suggested and modified to include "nevertheless".
  6. Done. Fixed wording about year of article.
  7. Done. Removed word "finally" before "published".
  8. Done. Fixed wording as suggested.
  9. Done. Made this a bit more concise.
  10. Done. Modified wording in lede accordingly.
  11. Done. Merged Publication history sect into Background sect, and ordered all material in it chronologically.
  12. Done. Shortened phrasing.
  13. Done. Specified the word. Changed to "it".
  14. Done. Split into two sentences.
  15. Comment: I suppose I could merge this sect into Reception sect, and trim out the stuff about the "retard" issues that doesn't discuss "fuck" itself. Thoughts, Wehwalt, on that idea?

— Cirt (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be trimmed. It's not related, except in a backhanded sort of way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've gone ahead and trimmed the Impact sect down, and then merged the remainder into the Reception sect. Look better now, Wehwalt? — Cirt (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose. With respect to the review, I would say "simply formats for the author to repeatedly utilize the word 'fuck',". More impact. Aside from that it looks pretty good, keeping in mind I don't know the subject matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And thanks very much for your kind words about the article, Wehwalt, most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jimfbleak[edit]

Comments from Jim Prose is fine, just some thoughts:

  • social science, psychoanalysis, linguistics, lexicography and etymology—links?
  • The article is 74 pages long.[12] The word fuck is used over 560 times in the article. —combine these sections
  • Anything on sales?
  • The title virtually guarantees parochialism. Did it have any reception, sales or influence beyond the US?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments by Jimfbleak
  1. Thank you for your analysis that the prose is good.
  2. Done. Linked these terms.
  3. Done. Combined these sentences.
  4. I didn't come across any info on sales figures during my research.
  5. Unfortunately I didn't find info on that angle, though I did my best to try to find a full scope of source coverage.

Thank you, Jimfbleak, for your helpful comments in this peer review, — Cirt (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Alt text for the images would be nice
  • filling in the "Media type" and "pages" fields in the infobox is one of my pet peeves—information that will almost ineveitably change from edition to edition—and lo and behold the body mentions a Kindle version as well (and there appears to be an .epub version as well)
  • Is "Fuck", Cardozo Law Review (2007) a previous item in a series? "preceded_by" and "followed_by" are only to be used for series (such as volumes in the Harry Potter series). I'm not sure a "follow-up" counts.
  • "is a book written": might want to specify "nonfiction"
  • "on the article "Fuck" written by the author.": I'd make that "an article", and drop "written" as redundant
  • "from academics in the fields of" (in the lead, and later in the body): you could safely drop "the fields of"
  • "usage of fuck have" (lead and body): either "usages" or "has"
  • "connotations completely distinct": you could safely drop "completely"
  • "Fairman wrote his article": it's not immediately clear which article we're talking about at this point—I'd specify
  • "Fairman's paper received favorable reception from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The Horn Book Magazine. The book was positively reviewed by Publishers Weekly, Library Journal" For the lead, I don't think it's necessary to specify which publications gave it a good reception, unless there's a surprising reason for it
  • "in their office in Dallas, Texas": Since we know we're in Texas already, I'd pipe & drop the ", Texas"
  • "He focused his research into": I'm not used to this wording—is it common parlance to "focus research into" something?
  • "He earned a reputation": I might combine this with the previous sentence (", and earned ...")
  • "Fairman's research into "fuck" was motivated after learning": "research" is inanimate, so can't really be motivated. Something like: "Fairman was motivated to do reasearch on "fuck" after  ..."?
  • "who utilized the word": or just "used"?
  • "man who utilized the word in an email to a judge in 2004 and was subsequently arrested": to make it crystal clear that the arrest was due to the man's language, how about: "who was arrested for using the word in an email to a judge in 2004"?
  • "Government spending" or "Government funding"?
  • "He updated his article", "He discusses the efforts": not a fan of paragraphs that begin with a pronoun
  • "updated his article with a follow-up piece": are "update" and "follow-up" not redundant here?
  • "in paperback format by": you can safely drop "format"
  • "these acts are diametrically opposed": you could safely drop "diametrically"
  • "Writing for Library Journal, Marianne Orme": who's Marianne Orme?
  • "a higher quality than The Complete Motherfucker: A History of the Mother of all Dirty Words by Jim Dawson": when did this book come out? Before Fairman's book? At the same time?
  • "its forum on "Word Taboos" in 2010": if "Word Taboos" is the name of the forum rather than just its topic, then "on 'Word Taboos'" would be a forum on the forum—a metaforum! Drop the "on".
  • rather than {{Multicol}}, might I suggest {{div col}} and a specified column width? A hard number of columns results in a lot of white space on wide screens, and on small or vertical screens, one column likely will be pushed offscreen. A specified column width allows the browser to choose an appropriate number of columns to fit the screen.
  • "Further reading" is normally about the subject of the article, rather than the subject of the subject of the article. Since none of these books are about Fairman's book, I'd drop the entire section.

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, I will get on responding to these soon, and note back here when addressed. — Cirt (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you, Curly Turkey, I agreed with all of these suggestions and so I've implemented all of them directly into the article. Thanks again for your helpful recommendations, — Cirt (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks solid to me. I'd probably left-align the photo of Fairman, though, so it doesn't bump into the infobox. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Aligned that image left. Thanks, Curly Turkey, it looks better that way. — Cirt (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... I might play around with its placement a bit to avoid sandwiching with the infobox. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, Curly Turkey, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to work on this for FA once the amphetamine FAC closes and I finish editing this article and GA nominate it (I'll probably work on ADD for GA as well). I'd just like some input from others on potential improvements to style, citations, and scope/coverage. I plan to use the feedback from this review as, more or less, a to-do list for when I'm ready to work on the article.

Thanks, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just took a very quick glance, and think it is going to take a sustained effort to bring this article close to FA standards. Sometime since the last time I looked, some poorly sourced text calling Tourette syndrome a "rare" (not) disorder crept in, and tics were called "nervous" tics. The relationship between ADHD and TS is the subject of scores and scores of journal reviews, and is basically not covered here, and the contentious relationship isn't adequately covered in the faulty info from the NIH factsheet. There is scant coverage of the serious amount of information known about the neuropsych profile associated with ADHD, and the Treatment section is cursory at best. Prognosis also needs a lot more beef. To work this article up, someone needs to get hold of several dozen good reviews, and the article will need to depend on summary style, with multiple sub-articles. "Rare" disorder, "nervous" tics ... the NIH has long had bad information on their factsheet pages, and this has been discussed several times at WT:MED-- ditch them-- there are so many high-quality secondary reviews that sources like that shouldn't be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expect to have my work cut out for me, but have a ton of relevant reviews and meta-analyses on ADHD or stimulants for ADHD that I plan to use from work on other articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (to self) by Seppi333 on potential sources for inclusion[edit]

Please add new comments/sections above this section.

Notes

Note to self:convert month and year to date
This section is mostly just for my convenience for reference and as a pre-formatted source list. I plan to use some/all of these later (this list will expand):

  • Material on ADHD from Molecular Neuropharm[1]

Outlined references:

  • ADHD treatment in specific groups:
    • Athletes:
      • Review PMID 21228648
      • Review PMID 21892014
    • Children & Young adults:
    • Comorbid SUD:
  • Stims
  • Supplemental phospholipids: (I expect to write at most a paragraph on this)
  • Trace amine neuromodulation and ADHD

References

  1. ^ Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). "???". In Sydor A, Brown RY (eds.). Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. pp. ???. ISBN 9780071481274.
  2. ^ Reddy DS (October 2013). "Current pharmacotherapy of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder". Drugs Today. 49 (10): 647–665. doi:10.1358/dot.2013.49.10.2008996. PMID 24191257.
  3. ^ Chavez B, Sopko MA, Ehret MJ, Paulino RE, Goldberg KR, Angstadt K, Bogart GT (June 2009). "An update on central nervous system stimulant formulations in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder". Ann Pharmacother. 43 (6): 1084–1095. doi:10.1345/aph.1L523. PMID 19470858.
  4. ^ Kidd PM (September 2007). "Omega-3 DHA and EPA for cognition, behavior, and mood: clinical findings and structural-functional synergies with cell membrane phospholipids". Altern Med Rev. 12 (3): 207–227. PMID 18072818.
  5. ^ Brown CM, Austin DW (2011). "Autistic disorder and phospholipids: A review". Prostaglandins Leukot. Essent. Fatty Acids. 84 (1–2): 25–30. doi:10.1016/j.plefa.2010.09.007. PMID 20970971.
  6. ^ Manor, I; Magen, A; Keidar, D; Rosen, S; Tasker, H; Cohen, T; Richter, Y; Zaaroor-Regev, D; Manor, Y; Weizman, A (Jul 2012). "The effect of phosphatidylserine containing Omega3 fatty-acids on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in children: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial, followed by an open-label extension". European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists. 27 (5): 335–342. PMID 21807480.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ Vaisman N, Kaysar N, Zaruk-Adasha Y, Pelled D, Brichon G, Zwingelstein G, Bodennec J (May 2008). "Correlation between changes in blood fatty acid composition and visual sustained attention performance in children with inattention: effect of dietary n-3 fatty acids containing phospholipids". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 87 (5): 1170–1180. PMID 18469236.
  8. ^ Hirayama S, Terasawa K, Rabeler R, Hirayama T, Inoue T, Tatsumi Y, Purpura M, Jäger R (March 2013). "The effect of phosphatidylserine administration on memory and symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial". J Hum Nutr Diet. doi:10.1111/jhn.12090. PMID 23495677.
  9. ^ Manor I, Magen A, Keidar D, Rosen S, Tasker H, Cohen T, Richter Y, Zaaroor-Regev D, Manor Y, Weizman A (July 2012). "The effect of phosphatidylserine containing Omega3 fatty-acids on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in children: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial, followed by an open-label extension". Eur. Psychiatry. 27 (5): 335–342. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2011.05.004. PMID 21807480.
  10. ^ See the first three sources in the next section (expand the collapse tab)
Copied from Talk:Amphetamine/Archive 4#Treatment[edit]
Adhd & TAAR1

Every primary source in this paragraph could be replaced with one of the following 3 reviews:[1][2][3]

In individuals with ADHD, there is significant evidence that phenethylamine (PEA) – an endogenous amphetamine homologue with analogous dopaminergic pharmacodynamics[4][5] – metabolism is reduced compared to healthy individuals.[6][7][8] It is well documented that urinary excretion of PEA increases following administration of amphetamine and methylphenidate, and that urinary excretion of these drugs is highly correlated with urinary excretion of PEA;[9][10][11] moreover, studies on rodents show that brain PEA biosynthesis and metabolism greatly increases following amphetamine administration at therapeutic doses.[12][13] There is also evidence that pharmacological depletion of PEA blocks the stimulant effects of amphetamine, suggesting that endogenous PEA plays an important role in mediating the effects of amphetamines.[14][15] (Note to self: Update the text of the struck-out clauses to current evidence on humans from these reviews)

References

  1. ^ Berry, MD (Jan 2007). "The potential of trace amines and their receptors for treating neurological and psychiatric diseases". Reviews on recent clinical trials. 2 (1): 3–19. PMID 18473983. changes in trace amines, in particular PE [phenethylamine], have been identified as a possible factor for the onset of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [5, 27, 43, 78].
  2. ^ Grandy, DK (Dec 2007). "Trace amine-associated receptor 1-Family archetype or iconoclast?". Pharmacology & therapeutics. 116 (3): 355–390. PMID 17888514.
  3. ^ Miller, GM (Jan 2011). "The emerging role of trace amine-associated receptor 1 in the functional regulation of monoamine transporters and dopaminergic activity". Journal of neurochemistry. 116 (2): 164–176. PMID 21073468. TAARs as potential drug targets for the treatment of psychiatric disorders The dysregulation of TA levels has been linked to several diseases, which highlights the corresponding members of the TAAR family as potential targets for drug development. In this article, we focus on the relevance of TAs and their receptors to nervous system-related disorders, namely schizophrenia and depression; however, TAs have also been linked to other diseases such as migraine, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, substance abuse and eating disorders [7,8,36]. ... b-PEA has been referred to as the body's 'endogenous amphetamine' [39] ... More direct evidence has been obtained recently for a role of trace amines in ADHD. Urinary PE levels have been reported to be decreased in ADHD patients in comparison to both controls and patients with autism [103-105]. Evidence for a decrease in PE levels in the brain of ADHD patients has also recently been reported [4]. In addition, decreases in the urine and plasma levels of the PE metabolite phenylacetic acid and the precursors phenylalanine and tyrosine have been reported along with decreases in plasma tyramine [103].
  4. ^ Nielsen, JA (7 Nov 1983). "Differential effects of d-amphetamine, beta-phenylethylamine, cocaine and methylphenidate on the rate of dopamine synthesis in terminals of nigrostriatal and mesolimbic neurons and on the efflux of dopamine metabolites into cerebroventricular perfusates of rats". Life sciences. 33 (19): 1899–907. doi:10.1016/0024-3205(83)90674-4. PMID 6645784. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Parker, EM (Apr 1988). "Comparative effects of amphetamine, phenylethylamine and related drugs on dopamine efflux, dopamine uptake and mazindol binding". The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics. 245 (1): 199–210. PMID 3129549. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Matsuishi, T (May 1999). "[Neurochemical and neurotransmitter studies in patients with learning disabilities]". No to hattatsu. Brain and development. 31 (3): 245–8. PMID 10355264. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Baker, GB (1 Jan 1991). "Phenylethylaminergic mechanisms in attention-deficit disorder". Biological psychiatry. 29 (1): 15–22. doi:10.1016/0006-3223(91)90207-3. PMID 2001444. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Kusaga, A (May 2002). "[Decreased beta-phenylethylamine in urine of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autistic disorder]". No to hattatsu. Brain and development. 34 (3): 243–8. PMID 12030014.
  9. ^ Kusaga, A (Sep 2002). "Increased urine phenylethylamine after methylphenidate treatment in children with ADHD". Annals of neurology. 52 (3): 372–4. doi:10.1002/ana.10302. PMID 12205654. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ Zametkin, AJ (Mar 1985). "Stimulants, urinary catecholamines, and indoleamines in hyperactivity. A comparison of methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine". Archives of general psychiatry. 42 (3): 251–5. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1985.01790260045005. PMID 2579615. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ Zametkin, AJ (Sep 1984). "Urinary phenethylamine response to d-amphetamine in 12 boys with attention deficit disorder". The American journal of psychiatry. 141 (9): 1055–8. PMID 6380319. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Karoum, F (Sep–Oct 1997). "Effects of the administration of amphetamine, either alone or in combination with reserpine or cocaine, on regional brain beta-phenylethylamine and dopamine release". American journal of therapeutics. 4 (9–10): 333–42. doi:10.1097/00045391-199709000-00009. PMID 10423628. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  13. ^ Borison, RL (Nov 1974 15). "Biosynthesis of brain 2-phenylethylamine: influence of decarboxylase inhibitors and D-amphetamine". Life sciences. 15 (10): 1837–48. doi:10.1016/0024-3205(74)90185-4. PMID 4620995. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  14. ^ Borison, RL (15 Oct 1975). "Brain 2-phenylethylamine as a major mediator for the central actions of amphetamine and methylphenidate". Life sciences. 17 (8): 1331–43. doi:10.1016/0024-3205(75)90147-2. PMID 1196013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ Hirano, M (Dec 1989). "[beta-Phenylethylamine and amphetamine: similar aspects in their behavioropharmacological and neurochemical characteristics]". Yakubutsu, seishin, kodo = Japanese journal of psychopharmacology. 9 (4): 335–48. PMID 2698018. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Uncategorized:
PMID 19739058
PMID 19476419

—Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)

Shades of Deep Purple[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded the content and improved the references, but I need language advice for the tone and grammar I used and also on the coherence of all the sections with the subject.

Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Médecins de nuit[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… 1. It was just translated from another french article of the same name. 2. A peer review would help me see the faults in the article and help improve on it. Thanks, Emekadavid (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few thoughts about the article. The translation is fine, with very few glitches:
  • "7 September", of which year?
  • "then rebroadcast later" --> "broadcast again"
  • "work at night during an emergency" --> "work by night at an emergency ward"
The article now is little more than a stub. I never watched this TV series, but besides learning that it is a medical drama and is set in Paris, very little can be taken from the article. It needs major expansions for plotlines and characters. The list of actors is fine, but which roles are they playing in the series? Doctors, nurses, patients? Producers, composer and directors are often internationally known people and there is much info about them on the French Wikipedia. Instead of simply linking their names to that Wiki, I think that it would be better to share some knowledge about them on the article, if only as a hint. Peter Kassovitz, director of the movies..., Hervé Chabalier, journalist and TV writer, etc.
Being this the English Wiki, a comparison could also be made with similar British and American medical dramas, like General Hospital or ER. Which is the tone of the show? Dramatic and action-packed or light-hearted and funny? Is it more like Scrubs or more like House?
There is a lot of work to be done, probably only by doing some research on French websites or watching the original series. Have fun! Lewismaster (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, I agree with every that Lewismaster said above. Might disagree with his wording regarding whether you work "in" or "at" an emergency ward, but other than that, all excellent points. I'd add the following suggestions:
  • This article is still a stub, you need sections on production, a series overview, any story arcs, critical reviews, etc.
  • As per the MOS on linking, I would remove all the empty page links. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking
  • I'd add a synopsis of each season
Hope this helps. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xenon monochloride[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… 1. It is a translation from a french wikipedia article. I need a proofreader to go through it. 2. Also, I need that it be reviewed for acceptability in wikipedia english articles. Thanks, Emekadavid (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing this to make it a bit less verbose. French is a bit verbose, but it makes good sense when mapped to English. However it can be shrunken somewhat by saying things in a different way. Also the style using "we" or "one" or "notice" is not appropriate here, so I have gradually been removing this language. One issue is the excessive detail discussing each measurement. In fact this is more like a review article than an encyclopedia entry. For a measurement on one of the states myself I would pick the most likely value and mention it along with the reference, rather than presenting a table of every measurement, along with a discussion about what is good. This discussion about which measurements are in or out of consideration is really original research, unless it comes from some other author. It looks here as if the writer has been the originator of the ideas in the discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dowding system[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I don't use PR much because I generally don't promote articles past DYK, and then move on. However, in this case the article seems to be historically important enough that I'd like to get it as close to perfect as we might manage.

I think that my articles are generally B-quality out of the gate content wise, with a balance of detail without being overwhelming. But at the same time, I'm perfectly aware that I forget to explain some items, get drawn off into technical minutiae, and use some rather odd phrasing. I also have a rather aggressive spell checker that sometimes replaces one word for another, things I never notice.

Slings and arrows gratefully accepted! (really? that's how you spell gratefully?!)

Thanks, Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Hi Maury, I recommend running this through MilHist's A-class review when you're done here. Here are a few copyediting comments: - Dank (push to talk)

  • "prior to": Copyeditors (BrEng, AmEng, all flavors of Eng) deprecate this phrase these days in favor of "before" (usually). I could give you my guess why that is, but it would just be a guess. In this case, substitute "before" for "prior to the opening of".
  • "Chain Home": Most readers will have to either click through or read ahead to know that you're talking about radar stations. I'd go with "the Chain Home (CH) radar stations"
  • "a single unified map": a unified map
  • "to produce a single unified map of the battlespace, and then relayed that information out to the various defensive weapons like interceptor aircraft and anti-aircraft artillery.": Tighter would be: to provide a unified map of the battlespace to interceptor aircraft and anti-aircraft artillery.
  • "The Dowding system evolved": The word "evolve" didn't start off as simply a synonym of "develop" (though it seems to be headed that way); it still properly connotes an uncontrolled or chaotic process. It's sometimes misused to give an impression that no one was pulling any strings, that a process was allowed to proceed without any interference ... but this is rarely true where militaries are involved.
  • "early radar": If you take my advice to include "radar" above, then don't link it here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent stuff Dank, just the sort of thing I was looking for! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help, I'll sit back and wait for other comments. Btw, you can do WP:GAN before A-class if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Fighter G Gundam[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to improve its sourcing and its accessibility for readers unfamiliar with its material. I worked hard on it last summer and hope to nominate it for Good Article sometime in the near future.

Thanks, Hibana (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a brief look and will try and give more comments when I am at a computer. Overall it looks like a decent article at a glance but a couple of thing caught my attention. Unless anything has changed durin my time away, Plot doesn't need references as it's taken as understood that the work itself is proof of its plot. Secondly if you are sourcing information from DVDs, it need to be clearer what you are taking the claim from - is it a interview? Commentary? Printed matter included in the packaging?
I do have a concern about the plot summary, I'm not convinced by some of the writing style/viewpoint. Have a look at some of the GA articles and see if you can get an idea for style. Essentially the talk of timelines sticks out and can go elsewhere in the article, perhaps production. Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions by DragonZero

Reading this was an eyesore. Huge blocks of paragraphs with varying ideas makes me wonder about its concision or structure. GA-wise, it looks like it has a good chance of passing. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 comments

I'm not big into this area, so I'll only make some brief comments. First, the article seems well sourced, and the structure flows well. Personally, I think there is too much information in this, but that could just be me, and my lack of knowledge or interest in the subject. The one glaring issue I have with the article is that the lead section is completely unsourced, which according to the MOS is a no-no Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. The page linkage seemed to be spot on, not too much, no links to non-existent pages. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually to paraphrase the very MOS you point to, the lead doesn't need to have citations if the statements have citations elsewhere in the article. As the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, an unsourced lead is completely acceptable as long as the statements are sourced in the main article body. I don't think this article makes any claims that need to be sourced in the lead as well as the article. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick Theological Seminary[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to propose this article at FAC in the next few months. After a comprehensive GA review by two experienced editors that whipped this article into great shape, I'd like several opinions on how the article can be improved to bring it to that next step. I am grateful for your suggestions. Many thanks, --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed few things earlier this week, I see if I can review this today. Edgepedia (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(please ignore if I'm wrong)

Lead
  • 'fall' (the season) is in the article with and without a capital letter.
  • As of the fall semester of 2012, the seminary enrolled 197 students. How about had enrolled, or The seminary enrolled 197 students in the 2012 fall semester?
Administration and organization
  • Move comma to after Protestant seminary in the United States from later?
A seminary in New Brunswick
  • Elias van Bunschooten: I remember something about not redlinking people, as an article about the wrong person with the same name could be created. I'll link the guidance in a moment See: WP:REDNOT
  • p.93–94: This should be pp.
  • 1809-1823 should have a ndash
College Avenue redevelopment
  • No ref at the end of paragraph
Degrees and programs
  • Urban Ministry or urban ministry? Looks odd.
Notable people
  • I was lost when I saw B.D.; perhaps link on first use?
References
  • 28, 50 need ndashes instead of minus signs. Not sure about the others.

That's all I have. Edgepedia (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Amended Edgepedia (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something was on my mind, so I came back to have a look. You mention the seminary is Mainline Protestant in the lead, (and I had a look at that article) but this categorisation is not mentioned in the article and therefore not referenced. Edgepedia (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now I'm out of my depth; the next word you have Reformed, which you link to Calvinism, whereas when I see this word I think of the English Reformation. Edgepedia (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, found [5], which considers the denomination 'mainline'; wonder if a better link for Reformed would be Protestant Reformation, as you mention Calvin at the end of the sentence. However, I'm sure you know better than me here. Edgepedia (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck a comment about Reform above after realising this is just one of those words that mean different things on the different sides of the Alantic. Edgepedia (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Edgepedia: - Thanks for your comments. I could see an ENGVAR issue...Anglicans like to think of themselves as Catholic and Reformed, in the States, Episcopalians typically tend to use "Protestant" more often. When you hear "Reformed" in the States it usually is in the context of Calvinism--either Dutch Refomed and less often Presbyterian, or alternatively as an adjective for separatist Baptists (there's a schism among American Baptists because of some new preachers using Calvinist theology--something that is a no-no among Southern Baptists, conservatives, and the fundamentalists.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Channel[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC. I haven't had an FA since 2009, and as I've recently returned from semi-retirement and gotten the article to GA status, I think this is a fitting next step. What do you think would come up at an FAC, as the article stands right now?

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nicereddy

  • The references which cite quotes from the game itself should include dates (release date) as well as the publisher (Nintendo). See Cave Story's references for a good example.
  • I'm not sure what the policy on this is, but I'd recommend researching and mentioning what languages the game was released in. Probably in the "Development and release" section.
    • I don't know where I'd find that, especially from a reliable source. I don't recall it being official policy or particularly common, either. Tezero (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:INTEGRITY, citing sources in the middle of sentences (which happens throughout the article) is visually unappealing. The citations which occur after semicolons or commas are fine, but I personally think they're most appealing after the ending punctuation of a sentence. Of course, this is only true of shorter sentences as longer sentences with multiple semicolons could end up with a rather large list of references at the end. I'd just use your best judgement, but definitely make sure they're after commas, semicolons, periods, exclamation marks, or question marks.
  • Under "Development and release", the following should probably be changed: "The game was first announced at Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) 2003". This is repeated verbatim from the lead section, "E3 2003" should suffice. I would also recommend combining that sentence into one of the following as it flows strangely into later sentences.
  • In "Plot" Professor Oak is referred to as "Oak" a number of times. I'd recommend replacing this with "The Professor" or similar as not to be repetitive.
  • The article assumes that readers already know about the characters in the Pokemon universe. While this is probably true, it's best to assume they don't. Providing brief descriptions of characters in the Gameplay and Plot sections (e.g. Professor Oak receives no description upon introduction to the article), would likely benefit the understand-ability of the article for the layman. I couldn't find any specific Manual of Style rules on this exact topic, unfortunately. I apologize ahead of time if I'm mistaken about the necessity of describing characters.

Hopefully this was helpful, glad to see some nice articles for less popular Nintendo games :D --Nicereddy (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been; I wasn't sure the darn thing would ever get reviewed. Tezero (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you find the prose awkward and in need of a copyedit? That's come up at numerous FACs of mine in the past, including one that never ended up passing because one copyedit still wasn't enough. I've gotten older and taken both AP English classes in high school since then, but one can never be too safe. Tezero (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely recommend a copyedit. The article's prose is fine for the most part, but there are some awkward pieces here and there. I can copyedit it a bit myself, but I'd still recommend getting a second opinion on top of my own edits. --Nicereddy (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested one. Feel free to edit it yourself too, though. Tezero (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tezero: I've made some edits, mostly in the infobox, and will continue copyediting the article over the next few days when I have time. I just wanted to ask if you had any way of finding the specific peoples involved in developing the game, e.g. designer, programmer, composer, etc? This may be something that comes up in a featured article consideration and I figured it'd be important to mention in the infobox if possible. --Nicereddy (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been poking around and haven't found it, not even from an unreliable source. Tezero (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, also: Do you think using GameFAQs for the release dates is going to be problematic? I haven't seen any other sources that include the European or Australian dates. Tezero (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GameFAQs is listed as unreliable by the project: WP:VG/S#Unreliable sources. For European release, PEGI always helped me (see). I checked PALGN, but oddly I found the PAL release on Eurogamer: [6]. I hope it helps. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll use the PEGI site. Thanks! Tezero (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Pound[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've lost perspective and it needs looking at before deciding whether to take to FAC. It's a long page, so huge thanks in advance to the person who does the review!

Thanks, Victoria (tk), SlimVirgin, Ceoil 23:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey[edit]

I may or may not come back to do a fuller review (too busy this week), but I noticed some things:

  • <troll>The article desperately needs an infobox.</troll>
  • I left during the the arb case and when I came back I promised myself to stay away from i-box discussions for at least 6 months. I'm not thick-skinned enough for it, and would like to stick to that rule. That said, I think this is an article that might eventually be worth discussing in a calm, civil, manner and I'd probably invite other editors who've not edited the article to participate. Next summer maybe? Or in a year or so? Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think MOS:ALLCAPS requires Pound's obnoxious use of ALLCAPS to be emphasized some other way (italics?)
  • I've shrunk them. Prefer to keep rather than changing quoted text and as your comment shows, they give a glimpse of the man. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of paragraphs begin with "he"—I don't think that's a very good style. Same for headings such as "Books published in his lifetime".
  • Made preliminary pass to weed these out – still needs a bit more, but thanks for mentioning. That's useful. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hdpoet.jpg—if this was published before 1923, then it's in the public domain in the US. That means it doesn't need a Fair Use Rationale, though it may not be eligible to be uploaded to Commons (as Europe doesn't have that 1923 rule). Wikipedia's servers are in the US, so only US law applies here.
  • Almost certainly pre-1923, but the Beinecke file lacks a date. The image has been removed from the article at least once, but was published as a postcard and I believe this is one of the images we did have approved by a copyright expert some years ago. I need to find those discussions, but if memory serves, in the end we decided on the FUR. I might contact the Beinecke at some point in regards to a couple of other images (the modernists are difficult in terms of images) and will keep this in mind. Thanks for mentioning. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was published (i.e. not just a personal photograph), as a postcard even, I think {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} would apply if this was published outside the US, and {{PD-US-1923}} if in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks very like a free image, especially if it is generally agreed to date to before 1923. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transatlantic review": needs to be capitalized, even if not styled that way (see MOS:TM)
  • Yes, it has an article now, so I've linked. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Controversial friendships, release": release from …?
  • "Insane asylum"? Thinking about what to put here … Victoria (tk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "Controversial friendships and release" for now. Still thinking about this. Victoria (tk) 21:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholarship": I'd assumed this meant scholarship by Pound.
  • Very useful comment – it's a new section and still finding its place. I've tweaked a little for the moment, but need to do a bit more work there I think. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical reception" now. Victoria (tk) 22:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Further reading" section is quite (gratuitously?) long, and I might separate out things like the link to Gutenberg into an "External links" section. And, I mean, seriously, Italian works on Pound? "Further reading" isn't meant to be an exhaustive list.
  • "User-friendly editions" seems like an odd way to refer to books
  • I've trimmed out the "External links" (and thanks for the reminder!). I think here, you're referring to the "Works" section? I wouldn't mind moving back to the bibliography page, keeping some "Selected works" on the bio page, but don't want to make a unilateral decisions without agreement. Awaiting opinion from SlimVirgin and Ceoil. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil trimmed out. Might take another go to trim down more. Still thinking about this. Victoria (tk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for these Curly Turkey – some good points here. Will be working through slowly. Victoria (tk) 17:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More turkey[edit]

  • I hope we can get better alt text than "photograph"
  • Sometimes the article uses "US", and sometimes "U.S."
Lead[edit]
  • "was an American expatriate": I feel like this should be "expatriate American"—otherwise it feels like "expatrite" is describing "poet"
  • "who became a major figure": why "who became" instead of "who was"?
  • "[[Chinese poetry|Chinese]] and [[Tanka (poetry)|Japanese poetry]]": "Chinese" links to "Chinese poetry", but "Japanese poetry" link to "tanka"? I think that's a bit egg-y, or at least not what one would expect (and was it limited to tanka? I have no sources in front of me, but I could have sworn that "In a Station in the Metro" was said to be inspired by haiku).
  • Normally we only include inline cites for potentially controversial material in the lead—I don't see why the note at the end of the first paragraph needs to be there, and I don't see why an article in the Guardian should be included at all, if not as a ref for soething in the body. The refs at the end of the third and fourth paragraphs should be redundant, and thus unnecessary.
  • Some are needed to cite the quotes. I'll sort out when the lead settles. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph gives us a bunch of "he"s without telling us who "he" is (yes, of course it's obvious who, but I don't think it's the best style)
  • "He moved to Italy in 1924, where throughout the 1930s and 1940s": but not the 1920s?
  • No, not really. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think that requires some clarification. Why would he remain dormant for the remainder of the decade? That's surprising, especially given how productive the Modernists were (or are perceived to have been) at the time. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, misunderstood. The sentence reads: "where throughout the 1930s and 1940s he embraced Benito Mussolini's fascism, expressed support for Adolf Hitler" > so, no, he didn't embrace facism fully yet in the 20s. The 20s was a somewhat dormant period for him; a time when he worked with Hemingway and Joyce in Paris, moved to Italy, wrote an opera, children were born and so on. But I understand what you're asking for now - we can slip in something about the 20s being a quieter decade than others. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "publications owned by Oswald Mosley": I would hope everyone knows who Hitler and Mussolini are, but can we assume the same about Mosley?
  • "steel cage that triggered a mental breakdown": did the cage trigger the meltdown, or hs being in it?
  • Fixed. Copy/paste error. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "very unsafe for children." ": the period should be outside the quote in this case
  • I haven't checked the source, but if the sentence ends with the period, then I'd place the period inside. Will check. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hemingway nevertheless wrote": I don't think it's unusual that great works are considered "unsafe for children", so I don't think the "nevertheless" is appropriate.
    • No, compare these examples:
      • Notable crank Curly Turkey wrote, "Pound's use of typography in his prose often makes him look like a 16-year-old stoner on Usenet who has just discovered the caps lock key."
      • Notable crank Curly Turkey wrote that Pound's frequent use of capitalization to emphasize words in his prose "makes him look like a 16-year-old stoner on Usenet who has just discovered the caps lock key".
In the second sentence the period "logically" belongs to the encompassing sentence. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about that particular quote, but just noting here that logical punctuation requires that we use the punctuation of the source, and aesthetic that we place periods and commas inside regardless. Also, "nevertheless" refers back to "His political views ensure that his work remains controversial ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"requires that we use the punctuation of the source": only in the sense that you don't alter it (e.g. replacing the period with a comma, if the sentence were to continue—in which case, obviously, the only place you would put the comma would be outside the quotes, and thus, also, the period). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MOSLQ: "This punctuation system does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside the quotation marks all the time but rather maintaining their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which I interpret as "don't move or replace the original punctuation", which having a period outside the quotes wouldn't do. What's happening in such a sentence is that you're slicing a juicing string from the original and transplanting it into a new sentence. The final period is not a part of that slice. Look at it this way:
  • The Turkey stated, "Pound's the shit, y'know?"
  • The Turkey stated that Pound was "the shit".
In the second case, quoting the original punctuation is obviously wrong. The period punctuations the enclosing sentence. Whether the original sentence was closed at that point or not is beside the point—whether the original sentence was finished or not is completely irrelevant. It would be silly instruction creep to say that the period must be outside the quotes in this case (as it must), but if the original were The Turkey stated, "Pound's the shit." that we'd then put the period inside the quote. It's not the original sentence's termination that is being quoted, and it is not the original sentence but the containing sentence that is being punctuated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked Tony1 to weigh in. He knows this stuff fairly well. Victoria (tk) 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony1 decided not to answer the ping, and I'd posted but got caught in an edit conflict the other night that MOS:LQ also says: "When a quoted sentence fragment ends in a period, some judgment is required". So I've split the difference and pulled the punct outside of the quote marks for fragments, but invariably there will be inconsistencies imo. (And no need for my opinion re LQ here). If I know the sentence ends in a full stop because the book is sitting on my lap and I can see, I prefer to include the punct w/in the quote. Fwiw. Victoria (tk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony's got a message on his page that he doesn't normally take part in reviews that aren't at FAC. I've seen him fail to respond to similar requests before. I think he may assume people should have read his message and thus just ignores such requests. Let's just assume I'm right and everyone else is wrong and call it even. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that out - I did miss the message there. The rest works for me! Victoria (tk) 23:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll swing back by for changes to the lead later. I'm not a great lead writer. Victoria (tk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a few things to be sorted on the lead; haven't forgotten! Victoria (tk) 21:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life (1885–1908)[edit]
  • "on the Lyon in 1632": is there a link for the Lyon? If not, is it worth a redlink?
  • I'll have to try to pin this down, otherwise will remove. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tytell says "Lion" so I took guess and linked to English ship Lion (1557) but don't know much about ships and haven't a clue if this is right. The dates fit. Victoria (tk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as an assayer at the Philadelphia Mint": I think "assayer" is unfamilar enough a word to warrant a link
  • "He realized early on that": you could safely drop "on"
  • "By E. L. Pound, Wyncote, Aged 11 years": I'd drop this and mention his age in the previous sentence
  • "I resolved that at 30 ...": when is this a quote from?
  • Written in 1913 and revised 1918 - trying to track down a source I can view, and is for the moment commented out. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his M.A. in the spring of 1906. He registered as a PhD student": "M.A." with periods, but "PhD" without? (and later "BPhil")
  • "taking out an enormous tin watch and winding it with slow precision": is there some significance to this, or was he just being obnoxious?
  • Being obnoxious. Could be a candidate for the trimming shears. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or clarifying by adding something like "tried to annoy the professor by ..." That he would be so obnoxious I think would be good to include (gives us insight into his character).
  • "In the fall of 1907 he took a job as a teacher": beginning not only a paragraph, but an entire subsection with "he" is, I think, not the best style
  • "The town and college were conservative, and he was unhappy there": politically or socially conservative? Was he unhappy because of their conservatism?
  • Yes, and because it was cold, and parochial etc etc. Can spin it out a bit if unnecessary. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forced out of one house after "[t]wo stewdents found me": I'm not fond of this style{{subst:emdsh}}when read aloud, the unannounced shift from third- to first-person can be jarring
  • ", Misses Ida and Belle Hall,": the names are a trivial detail that could safely be dropped (especially in such a long article)
  • Would like to get into the sources again because most of them mention the landladies who were scandalized. It's a minor detail, but thinking about it. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would expect the sources to name them, but an encyclopaedia article is meant to be comprehensive, not exhaustive. The names are trivial in the context. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more later ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London (1908–20)[edit]
  • "in his pocket, but during the next few months earned money as a guide to American tourists": I'd drop the "but", as nothing's really being contrasted here.
  • I didn't write it, but doesn't the "but" function as a coordinating conjunction? Without it, there'd be a run-on. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He sent poems to Harper's Magazine and began writing fiction that he hoped he could sell, and by the summer was in Venice, living over a bakery near the San Vio bridge.": I'd cut this in two.
  • "the 72-page A Lume Spento": is the page count somehow significant?
  • "which sold 100 copies at six cents each": do we know if 100 copies was the print run?
  • It's describes as a 72 page book in green wrappers. Yes, he had a 100 copies printed but the first 20 were trimmed out incorrectly by the printer and he sent them to his family, I believe. It's quite a rare book. I can swap out the source if needed. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If twenty of the hundred copies were given away, then obviously a hundred copies were not sold at six cents, were they? And I can't help feeling that the "72 pages" thing is trivial—it draws attention to itself, and makes the reader want to think there is some significance to the number. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the excommunicate Manfred's death": should that be "excommunicated"?
  • According to my dictionary if an adjective should be "excommunicate" Victoria (tk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might do. Not been changed since 2010, but one never knows. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Philadelphia artist William Brooke Smith": worth a redlink?
  • Yes, probably. Will check for sources because would want to turn it blue. Victoria (tk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • sent Yeats a copy of ''A Lume Spento'',<!-- when? -->: do we know when?
  • No, refs got messed up in that section. Will get it sorted. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As soon as it was published. Sorted now. Victoria (tk) 20:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had made a particular kind of Victorian verse – stirring, pompous, and propagandistic – popular with the public": did they make it popular, or did they make such a kind of poetry that was popular?
  • "The house (see right) sat across": drop the "see right"—someone who moves, removes, or replaces the image quite likely will not think of checking the text for such instructions
  • "and by October 1908 he had caught": "he" is Pound, I presume, but could be parsed as the bookseller or Yeats
  • I removed Yeats. I think two instances of Pound in a single sentence is too many, but will try to swing through to re-cast. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " on "The Development of Literature in Southern Europe" ": This is a title, I presume? or was he lecturing on a work called "The Development of Literature in Southern Europe"? Most likely the former, so I guess "on" should be replaced with "called" or something
  • Title of the class but later became an a book. Will work on this. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decided to follow your suggestion. Might add a bit more to it to spin it out. Victoria (tk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had published his essay in Book News Monthly": his own, or Pound's?
  • "Around the same time he moved": Pound, or Chester?
  • I've tried to get to this NYT article but it wants a subscription. Sorry. We can trim, if you think necessary. Victoria (tk) 21:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found more elsewhere and spun out the section a bit. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "examining Japanese nishiki-e inscribed with traditional Japanese waka verse, a 10th-century genre of poetry": waka has its origins in the 10th century, but doesn't belong to that century—after all, nishiki-e didn't appear until the mid-18th century. Also, Pound didn't actually have much knowledge of Japanese, did he? You might want to make that clear, as the reader may be left wondering if he was reading the poetry on these prints.
  • I probably added this when I wrote Murasaki Shikibu and was going through a waka stage. Will rework. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Broadened the link for now, but would like to watch this lecture to see whether Arrowsmith specifies. If so, I'll narrow down again. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Ukiyo-e per the source (Arrowsmith). Victoria (tk) 22:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, "ukiyo-e" vs "nishiki-e" is a quibble—most Western collectors were interested in the nishiki-e, and I don't see any evidence of Pound being the hardcore sort of collector who would've been interested in the less colourful examples. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrowsmith made an exhaustive search of the records there and has documented the prints they looked at. I've tried to find on the British museum website the one that he speculates may have been the inspiration for the "Metro" but it's not included in their digital images. In his lecture he's fairly clear that it's "ukiyo-e", and the less salacious, if that's what you're suggesting, as the shunga were kept locked up. Though one never knows. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yikes! I think you've read an awful lot more into the word "colourful" than I meant—nishiki-e were the full-colour ukiyo-e prints that became popular after the 1760s. There was a century of ukiyo-e before then, but they tended to be monochromatic, or made use of an extrmely limited palette (usually only one or two extra colours, if any). It was the nishiki-e that caught the eyes of Western collectors—Sharaku, Hokusai, Utamaro, Hiroshige. All I was saying was that "ukiyo-e" was correct, but so was "nishiki-e" (since nishiki-e are ukiyo-e).
      Can you share the details of the print you're looking for? Maybe I can help track it down. After all, they're prints, so they often appear in multiple collections (so it's not necessarily limited to the British Museum). Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks for the suggestion. I found it on g-images, [7]. The curator Laurence Binyon described it as an apparation, apparently. It's not one we have on Commons. Victoria (tk) 21:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has to be a crop—any print will have a prominent seal of the artist. Let me see if I can find a better image. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • How did you search for that image, by the way? If it was based on a description, here's a similar Harunobu. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrowsmith showed it in his lecture and I looked on Commons, then at the British Museum, and then simply searched g-images on Harunobo's name b/c I knew I'd recognize it. Thing is though, I'm not sure whether it's worth spending too much time on b/c it's speculation on Arrowsmith's part. Aldington did mention specific prints in letters and those have been matched to poems, but Arrowsmith says Pound was much "cagier" in that regard. I tried again to find it and can't find that particular link, but here's one from the Met, [8]. Victoria (tk) 23:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it's not a crop, but I find that hard to believe. Is there a hidden signature? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never mind, it looks like this print indeed has no signature on it. I can't find an explanation for it, but it looks like some prints went unsigned. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry I'm going on about it. I've been working on the ukiyo-e article, and have been uploading a lot of images. I was surprised such a prominent image wasn't on Commons, so I wanted to find a high-quality one to upload. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I used to have ukiyo-e on watch and was stunned when I looked at it - very nice job. It is a nice image and if you upload I would use in the "Metro" page. Victoria (tk) 23:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pound understood that to change the structure of your language is to change the way you think and see the world.": the use of "you" here may be too informal for an encyclopaedia. Also, "understood" implies this is a known fact, rather than a belief
  • "Pound, Aldington, and Doolittle": serial comma, whereas up until here teh nonserial comma was being used
  • Noted - haven't fixed b/c there will be others with the number of contributors working the page. Would like to get them all in one go. Victoria (tk) 21:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ideas about language that became the Imagism movement": was Imagism "ideas about language"?
  • Yes, I believe it's correct to say it was at that period, but maybe SV or Ceoil can chime in here. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be "true", but it will certainly leave a lot of readers' heads scratching as to what it means for a movement to be "ideas about language". In other words, the sentence isn't reader-friendly. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've spun this out a bit. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Superfluous words, particularly adjectives, were to be avoided, as were expressions like "dim lands of peace", which he believed mixed the abstract and concrete and so dulled the image.": "he" at the beginning of a paragraph without letting us know who "he" is
  • Fixed the pronoun - thinking about the rest. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "I got out of a train at, I think, La Concorde, and in the jostle I saw a beautiful face, and then, turning suddenly, another and another, and then a beautiful child's face, and then another beautiful face. All that day I tried to find words for what this made me feel." ": obviously Pound, but it just attacks us suddenly in the middle of the paragraph
  • "He worked on the poem for a year, reducing it to its essence in the style of a Japanese haiku.": since he didn't follow the style of haiku in a literal way (no 5-7-5, no obvious reference to the season), it might be best to explain briefly what he did.
  • Would need a source for that. Looking. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arrowsmith lecture linked above is really quite excellent and explains well imo. The intent wasn't to copy forms but rather to meld eastern with western or vice versa. The poem is 18 syllables and I suspect probably intentionally so. If I find something to cite that, will slip it in. Unfortunately I can't view Arrowsmith's book, which I suspect would go more in-depth. Victoria (tk) 01:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The collection includes five poems T. E. Hulme, who was killed in Flanders in 1917 during the First World War to Pound's great distress.": we're jumping way ahead in time here—it seems to tie the publishing of the poems and the death together, which I doubt is the case
  • It looks like a bit got lost – will have to search. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It also includes translation of the 8th-century Old English poem The Seafarer, although these are not a literal translation, but personal interpretations and a consist of a poem in its own right.": uncited, and ... is it multiple translations of one poem? Anyways, there are multiple problems with this grammar of this sentence
  • No, rather than strict translations he essentially re-wrote. The translations need work. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It upset scholars, as did his other translations": same issue with "his"
  • "was a rehearsal for the response to Homage to Sextus Propertius in 1919": this seems unnecessarily tantalizing
  • Slight tweak, but probably another candidate for the trimming shears. Victoria (tk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to Pound after reading his work": I assume Pound's rather than Fenollosa's?
  • I can't find this anymore - think it got fixed. Victoria (tk)
  • "Alexander writes that": who? Why do we care?
  • I hesitate (greatly) to put "Pound critic" or "literary critic" in front of all the critics because it becomes redundant. SV or Ceoil? Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I totally sympathize, but at the same time, this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has a reputation of quoting "reliable sources" with opinions from random people. How much confidence should the reader have that this isn't the quote of some pop star who happened to have read "In a Station in the Metro" in university, and made some pithy comment in passing in an interview in Rolling Stone? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael J. Alexander is linked two sentences up so we know he's not a random person we brought in off the street. That said, since this is a collaborative effort between three editors, we can change throughout if all agree. The sources are fairly exhaustive and quite reliable. If not, and if reliability is something I don't seem to understand, then I've been doing the wrong thing for too long and it's time for me to hang up my Wikipedia hat. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're misreading what I've said. The vast majority of readers will not know who Victoria is, or even that she has made any sort of contribution to this article. Further, there are plenty of very notable people with their own articles who talk about things far outside their field—I remember Johnny Rotten going on in his autobiography about how great Shakespeare was. Not an approriate source to quote, but very Wikipedia to see such a person quoted. More importantly, though, I think it's important to let the reader know why we are quoting a particular person, especially if they are not well known outside their field, and telling us who they are, I think, is a sufficient and appropriate way to do it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we're all editing at the same time we can discuss how to deal with this. Or Ceoil and SlimVirgin can chime in here. Btw - small request, I'd prefer if in your post above you change the name to match my username or simply to "Victoria". I didn't want to take the liberty to change it myself. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victoria, thanks for the ping. I can't see a problem with attributing the view to Alexander. His name is linked at the top of the same paragraph, unless I've misunderstood what's being discussed. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks SlimVirgin - I missed your post but I'm glad you posted. I realize I'm the one who must have misunderstood. I assumed it was Alexander's credentials that were being asked for, i.,e "Pound scholar Alexander". I hadn't realized it was as simple as whether or not to attribute. That's a simpler issue. CT, am I right about that? We're supposed to get snow again tomorrow so am hoping to address the issues not yet done. Victoria (tk) 02:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you were right the first time (credentials). We shouldn't assume readers will know who these people are, as little aesthetically pleasing as it may be. There's no attribution issue—it clearly states "Alexander writes". If Alexander is mentioned earlier, then it would be best to qualify him there. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not aesthetics but because on recent FACs the feedback has been to remove. That's why I'd like input from the others. But it's an easy fix. I'll be adding others (scholars) tomorrow, so I think it's best to do in a single edit from top to bottom. Victoria (tk) 03:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have sprinkled credentials throughout. May have missed some, but will pick them up on subsequent passes. Victoria (tk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entirely mistaken but fruitful idea that each character represented an image rather than a phonetic and meaningless transcription": with this wording, it seems as if the mistake were that the characters were actually "phonetic and meaningless". The error is that each character is pictographic—the truth that a minority of the characters have pictographic origin, but most don't, and of those that do, the "picture" has often evolved away from its origin to such a degree that it has become entirely obscure. Some characters have phonetic "hints", but never in any obvious, systematic, or very helpful way.
  • I've removed "meaningless" but want to get back into the sources for this so as to get it right. Victoria (tk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through a number of sources and have made a small tweak to the wording. Victoria (tk) 23:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pound's concession to marry in church helped": "helped convince them"?
  • "He began to call Imagisme "Amygism" ": why? What does this mean?

Taking a break here. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really appreciate the time you've taken to do such a good and close review, especially when I was about to bail. You've brought a number of problems to light that will take a bit of time to sort through. I've made comments throughout, more as reminders to myself to check sourcing. Others I've fixed but haven't yet noted, and others still, I'm thinking about or need more input about. Thanks again! Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley

Putting down a marker that I'll gladly review the article during the weekend. As it's a whopper I may need several nibbles at it. Back soonest. TTFN. Tim riley (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid another whopper! Thanks so much Tim, can't tell you how I appreciate people taking time to review. Victoria (tk) 00:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As always, my first pass is for typos only. I've amended a few, and Americanized a few British spellings in the main text (I hope I am right in assuming AmEnglish is correct for this subject). Will be back with comments on the prose shortly. Tim riley (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. Yes, I think we should use Am English – I never notice the discrepancies and need another eye for that. Thanks for the typo fixes too. Victoria (tk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin[edit]

Hi, not sure what to do at the moment, in case I restore things that were removed on purpose, so I've been taking a back seat. Re: alt text, there's no need for a long description, and in fact people with sight issues have complained about long alt text, so one word is enough just to stop the screen readers from repeating the caption apparently (when I last checked; things may have changed, I don't know).

Re: the lead, I would restore the bit about him helping his friends, because that really sums him up. (Hemingway wrote of him in 1925: "He defends [his friends] when they are attacked, he gets them into magazines and out of jail. ... He writes articles about them. He introduces them to wealthy women. He gets publishers to take their books. He sits up all night with them when they claim to be dying ... he advances them hospital expenses and dissuades them from suicide.")

Also, I would simply say: "He spent months in detention in a U.S. military camp in Pisa, including 25 days in a six-by-six-foot outdoor steel cage that he said triggered a mental breakdown, "when the raft broke and the waters went over me." I wouldn't add: "He described the experience as." These are just my preferences, though. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I remember about alt text too. I made a copy/paste error on the lead and somehow muddled the two versions, but fixed now I think. I've mentioned the EH quote on the talk. Victoria (tk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've just noticed that I fixed everyone's dashes with my last edit! [9] I must have clicked on the script by mistake. Apologies! :) SlimVirgin (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the least of our worries. :) Victoria (tk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. My removals were basically to do with narrative flow; given that Pound was such a complex character I found quotes in the lead (Hemmingway) lacking context and confusing to the central trust of the article. Also the endless publishing details; more suited to a sub-article or list of works of some sort. If the the removals can be better woven into the text, I have no objections. I'm being bold in other words, but aint proud; its for us here to decide. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I'm inclined to trust your editorial judgement, so please dont feel you might be stepping on toes or anything. Ceoil (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I'm worried about doing anything in case Victoria is pulled in several directions so I thought we could wait until the peer review is over, then discuss any final copy-editing (if wanted). Maybe we could talk about the lead at the final polishing stage? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I accept your points on the lead you mentioned on the talk. The only thing I was caucious about was the Hemmingway quote. But anyway, onwards ;) Ceoil (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Curly Turkey is finished, which I hope not because some good points have been uncovered <hint><hint>, I'll take a step back to collect my very fragmented thoughts after immersing myself a little too much in the Pound lit. over the last week or so. Victoria (tk) 18:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I think we need to regroup and talk things through outside of PR. Victoria you did really well here responding, and the article benifted significantly. Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy closing down here and turning over to you and SV for now. I tend to work harder than I should anyway and the aftermath isn't always nice. A small break would do me some good and the two of you are the better writers for the copyedit, which I guess would the next logical step. Victoria (tk) 20:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Crisco[edit]

This is going to be over a period of several days. Hope you don't mind. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • poet - WP:EASTEREGG seems to be against this. How about Modernist poet?
  • modernist - this too.
  • as foreign editor of several American literary magazines, - not quite sure what is meant here (i.e. this is a bit ambiguous). He couldn't have been a foreign editor of an American magazine, as he was American. Would phrasing such as "editor of localized American literary magazines", perhaps?
  • Serial comma or no? I see both in the third paragraph of the lede
  • six-by-six-foot - I think, technically, we're supposed to provide a metric conversion as well (WP:METRIC)
  • Library of Congress - link the LOC?
  • remains controversial; in 1933 Time magazine called him - rather shocking jump from today to 80 years in the past (not quite "remains" controversial). Perhaps reworking would avoid this?
  • Comment: I'll take all the comments about the lead from the PR and add to the discussion on the talk page. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Florence Ridpath school from 1894. - location? (to keep it standardized)
  • Sharp-manship --> link Marksman (assuming I didn't misread that)? Doesn't seem to be a very common term on Google.
  • Pound's first trip overseas came two years later when he was 13, three-month tour of Europe with his mother and Aunt Frances, who took him to England, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. - a bit lengthy. Perhaps split?
  • I think it works with dashes. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, just jumping in here. Dashes would reduce it to: "Pound's first trip overseas came two years later when he was 13 ... who took him to England ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're right. It's not an appositive so I've reverted. Let's leave it for the moment. Victoria (tk) 22:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I resolved ... --> Emphasis in original? Also, are those single quotes supposed to be single quotes, or italics? (just checking)
  • He asked her to marry him in the summer of 1907, though her father refused permission, and wrote several poems for her between 1905 and 1907, twenty five of which he hand-bound and called Hilda's Book. - May be misinterpreted as if H.D.'s father wrote the poems. Would parentheses be justified here?
  • At Hamilton with Shephard he read Dante - feels like there should be a comma, perhaps surrounding "with Shephard"
  • "When in doubt, do without"? Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BPhil - Not B.Phil.?
  • Yes, needs to be made consistent. Something will be fixed, either B.Phil, or MA. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was actually standing outside the palace on 31 May 1906 during the attempted assassination by anarchists of King Alfonso, and left the country for fear he would be identified with them. - don't think "actually" adds much here. Would "when anarchists attempted to assassinate King Alfonso" work better than the "during" construction?
  • I'm not sure about this. If he hadn't actually been standing at the scene of on attempted assassination he might not have felt the need to flee. Thinking about this. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book News Monthly - do you think this is worth a redlink? Search gives six occurrences on the English Wikipedia
  • "The incident involved a stranded chorus girl to whom he offered tea and his bed for the night when she was caught in a snowstorm; when she was discovered the next morning by the landladies, his insistence that he had slept on the floor was met with disbelief and he was asked to leave the college." - Not an issue, but I can't say I blame the landlord for not believing him.
  • A Lume Spento - I think this may be worth a redlink. Surprised we don't have an article on it yet
  • James Knapp - I think we should note why his opinion is relevant, especially as we don't have a link. "James Knapp of the University of Pittsburgh", for instance
  • and they became close friends, although Yeats was older by 20 years. - at this point in the narrative, Pound is still not in London. I think this clause disturbs the flow (especially since you haven't said they met yet)
  • I am absolutely dismayed at the treatment of The Wind Among the Reeds and The Book of the Rhymer's Club on Wikipedia. Neither have articles either! On a more relevant note, a question: should we include "the" here for both titles?
  • He may have been inspired by a Suzuki Harunobu print he almost certainly saw in the British Library (Richard Aldington mentions the specific prints he matched to verse), and probably attempted to write haiku-like verse during this period. - do we know more about this print?
  • See long conversation above with Curly Turkey. It's newish scholarship, speculation only with Arrowsmith admitting that Pound was "cagey" about his sources. I'm not completely convinced it should be there, but having worked on Hemingway, whose word is often taken with a grain of salt about his own work, it seemed interesting to add. I think if it's tantalizing here, better to move out and expand in ""In a Station of the Metro". Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexander writes that in some circles Pound's translations made him more unpopular than the treason charge, and the reaction to The Seafarer was a rehearsal for the negative response to Homage to Sextus Propertius in 1919. - this requires contextual knowledge that the average reader may not have yet. Not sure if it's a serious problem or not.
  • Pound knew no Chinese himself, and was working from the posthumous notes of an American who had studied Chinese under a Japanese teacher. - feels redundant to the preceding paragraph
  • In the next few days I hope to rework some of the translation sections slightly based on newer scholarship to clarify. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • volume is in Alexander's view the most attractive volume of Pound's work. - volume … volume
  • which proceeded on Fenellosa's entirely mistaken but fruitful idea that each character represented an image or pictograph, based on sight rather than sound - perhaps a comma before which?
  • Check your link to Cathay; that's certainly not a poetry collection
  • No, it's not. Nice link though! Explains the title! I'll comment below about the paucity of daughter articles. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cat-piss and porcupines!! - Now there's an interjection! (no action required)
  • "I should like to think that the manuscript, with the suppressed passages, had disappeared irrecoverably; yet, on the other hand, I should wish the blue pencilling on it to be preserved as irrefutable evidence of Pound's critical genius." - is the manuscript still extant?
  • Yes, it's mentioned again toward the bottom of the article when Pound visited NY before his death to see it exhibited. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice, tantalizing the reader. Will have to get there later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He complained shortly after arriving in Paris that he had been there for three months without having managed to find a mistress. - to Dorothy?
  • Doubtful but maybe. Certainly to everyone else. This is well-known and in the all the bios and imo written as delicately as possible here. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skipping ahead, just a bit, I note that you haven't put where Dorothy was buried... next to Pound? Any reason why not, if not? (Perhaps a footnote)
  • I'll add to Dorothy's article. They were estranged and she died in England. Don't know where she was buried though. Will have to find. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very engaging read, and I've chuckled in places. Don't worry about my nit-picks... you've already hooked me. More on the morrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, helpful remarks. Regarding the redlinks - there would be many! Curly Turkey picked up on a few as well. The Wind Among the Reeds is a redirect and it's been on my to-do list for years; all of Pound's major works should have separate pages imo and I'm inclined to keep the link to Cathay as it is until that's rectified. A number of pages were created during the last round of work on this page and hopefully more will be again. That's about all I can say. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't say it's a good idea at all to keep the link to Cathay, since it's obviously not the Cathay the text is referring to. There's a Cathay (disambiguation) page that has a link to ''[[Ernest Fenollosa|Cathay]]'', a book of poems by Ezra Pound—which is a horrible idea. I think this is problematic enough to warrant an emergency stub (would it be something like [[Cathay (poetry)]] or [[Cathay (Ezra Pound)]] ...? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see how much help I can give with what's on the internet. Should at least be able to get start-class articles out of a couple of these. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, nice! I might get to Cathay at the end of the work-week, but at the moment want to keep with the main page. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very stubby Cathay (poetry collection) created. If I've named the page wrong, we can move it. I have tons to add to this, but don't want to lose the thread on the main page yet. Victoria (tk) 01:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A useful stub. I'll let you focus on the main page and try to expand the Cathay article (later, after PR is over) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or not. Anyways, we now have a start-class article on William Brooke Smith. There is a Find-A-Grave entry that is quite enticing, here, but I cannot confirm in other sources that this is our Smith. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More from Crisco

  • Mary - Is this really worth linking? I mean, the article is on Mary's husband, not Mary…
  • in March 1926 – after returning from a three-month visit to Egypt – she announced that she too was pregnant. - was it Pound's? Is there actual discussion on this, or at least Dorothy's fidelity? I think this brings up too many questions to let it just hang. Even a note that Pound recognized Omar as his son (as in the article on Omar) would help.
  • Difficult situation and the reason comprehensiveness is important (also it's spun out a bit more in Dorothy's article). The child wasn't Pound's, didn't grow up with them, but had Pound's name (and I've changed the link to reflect that). Beyond what's in this article and Dorothy's, the quote about his letter to his parents, nothing else is written about this situation. It's a reason I decided to add biographies to the scholarship section. Omar only died recently, but perhaps when Moody finishes his volume about those years, it might be explained better. Or not – because they seem to have been extremely reticent. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Mussolini in the body?
  • Rome Radio or Radio Rome?
  • Did a "find" on Radio Rome and came up empty? Anyway, should be Rome Radio. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • his father died in February 1942 – and Pound had his mother and Dorothy to look after. - did he not pay Olga's way, or…?
  • She was from a wealthy Youngstown Ohio family and earned money in her own right. If anything else, the opposite. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a letter to the U.S. attorney general - which was... who at the time? Perhaps a piped link?
  • His daughter Mary, then 19, was sent to Gais in Switzerland, - when did Mary start living with Olga again? What happened to the German peasant?
  • Pound borrowed a pair of hiking boots and a knapsack and left the city, having finally decided to tell Mary about his wife and son. - So, Mary was sent to Switzerland before Dorothy moved in? The phrasing used above this sentence doesn't quite leave that impression
  • Answer to this comment and the one above: I've recast somewhat. I don't know what happened to the family who raised Mary, but she went on the convent school and joined her mother in Venice, and stayed with Olga when she had to leave Venice. I see what you mean - seems odd that at 19 Mary didn't know that Ezra had another family, but he essentially kept two households, one with Dorothy and one with Olga, so until that point Mary hadn't been told. She might have suspected, but that's outside the sources and guesswork. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ashes of Europe Calling", in which he would recommended peace with Japan, American management of Italy, the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, and leniency toward Germany. His requests were denied and the script was forwarded to Hoover. - A 180 degree turn. Erm... is there any indication whether he was serious with this, or just trying to please the Americans?
  • Not totally - he really wanted the war to end. Anyway yes, he was serious. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • six-by-six-foot - again, metric may be necessary
  • I tried but came up with a very strange result because of the 6 x 6. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pisan Cantos - I think the link comes a bit late.
  • There were two dissenting voices, Katherine Garrison Chapin, the wife of Francis Biddle, the Attorney General who had indicted Pound for treason, and Karl Shapiro, who said that he could not vote for an antisemite because he was Jewish himself. - might need to be simplified — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last few sections

  • According to Witmeyer a modern style is evident as early as Ripostes, and modernist scholar Ira Nadel sees evidence of modernism in Pound's poetry before he began the cantos - any way to avoid having a three "modern"s in one sentence?
  • Ignoring Victorian and Edwardian strictures, grammar and structure, he created a unique form of poesy and speech, employing odd and strange words, jargon, eschewing common discourse, using rhetorical devices such as parataxis, and avoiding verbs - this may be a bit too heavy on jargon for the average reader (maybe, not sure)
  • I've trimmed out a bit, but imo these sections are necessary and, with a technician like Pound, hard to avoid to some extent. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that it's necessary. I was actually thinking of links. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • without adhering to the traditions of the form, yet, in them Pound simultaneously explores multiple themes. - the last subject was "the form", which would not be "them"
  • Dunno, form = fugue. Anyway, tweaked. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fullness of the achievement for the modernists is that they renewed interest in multiculturalism, multilingualism, and perhaps of greater importance, they treated translations not in a strict sense of the word but instead saw a translation as the creation of an original work. - Feels like it should be "The fullness of the achievement for the modernists is that they renewed interest in multiculturalism and multilingualism, and, perhaps of greater importance, they treated translations not in a strict sense of the word but instead saw a translation as the creation of an original work."
  • Allen Tate believes the poem - you've been using plural forms for most of this section. Is the singular "Poem" really appropriate?
  • This will have to made consistent throughout - thanks for noticing. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pound thought writing the cantos meant writing an epic about history and economics, and he wove his economic theories through the cantos - way to avoid repeating "cantos"?
  • Should a link to ABC of Reading make its way into the text, somewhere? I mean (working from memory), he uses the book to both espouse his ideas of poetry and music.
  • Hugh Kenner's work, who had visited - I'd rephrase this as "the work of Hugh Kenner, who had visited", as I am fairly certain that his work (the noun in the current construction) never visited anyone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we talk about Pound's sexuality? Daniel Tiffany heavily implies that Pound and Smith may have been more than friends, and there is a master's thesis titled "Ezra Pound and Henri Gaudier-Brzeska: Sexuality and Orientation" that appears (from a quick look) to suggest a very "close" relationship between the two (although I wouldn't cite that source on Wikipedia).
That being said, sources I've been looking at suggest that Gaudier-Brzeska was more of an influence on Pound than this article conveys. Worth including? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing anything about his sexuality in the biographies or literature, unlike Hemingway, where it is mentioned. I checked all the bios and Carpenter, never one to mince words, says Pound was "appalled" by some Audrey Beardsley pics Smith gave him. What Smith gave him for the first time in his life was a very avant-garde view of art - beyond that, dunno, but wouldn't want to add anything without being able to lean heavily on a source. I have streamed Gaudier-Brzeska back in - that got lost to the trimming shears! Again, though, Pound felt Gaudier-Brzeska was immensely talented and he was absolutely appalled and then devastated that a talent such as his was lost to trench warfare. It was a bloody war; many many lives lost and had an enormous effect. Gaudier-Brzeska was deeply in love with his female companion, some 15 years older, if I remember correctly, so again, would want a very strong source to lean on to add something like this. I could be wrong though and so invite others to comment. Thanks so much btw - these have been very valuable. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always a pleasure. If most mainstream scholarship does not discuss it (and, indeed, I only found the two, though that was more of a casual search than anything) then I agree Pound's sexuality does not need discussion here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article for GA in the near future. Prior I would like some constructive feedback and suggestions on how to improve it so that it doesn't raise major concerns at GAN. Thanks, MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "(in some services, notably the World War I German air force, classification as an ace required ten)": Since this doesn't apply to him, I don't think the lead is the best place for it.
  • "enemy aircraft during aerial combat. All of his 121 aerial victories ...": Up to you how to reword this, but there should be some way to get rid of the redundancy of "aircraft ... aerial ... aerial".
  • "For which he was awarded ...": sentence fragment
  • "on 16 October 1944. At the time of its presentation to Schnaufer it was Germany's highest military decoration.": on 16 October 1944, Germany's highest military decoration at the time.
  • "Nachtjagdgeschwader 4 (NJG 4—4th Night Fighter Wing)": You've just defined NJG 1 above, so no need to define NJG 4 ... go with just NJG 4 or just 4th Night Fighter Wing.
  • "A year later he was released and returned to home town and took over the family wine business.": "... his home town ...", but while I'm here, a little better would be: After his release a year later, he returned to his home town and took over the family wine business.
  • "He died of injuries sustained in a road accident on 13 July 1950 during a wine-purchasing visit to France. Schnaufer succumbed to his injuries in a hospital at Bordeaux on 15 July 1950, two days after the accident.": He sustained injuries in a road accident on 13 July 1950 during a wine-purchasing visit to France, and died in a Bordeaux hospital two days later.
  • Otherwise, the lead is fine. Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your time and comments. I addressed your comments. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stockton and Darlington Railway[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it's about the Stockton and Darlington Railway, the world's first public railway that used steam locomotives. It opened in 1825, and this has been celebrated every fifty years. I would like to get this to FA.

Thanks, Edgepedia (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

First lot of comments, to the end of Genesis section:

  • Origins
    • "Quaker Edward Pease supported it" – not clear why it is relevant that Pease was a Quaker.
      • The Quakers are quite proud of their involvement. In the Quaker Tapestry, Panel D7 "Railways" begins with the text "Quaker Enterprise and the Early Railways" and mentions Edward Pease. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That they were Quakers is mentioned in all the sources. I remember something in Kirby about this, and I'm picking a copy up from the library tomorrow, so perhaps I can answer your question by adding something to the article. Edgepedia (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've started the book — that they were Quakers was important as 1/3 of the finance came from non-local Quakers; eg the Gurneys of Norwich invested £20,000. I will hopefully have something coherent by tomorrow morning. Edgepedia (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Lord Eldon's estate and one of the Earl of Darlington's" – seems odd to call the Earl of Eldon "Lord Eldon" when the other earl has his title given in full.
  • George Stephenson
    • "a practicable line could be built" – not sure about "practicable" here. Plans and schemes can be practicable, but I don't think a line can. Perhaps "viable"?
    • "after Stephenson had failed to do so" – to do what? Design the bridge, or appoint Bonomi?
  • Early operations
    • "Nevertheless, by August 1827" – not sure why "Nevertheless".
    • "due to the safety values being left fixed down" – "valves" I imagine, but I didn't like to assume
    • "They were made compulsory" – by whom? Parliament?

More to come. Tim riley (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch
  • Railway improvements
    • "This had led to horses startled by a passing locomotive and coming off their dandy cart being run down by the following train" – I took three goes to get the meaning of this. May I suggest a comma after "horses" and another after "cart"?
    • "After buying out the coach companies" – this is a dangling participle, and would be better as "After the S&DR bought out the coach companies"
  • Great North of England Railway
    • Last line – the River Tyne needs its definite article, I think
  • Cleveland iron ore
    • "to exclude the railway from the foreshore" – this puzzles me. The foreshore is the land below mean high and mean low water, so what would a railway be doing there, when the land was covered in water every high tide?
    • ["Cockermouth, Keswick & Penrith Railway" – I pause to shed a tear here: my family's home is near Keswick, and I still pine for the railway connection to Penrith decades after it closed.]
  • Progress and amalgamation
    • Hartlepool – has a blue link here, but it's already had one earlier
    • "deciding they preferred a merger" – this is tricky, but elsewhere you refer to the company in the singular. "Deciding it preferred" would look strange, so perhaps "the directors deciding that they preferred"?

More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes here, except the 'foreshore' one, which word I think I got from the source. Will read up and see how I can expand it (once at the foreshore they could build a jetty etc...) Edgepedia (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So they could. Sorry, my brain was off the hook. Tim riley (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded with "the Upsall, Normanby & Ormesby Railway received permission for a line with access to the river, the S&DR claim of exclusive rights to the foreshore rejected". Edgepedia (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last lot
  • Anniversary celebrations
    • "Locomotion No.1 propelled by its tender and more modern locomotives" – ambiguous. I imagine it was only the tender doiing the propelling. A comma after No 1 and another after tender will make this clear.
    • "procession of locomotives was completed" – either lose the "was" or make it "which was", I think.
      • Done these two
  • Legacy
    • "The local councils wish to introduce" – this is going to get very out of date unless you or another editor will keep an eye on it. It needs a citation in any event, and if you can find one that quotes a council view you can get round the problem by saying "So and So Council stated in 2013 that…"
    • "The current phase involves…" Again, you'll need to keep this up to date, and to be honest I don't think you'll get it through FAC with so many statements that have a sell-by date. Again, "X announced in 2013 that the plan was…" will get you out of the corner. See WP:EPHEMERAL.
      • I'll come back to this
    • "An Hitachi" – "A Hitachi"?
      • I think this depends on how you pronounce it; I'm sure Hitachi have a preference, but I've have been able to find this. I've changed it.
    • "an annex of the National Railway Museum" – slightly odd word. Annex suggests something attached to an existing building, rather than an outpost.
      • I can't find in which source I saw annex; anyway changed it to "part of"
        • The National Railway Museum Shildon no longer uses the word "annex" on its website, although it has done in the past. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • My dictionary defines Annex (in this context) as "annexe or exp. US annex ... a building used as an addition to a main one nearby". As Shildon is 62 miles from York, it probably is the wrong word. Edgepedia (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "coal drops that are listed buildings" – as this is a non-defining clause it would be better as "coal drops, which are…" There are a few earlier "thats" in non-defining clauses, where "which" would be more usual, but this is the only one that seems to me to disrupt the flow of your prose.
      • done
  • Notes
    • Note 3 – careful with "refute" – it means to disprove something, not just to dispute it.
      • Thanks. Changed to challenge
    • Note 5 – The Illustrated London News should be italicised, I think. There seems to be a word missing in the last sentence, e.g. saying that the drawing…
      • Thanks, I'd lost the verb
    • Note 8 – "today": WP:EPHEMERAL again. Better to say "in 2014" or whenever your reference date is.
      • Thanks. Seeing I created the {{Inflation-year}} template, I guess I'd better use it.
    • Note 9 – Given that John Wesley is a famous name in a quite different context I think you need to give your John Wesley his surname; you could then call the earlier man just "Timothy".
      • Done
    • Note 10 – I'd lose the full stop in the book title
      • Done

That's all I have. A fine piece of research, most readably put together, with impressive images. If you take it to FAC please let me know. – Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Tim! I do enjoy finding the images for these article. Edgepedia (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And hopefully this fixes the (several) issues around the current plans for the line. Thank you again. Edgepedia (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I'm going to be away for the next week, until 24 February. Please make any comments or ask questions below or on the talk page and I look at this when I get back. Edgepedia (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I'll list on FAC by the end of the week.

A Contract with God[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is Will Eisner's first graphic novel, and the book credited with popularizing the term "graphic novel". The article has recently become a Good Article, and I hope to nominate it as a Featured Article Candidate in the near future. Please split any hairs you see fit with this article.

Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to do a full review: but here is the order I generally see well organized (and intuitive) novels articles: Lead, Background, Plot, Style/Analysis, Reception, Publication history, adaptation. This leads to a more logical connection between the various main content parts (Lead through Style/Analysis) and the contextual real world information (Reception thru adaptation), which alot of people aren't looking for, can be pushed towards the end. Sadads (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've shifted the sections around, but not quite in the way you've proposed—seen a lot of different arguments for the order of sections—some insisting that "Publication history" must come first, and the Novels MoS advises Lead => Plot => Characters => Major themes => Style => Background => Publication history => Reception => Adaptations. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earthless discography[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an experimental page of sorts. I've never seen a page like this before and took the initiative of possibly introducing it. My first such page was Scale the Summit discography. It is my belief that these albums are notable but there's not enough to go around to fill-out a complete article on any of these individual subjects.

Yes, I am aware that From the Ages looks like it could be split-off into its own article, but try to remember, as its own article it would look underdone and appear to omit details (it doesn't, but without looking into the sources or trying to scare-up more one cannot be sure of this).

My overall take on the article is that it's pretty much done. Here are a few issues I know might exist with it:

  • There's probably always some sort of improvement to be made to the lead paragraph.
  • We no doubt need a photograph of the band in the same section.
  • Sonic Prayer has received little attention in mainstream media; I have found a few, shall we say, alternative resources that I wish I could use but am unable to at this time.
  • Rhythms from a Cosmic Sky is practically done, may just need a touch-up or two.
  • Live at Roadburn has only what I would see at the moment to be an incomplete touring history following its release. I, however, cannot substantiate with sources anything that's missing. On that note, I have wanted to write in the touring history for both of the first two albums but have been unable to find anything. I absolutely would if I had anything, though.
  • From the Ages is practically complete unless something new turns up.

As I would see it, that is all that needs to be fixed... but then again that's why I'm here: Can anyone else take a look at this and help me see what's missing? Could it possibly be ready to go for GA or FL status (I'm more certain it is a list and as such the next step would be the FL)?

Thanks, LazyBastardGuy 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kumi Koda discography[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review so I can see what needs to be improved for it to become a featured list, and hopefully develop a template for other Japanese discographies to become featured lists.

Thanks for any comments! --Prosperosity (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be glad to help. To get right to the point, I think the lead paragraph is too heavy. Comparing notes with Nirvana discography (a featured article), the lead paragraph should try to succinctly summarize her successes and release history (e.g. instead of saying what charted how high on which charts, you could say, "Such-and-such album spawned singles which became successful"). Granted, between a pop singer with a long and fruitful career and a grunge band that lasted only a few albums, there's almost no comparison, but I think there's a way to trim the fat here. The lead paragraph has lots and lots about chart positions and certifications - all of which should be summarized and all of which is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. From what I gather over at Nirvana discography, the lead paragraph of an article such as this should have a basic release & label signing history with general descriptions of success, without going into the technical details. Hope this helps! Good luck! LazyBastardGuy 16:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is that? I kept the Two Million certifications bit in there since they're very rare, but got rid of the rest. Everything that's left is mostly explaining things peculiar to her discography. --Prosperosity (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there! Again, though, bits like these:

"Take Back" peaked at number 18 on the Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales chart,[1] and "Trust Your Love" in 2001 reached the top spot on the same chart.[2]

should be paraphrased. The data you're presenting in the prose is already there in the rest of the article so it's not needed here. As for the two-millions bit, I would at least move that, say, to the end of the second paragraph since chronologically-speaking it seems to work best there. LazyBastardGuy 17:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The positions aren't actually in the discography article! I figured it was a little silly to have a column for just her first two singles charting on a Billboard subchart. I've removed the positions bit and just mentioned their release now. How's that? --Prosperosity (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, silly me... I guess I'm just used to seeing those on discography articles. I'm mostly concerned with just the lead paragraph, although I do believe if the chart positions aren't mentioned in the body of the article then they should be. It's not necessary to have a whole column for them, but if they are important enough they can be noted somehow (using {{ref label}} if necessary; see Nirvana discography#Retail singles for examples). The way you mention them now implies a certain significance, which I think is sufficient. Overall, I'd say that's about all I've got to say here. Good work! LazyBastardGuy 05:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one more thing before I go: If you use the notes as I suggested, and you want to pre-empt people coming along and adding a whole unnecessary column, add a hidden note that there are not enough singles that appeared on that chart to warrant the inclusion of such a column as it would be a waste of time. Something like, "Until she has more singles that chart on it do not add a column for peak positions on the Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles chart". Although, if other singles of hers did chart on it then there may be enough of them to warrant such a column. But I'll leave that up to you. Adios, and good luck with the article! LazyBastardGuy 05:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that the chart listings aren't even in the citation given as the Hot Dance Singles Chart isn't published on the internet, so I just got rid of it anyway! Haha. Thanks for your advice! --Prosperosity (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Argonauts[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has undergone a massive revamp and expansion since mid-December. It's now comprehensive and carefully sourced; I'm particularly proud of history that's been dug up. Images have been added and formatting gone over (dates, table colours, etc.) It's actually at GA but judging the nomination page it could be another month or two before anyone takes a look at it. I was only considering GA as a brush up before FA anyhow and if that can be done through PR instead then that would be fine. Myself and User:Danlaycock are the only two people to look at it recently. The talk page is rather lonely. It does need an uninvolved editor to give it a read. There's no one section that needs copyediting more than others.

Thanks, Dontreadalone (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969's Comments
  • Lead section. Okay, because this is such a good lead section, I'm going to be very picky.
  • In the second paragraph, you might want to say that they hold "the record for" the best winning percentage. Also, if they have the longest current winning streak, yet the most recent result is from 2012, that doesn't seem to jive. Either they won in 2013, or the streak ended. Okay, I just got down to championship table and understand what you mean. You need to re-word this somehow to show that the winning streak refers to the last 5 times they made the final.
  • In the third paragraph, it should read "...team was the property..."
  • Done.
  • Name and colours
  • I'd re-use the citation used in the lead section for the first sentence.
  • And that's it for this section. Nice job.
  • Done.
  • 1873-1907 - on the whole, very tight, well done section
  • The game at the time was a modified version English rugby ---> need "of English rugby"
  • Need to remove the link to the non-existent Glazebrook page, as per MOS guidelines: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking
  • You might want to define what a "challenge match" is, for those not familiar with the term.
  • First organized league, ORFU? 1883? Do you mean the first organized Rugby league? CFL? There were American Baseball leagues earlier than this. And there was a football league in the US in the late 1870s (Intercollegiate Football Association). Also, a citation would be nice.
  • In discussing the Dominion Championship, you say "pitting the Ontario and Quebec victors"... Where Ontario and Quebec some type of divisions, and the teams which won those divisions played against each other, or were they teams, in which case it should read something like, the top two teams, Ontario and Quebec (sorry, but my lack of knowledge about this subject might be in play here).
  • You might want to give a brief description of the Burnside rules
  • Done. Please let me know if the new sentence on Ont/Que is clearer.
  • Yes, it is much clearer now about the divisions. Also, now that you've explained the Burnside rules, you could throw in a citation if you have one handy, if not, not a big deal.
  • 1907–1952
  • Okay, the first sentence goes back to the ORFU. Is it the ORFU, or the CRU? This is very unclear.
  • In the fourth paragraph, it should read "their" last until 1933, unless you are saying there were NO championship games played between those years.
In keeping the chronology straight, I would move the sentence about Lew Hayman to before the sentence about the 37-38 back to back cups.
  • Actually the beginning of this mentions both the ORFU and the IRFU. I have added a sentence saying the latter continued under the auspices of the CRU. Is that better?
Yes, much.
  • 1952–1989
  • Second paragraph, you might want to mention the reason for American players only lasting a game or two.
  • Third paragraph, remove the bad page link to Harry Abofs.
  • Fourth paragraph, footnote 41 doesn't seem to be in the right place. Also the use of the term "splashy" might be considered a peacock word. the Toronto Blue Jays were an expansion baseball team (not a baseball team expansion).
  • Not sure what you mean about ref 41. Did the rest, except left the Abofs redlink.
the footnote didn't break with the end of the sentence earlier. Seems fixed now. But you still need to fix the wording about the Toronto Blue Jays.
  • 1989–present. Nice section. No notes.
  • Championship Summary.
  • In the second paragraph, the first sentence doesn't seem to make sense, if they are in the Grey Cup era, how can they precede it?
  • Done.
  • Stadiums. No notes.
  • Ownership.
  • Bad page links to Rogers and Hodgeson need to be removed.
  • Third paragraph, the wording "quickly tired" needs to be changed to more neutral phrasing. Also, do you really mean $11 annually by 1984? You need a citation for the 1987 transition comment.
  • Fourth paragraph, money-losing needs to be hyphenated.
  • Senior Executives section is fine.
  • Done. Yes, $11 million annually for the entire league.
  • But it doesn't read $11 million. It reads $11.
  • Roster - you might want to explain why Inman left (or was released - injuries, contract impasse?)
  • The article currently states "there are rumours he may try his hand in the NFL." Is that not sufficient?"
  • I mean, as I said, I was being picky, since the article was in such good shape. Leaving it the way it is, it is unclear whether he left on his own to pursue an NFL career, or he was let go (for some unknown reason), and then decided to pursue an NFL career.
  • Roster table - remove all bad page links, same with front office table.
  • Rivalries
  • the last sentence should read: "The two teams meet..."
  • the sentence regarding the Eskimos "did become a rival at least" doesn't seem to make sense.
  • Done.
  • Notable Personnel and Hall of fame sections are fine.

Overall, I enjoyed reading the article, and not having any knowledge of the subject, did not get lost. So, nice job. I have two overall notes regarding the sections. First, I would rename the sections, so there is no overlap: e.g. 1907-1952, followed by 1953-1989. Second, I would explain the reasons why you break down the history into the sections as you do, right now it seems arbitrary. For example is it based on coaches? Venues? Ownership? Leagues? Anyway, that's my two cents. Hope it helps. Onel5969 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have eliminated the overlap in the years but I'm not sure how to address the rest. Each section already begins by mentioning an important event: 1907 is the move to IRFU; 1953 is the beginning of the championship drought; 1989 is the move to the Skydome. Granted these aren't the only landmarks I could have chosen but it's not arbitrary. Dontreadalone (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Onel! I'll try to get to your comments over the weekend. Dontreadalone (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that jumps out at me though: "Need to remove the link to the non-existent Glazebrook page, as per MOS guidelines." Are you telling me that red links are now deprecated in articles? I find that really shocking. These aren't "bad" links; the target just hasn't been filled in yet. Dontreadalone (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not telling you that. That's why I included the MOS page regarding linking. If a page doesn't exist, there should be no link to it. If a page is eventually created, there's no guarantee that the author will name it what you called it. And hopefully, if they create it, they'll link it to your page. But yes, red links, according to MOS, should not exist. Onel5969 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the MOS say that? The MOS page you linked to says: "Do not be afraid to create links to potential articles that do not yet exist". And WP:REDLINK says "Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia." Perhaps some of the red links in this article are terms that aren't notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry, but there is no policy or guideline which says that red links shouldn't exist. TDL (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, it doesn't say they shouldn't exist, but if you delve deeper into the MOS, it says: "A red link.. signifies a link to a page that does not exist in Wikipedia. It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow. Red links are frequently present in lists and sometimes in disambiguation pages or templates. Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles."
So, my interpretation of that is, if you're not going to create the page which the link points to, or if the subject matter is not notable enough, don't create the link. Granted, it's a matter of interpretation, but I rarely find a red link for which a page is created within 3 months of my first notice of it. Onel5969 (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was my point above. It's a question of the notability of the target rather than just removing all the red links. So for example, Harry Abofs meets WP:NGRIDIRON and hence an article should be created for him, so that red link is appropriate. TDL (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point... but sample some FA articles. You'll see that they rarely contain red links (at least the 30 or so that I sampled had zero). I guess it might be better if you think Abofs needs a page, create it, even if it's a stub, and then put the link to it. Anyway, that's just my thought. If you're looking to get the article into FA class, I think the less issues with it (and a red link is an issue, even if it's a legitimate issue), the better. Onel5969 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I only looked at today's FA, but it has four red links and no one raised that as an issue when it was promoted. TDL (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(o/d) Ok, thanks again Onel. I have taken care of things where possible. Please clarify regarding ref 41 and do have a look over things that were confusing originally to see if they're better now.

After sleeping on it, I have decided against removing redlinks. If someone tells us point blank during an FAC that they have to go then so be it but for now they serve a purpose. For instance, the Hodgson link was filled in just a few days ago; without redlinks, editors are less likely do this. Dontreadalone (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, I was simply looking at the MOS guidelines, which clearly frown on too many redlinks in a table. I'd love to hear input from other editors about this. On the whole, looks good, I mentioned some minor things which still need correcting, but they are definitely minor. Very nice job. btw... if you have a chance, I'd love to hear your input on the article I've put in for peer review, Phoenix, Arizona.
I've taken care of the last notes, including ref on the Burnside rules, clarifying Inman, and the Blue Jays wording. So I guess we're good here. Thanks again. Dontreadalone (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

List of UK Caving fatalities[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to present it as a candidate for a featured list in the future.

Thanks, Langcliffe (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You need to move the title to "List of US caving facilities" Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the capitalisation of "Caving" rather than to the words "UK" and "fatalities", thank you. You're absolutely right, and I'll set up a REDIRECT. Langcliffe (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved the page to one with appropriate capitalisation as suggested - I hope that the Peer Review process can cope! Langcliffe (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, new to this, so for what it's worth. First, the lead paragraph has too much detail information, yet at the same time lacks other pertinent information. I'd leave the opening paragraph, and move the rest to the body of the article, under the "List" section. But then the lead section, I feel should have a discussion of the different types of deaths which are included in the totals (e.g. falls, asphyxiation, drowning, etc.); it should also note any organizations (if any) that track these type of statistics; it might also include a line or two regarding deaths prior to "the modern era". Second, if you do move those 3 paragraphs from the lead section, each might be expanded and footnoted. Especially footnoted, even if you don't move them. Third, the tables are well set up and organized. However, I would go through them and remove all the bad page links (I could be wrong about this, but if there isn't a page, it shouldn't be formatted as if it did). I definitely like the sortable tables, and very well researched, the citations among the tables are very well done. I would also remove the bad page links outside of the tables. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your considered and helpful reply. I agree with almost all your points and will action them as soon as possible. On the points with which I have some difficulty:
  1. Unfortunately, there are no organisations which track these deaths.
  2. Whilst I will move much of the lead section to the List section as you suggest, I am not so sure about the necessity for referencing the points as they simply pick out interesting snippets from the list which are fully referenced within the list.
  3. I can fully understand your point about not dabbing the locations for which there are no articles. I did it in this way as many of the locations will, in the fullness of time, have their own article but it will be difficult to maintain the list to match such changes. One could also say that the list is over-dabbed, as some caves are dabbed several times, but I did it this way as it could be difficult for the reader to find the appropriate dab for the entry he is interested in.
Thank you again. Langcliffe (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, my comments regarding citations and dabbing were only due to my understanding of the MOS guidelines on those two issues. From an aesthetic standpoint, the first time a fact is mentioned is the best place to put a citation. Then, you could reiterate that citation in the actual table for clarity. I also understand your point about dabbing, but if and when a person creates a page regarding the currently vacant subject, they might not name it what you named it in your article. I think the only way to alleviate this issue is to do a periodic review of the current events which have no individual pages. Hopefully, if other authors do write about the individual events, they will see that there is a page listing all of them, and link to it (that's what I try to do, anyway). Onel5969 (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article is a current GA, and reviewer has indicated it may have FA potential. As I am very excited about this but also still fairly new to Wiki editing, would really appreciate any and all feedback on what's still needed to ready it for FA nomination.

Thanks much, Shoebox2 talk 19:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey[edit]

TV shows are not the kind of article I normally visit, but since you asked so nicely ... feel free, of course, to disagree with any suggestions I make, some of which may just be me being opinionated.

This is amazing, thank you. I've looked over and considered (if not used) them all, will just add a few comments here and there.Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skimmed just now, will read more closely ASAP. I dislike both reading and writing sentences broken up by cites.Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • in British English, is "series" also used as the equivalent of North American "season"? If so, that's terribly confusing, and could use a note explaining it—especially since the article is using "series" to refer to the overall series as well (which is what the North American definition is limited to)
Yes, 'series' is the UK equivalent of the American 'season'; British programming doesn't follow a set seasonal model. And yes, that means in UK usage 'series' can refer to both the entire show and the individual seasons. It's fairly common international knowledge by now, esp. now that British TV has become fashionable N.American viewing, but there's no harm in adding a note. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the prose does seem wordier than it needs to be—I've pointed out a number of easy cases, but a lot of the prose could be tightened well with rephrasing
  • I'd recommend giving the Manual of Style's "Words to watch" page a good look
  • If you want intend to take this to FAC, make sure that everything is properly cited—there are a number of sentences and even entire paragraphs that aren't.
WP:CITE, quoting the verifiability policy, says that citing is required for any material that is 'challenged or likely to be challenged'. Everything currently in this article that I (and/or the GA reviewer) can imagine fitting that bill has been cited. The 'Format' section, which contains 99% of the uncited material, here is serving the same function as a plot summary in a movie article -- ie. verifiable at the source. Hence both very necessary to an understanding of the subject and, realistically, unassailable (at least, now that I've removed 'notable' from the description of recurring sketches). Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find at FAC that they'll expect citations beyond merely what's likely to be challenged. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head that generally gets through is in plot synopses. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know anything about the show, and haven't checked any of the sources, so I can't speak as to comprehensiveness and balance, but I do think this would make a good FA Canditate if the prose went through a thorough copyedit, and the refernce issues were worked out (a lot of the unreferenced stuff could be dropped without hurting the article, I think, especially the list of recurring skits)
Lead[edit]
  • There are a couple of inline cites in the lead. Normally we only do this if a claim is controversial (think of the claims you could image being the Israel or abortion articles). Is there any significant controversy over these statements?
No, and both are cited later in the article besides. Removed. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bestselling children's history franchise": puffery like "bestselling" has to go
  • "originated by Terry Deary": originated in what sense? Provided the original idea? Was the original writer?
I'd argue that 'bestselling' here is a plain statement of fact, but I don't care enough to fight it. Removed, and Deary's role clarified as suggested. Shoebox2 talk 05:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a plain statement of fact when you state, say, in the "Reception" (or whatever) section that it was a bestseller. It's another thing altogether when you're using to to qualify and define a work. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Lion TV with Citrus Television": are either of these worth a redlink?
Lion TV, sure -- I'm surprised it doesn't already have an article. Citrus I know nothing about, so am hesitant. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of thirteen half-hour episodes each": you could safely drop "each"
  • "Western European history curriculum": is there something decent to link to here?
I don't think so, unless there's an article somewhere on 'traditionally taught subjects in the US, Canada, Britain and to a certain extent continental Western Europe' history classes, which is about the most concise summary of the concept possible. Trust me, there's just no easier way to make it clearer. :) Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consciously accurate focus": unlikely it would be accurate by sheer serendipidty—I'd drop "consciously"
  • "through to the period": you could safely drop "to"
  • "immediately post-WWII": "post" would refer to the era, so this would read as "immediately during the post-WWII era". Maybe "the immediate post-WWII era"? Also, I'd spell out "World War II".
  • "A puppet black rat "host" named Rattus Rattus appears": I really don't like the way this reads ("puppet black rat "host"), but I can't immediately think of a good way to handle it ...
  • "quintessentially British comedy classics": "quintessentially" and "classic" together is overkill—I'd drop the "quintessentially". Also is Monty Python the troupe a "comedy classic"? Maybe a reword of the sentence is in order
The 'quintessentially' is actually meant to refer to the 'British' part. Leaving it as-is accordingly for now, although would be open to a better wording that gets the same idea across. Shoebox2 talk 05:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for its deliberately non-condescending approach": I'd drop the "deliberately"—again, I don't think you'd be unintentionally non-condescending (at least in any meaningful way)
  • "and been named among": not technically incorrect, but "has been" sounds better to these ears
  • "with Fry replacing the puppet rat as presenter": link Fry here
Background[edit]
  • You use "eventually" a lot; except in cases where the sense would be lost (rarely), I'd drop it
  • "Horrible Histories is based on the bestselling UK children's historical-comedy book series by Terry Deary, first published by Scholastic UK in 1993 and since expanded into a multimedia franchise." A short description of the series would be very nice.
  • "the bestselling UK children's": again, de-puff please.
  • "by Terry Deary": worth a redlink?
  • "a negative experience with the 2001 animated series": what "2001 animated series"? Could we be given the briefest background so we don't have to click through?
  • " "horrible, funny and true." ": period should be outside the quotes
  • "as well as contributing to the writing": or "contribute"?
  • "that the show would be respectful of audience expectations": you could safely drop the "would"
  • "involved framing and/or interpretive devices"; "and/or a wizard storyteller": collapse "and/or" to "or", per MOS:ANDOR
  • "Once the writing process was underway": you could safely drop "process"
  • "the producers further discovered": you could safely drop "further"
  • "A comedy style relying on parodies of familiar modern media tropes was then introduced as a means of making these historical details more easily and immediately accessible": I'd reword to "They used a style relying on parodies of familiar modern media tropes to make historical details easily and immediately accessible": I might even drop "easily and immediately"—that's kind of what "accessible" means, doesn't it?
  • "to put together a veteran creative team": if the team's new, it can't be "veteran".
  • "which would have roots almost entirely in the adult UK comedy community": or "with roots mostly in the adult UK comedy community"?
  • "They also approved the wholesale adoption": drop the "wholesale"
  • "which frequently involved the use of "gross-out"-style": drop "the use of"
  • "The whole creative team": drop "whole"
  • "was also determined from the beginning not to adapt the humour to children": drop "also" and "from the beginning"
  • "they sought simply to make the best comedy series possible": drop "simply"; "the best comedy series possible" sounds more like advertising than a statement of fact
  • "To that end, classic adult satires such as Blackadder and the Monty Python films were specifically used to set the tone for the new series": "used"? as in they recyced footage from these shows? If so, let's make that clear. Also, drop "specifically"
  • "would subsequently be cited as visible throughout the show's run by both creators and commentators": I don't like this at all. I might combine with the info in the previous sentence and rewrite entirely, simply stating that these shows were used (actual footage? I'm still not sure)
Blackadder and the MP films were shown to the writers at the first production meeting by way of setting the tone. I've clarified that and reworded the next bit to flow better from it. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "notably within the music": how so?
  • "This trend would also continue": or "This trend continued"?
  • "The net result was a show that immediately appealed to young children while also gaining the increasing respect of older viewers.": or maybe "The show appealed to young children while gaining the respect of older viewers.". I assume "respect" here is a euphemism for "viewership"? If so, let's be explicit.
Not exactly; this is children's TV, remember. Adult viewership -- which can and often does include caretakers watching a show with the kids for whatever reason -- is something distinct from according it respect. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe a rewording would clarify this, as there are children's shows out there (think 1960s Batman) that were aimed at children but gained an adult audience, and this seems (at least) to imply that sort of thing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Format[edit]
  • This section is almost entirely uncited. What makes certain sketches "Notable" if the citations haven't bothered to note them?
Fair question, 'notable' has been dropped accordingly. However, as noted, this section is the sketch-comedy equivalent of a plot summary. These sketches -- as even a casual glance at the show itself, or for that matter its episode list, will make clear -- are important to an understanding of the plot. (I know they're not GA/FAs, but the Monty Python's Flying Circus and Kids in the Hall articles, among others, use similar list concepts to get the idea across, and no-one seems to be complaining about their lack of cites.) Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 4,000,000 articles on Wikipedia, and only a few thousand have gone through the rigours of the GA or FA process. There are widely-read articles of well-known subjects that are almost entirely uncited. "nobody" has complained about them, either—there are only so many articles we busy volunteers can get to. I can guarantee you this section will attract flac if you bring it to FAC. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noted... and thanks for the wake-up call. It was rather foolish of me to try to argue from lesser to greater quality. As I still do think the list of sketches is important, will set about the process of finding cites as directed. :) Shoebox2 talk 16:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Music[edit]
  • "Original music plays a large and notable role": we can assume it's notable if it's being noted
  • "the BBC Proms' prestigious annual children's concert": "prestigious" is peacockery
  • " (with the exception of episode 5 of Series One)": this is trivial. I'd shunt it to an endnote.
[sigh] And the GA reviewer thought it was important enough to be cited. Feedback, never a dull moment. :) Seeing as it was already mostly an endnote, I've placed it there entirely for now. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is important enough to be cited (in an endnote), but it drags down the prose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode (available here"; "See here for the video clip.": we shouldn't be linking to non-free material hosted on YouTube
  • "with sketches from the same": the same what?
  • "performing in the recognisable style of a modern boyband": drop "recognisable"; also, "modern" will date rather quickly
...On the other hand, it's kind of interesting when several reviewers agree. I still like 'recognizable', but will bow to increasing peer pressure. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with which the musical elements especially are executed": drop "especially"
  • "Many of the videos have in fact earned a measure of standalone": drop "in fact" and "a measure of"
  • "... run to pay tribute to every major era it ever featured in turn.": uncited
Wording changed, which should eliminate both the hyperbole and the need for a cite. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Content and educational potential[edit]
  • "educational potential"? Maybe "value"?
Yes! Thank you, both the GA reviewer and I have been tearing our hair out trying to come up with a better way to word that header. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No formal, overarching educational method": I'd drop ", overarching"
  • "while remaining acutely aware of": I'd drop "remaining" and "acutely"
  • "saw their basic role as": I might drop "basic"
  • "a point of view that was endorsed by historical scholars": meaning a point of view these scholars themselves followed, or that they commended the show for?
The latter. Clarified accordingly. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is in fact part of an extensive": drop "in fact"
  • "an extensive British black-comedy tradition": link Black comedy
  • "However, conscious emphasis was placed": I'd drop "However, conscious"
  • "the demands of comedy with historical accuracy": is historical accuracy not normally more demanding than comedy?
Depends on who you ask, I suppose. :) More seriously, wording adjusted for clarity. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mainstream scholarly consensus on the topic": which topic?
  • "If an error was discovered": I'd used "when" rather than "if", since we're talking about something that's actually happened
  • "died on the [[Close stool|loo]]": this may be an Easter egg
  • "also meant that the show": drop "also"
  • "inevitably incorporates a certain amount": "incorprates" or "incorparated"? I'd drop "inevitably" and "certain"
  • "Perhaps most explicitly, one sketch actively champions Scots-Jamaican nurse Mary Seacole as an undeservingly forgotten heroine in the shadow of Florence Nightingale": I'd drop "actively" and "undeservedly" (is a "heroine" ever "deservedly" forgotten?)
  • "a point repeated in Seacole's later solo song": which point?
  • "by generally highlighting strong, active female historical figures": I'd drop "generally", and I'd choose different adjectives for "strong" (what, physically?) and "active" (they're still around?)
I'd argue that both the original adjectives are perfectly clear in context, but don't object to clarifying further. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the British women's suffrage movement": you probably want to link to Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom rahter than Women's suffrage
  • "the ethics of conquest and labour conditions": without the serial comma here this can be parsed as "the ethics of conquest and the ethics of labour conditions"
  • "deflect any serious controversy"; "without any ill effects": drop "any"
  • "as they had demonstrably already been": meaning within the show? This could use a rewrite to make it clear
Basically, the sensitive subjects in question had already been presented to the kiddies in the popular books, so nobody could object to them being presented again on TV. Reworded for clarity. Shoebox2 talk 05:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "needed especially careful handling to avoid a potentially negative impact": I'd drop "especially" and "potentially"
  • "The show will sometimes acknowledge": "The show will sometimes acknowledged"

I'm going to take a break here for now. No promises on when I'll be back. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, so much, for your help thus far. I've taken the great majority of your suggestions and will use them as a template for copy-editing the rest of the article. Shoebox2 talk 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Portnoy[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just want to get some eyes on it.

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Normally articles are broken into sections to make long stretches of text easier to navigate. This article is so short that the sections are unnecessary—everything could easily be put into a single paragraph (so that the "lead" is the "body"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix, Arizona[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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

I've just finished a major overhaul of the page, including editing, linkage, citations, updating and structure (per the wikiproject cities guidelines). Would appreciate feedback in any of those areas, would also like to know if folks find it deficient (and why) to be included in the Featured Article category.

Thanks, Onel5969 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to congratulate you on your good work with improving this article! I really think you should request a copyedit by the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. And after that copyedit is completed you could start with nominating it for GA-status. That is a first step. If you want me to request the copyedit at the Wikiproject please let me know at my talk page. I think you will be getting more feedback from other users as well which will be helpful. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone over the history and will try to get to the rest of the article tomorrow. There's a strange habit of breaking into present tense where it shouldn't but nothing else that's major from a copyediting perspective. Some notes to start:

I think the change in tense is due to different editors going over the article.
  • The lead could easily increase by 50% in size. Could mention economic history and present attractions, amongst other things. You should also better situate geographically by mentioning Maricopa County and the Salt River Valley.
Excellent points. I've adjusted, let me know what you think of the new lead. (although I had already mentioned it was the seat of Maricopa county)
  • "Later, Maricopa peoples fleeing enemy tribes, came from the lower Gila River near its confluence with the Colorado River, and settled alongside, as well as deer and Mexican wolves, often lived in the Salt River Valley when water supplies and temperatures allowed." I decided not to copyedit this sentence directly as I couldn't make it out—it seems to be two sentences mashed together.
Yup, I agree. I think I've corrected it.
  • Last two-thirds of Native American section is unreferenced. My only complaint about references.
Done
  • "On February 12, 1871, the territorial legislature created Maricopa County, the sixth one formed, by dividing Yavapai County." The sixth formed where? In all of Arizona?
done
  • "The Phoenix City Council levied a $5,000,000 tax for a public library after the state legislature..." That's a hell of a lot for a library in 1900. The Capital building mentioned in the previous sentence was only $130,000. Please doublecheck and source.
Yes, if you look in the last paragraph of the source, it says $5 mill. I interpreted that to mean $5 Million.
  • "In 1913 Phoenix adopted a new form of government, from mayor-council to council-manager, making it one of the first cities in the United States with this form of city government." What form of city government? The sentence doesn't make clear to me what is unique about the new arrangement.
That's why I link the pages. Not sure how detailed you'd like me to be here.
  • I really enjoyed the history in general but 1990-present is weak. The first paragraph is basically four random facts strung together. Unpack these or drop them as necessary.
I agree. I did little work, other than c/e in this section. I will get to it shortly.
  • "Phoenix has maintained a growth streak in recent years, growing by 24.2% before 2007." You need a range here: from 20xx until 2007.

Will go over the last half soon. Good job! Dontreadalone (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll actually do this in three parts as it's so big. Here's some other notes:

  • In the first paragraph of climate it states that the temperate breaks 100 degrees for 110 days of the year; a couple of sentences later it says 92 days.
fixed
  • "The population density was 2,797.8,." Per square mile?
I am unsure what you're referring to. In the section BEFORE climate, it says this is per square mile. Is there another reference in the climate section, or after, which doesn't?
  • There's a habit in the article to incorrectly use the adverb "here" when referring to the city. People "moved here," companies are "located here," etc. I think I've eliminated all instances but keep an eye out for it.
thanks
  • I don't have a problem spending extra time on the Patience sculpture in Fine arts but it's all that gets described. Could you mention one or two other things along with maybe half a sentence on the First Friday event?
will research and work on it.
  • Bluelinking is inconsistent. In the Culture section there are links to half the attractions but not to the others. In Economy all the occupations are linked but under Flora and fauna not a single species has a link. I think the whole thing should be audited for this. Dontreadalone (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the culture section, I went through every link which wasn't a "redlink". I will go through the flora section and add page links.
I want to thank you for your comments. Very helpful, and will add to the overall quality of the article.

Alright, I've done going through this. Just a couple of last points:

  • Great improvement on the lead!
  • Are "Valley of the Sun" and "Salt River Valley" synonymous? You should clarify when you first mention Salt River Valley.
No, they are not synonymous. The Valley of the Sun is part of the Salt River Valley. Added note in the lead section.
  • Audit for capitalization on stand alone uses of valley/Valley. It's sometimes upper case, but usually not. I'd say treating it as a proper noun is fine if you want upper case but it should be consistent either way.
think I've fixed this. on the whole, valley in this article should not be capitalized.
  • Referencing gets spotty at points (beginning of Crime, Post-secondary education). Obviously you'll want to give this another referencing sweep before FA.
I agree. These were two sections which I simply merged into the article as a whole from existing data. I did attempt to get crime data, but could not accomplish that through the net. Will head down to the library and bring it up to date.
  • Crime data is five years out-of-date.
see above.
  • The population density sentence missing a specification is in the fourth paragraph of demographics.
fixed.

And that's about it! Glad this has improved things. Dontreadalone (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for all your input. After I fix the crime and education sections I will submit it to FA. Couldn't have done it without you. Onel5969 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dontreadalone: Okay, I think it's done. Finished updating the Crime section, and edited the secondary education. Thanks for your eye... couldn't have done it without you. Onel5969 (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK good. Crime section is fine now. Just a reminder that 1990-present should also be worked over. One thing I didn't do was a comprehensive audit of refs. If this goes to FA and no other outside party has done that then I will try to do so myself. Dontreadalone (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dontreadalone: Thanks. I completely redid the entire history section. There was an issue I couldn't figure out in setting up a separate "History of Phoenix, Arizona" page. Every time I attempted it, it wouldn't let me create one, just kept taking me back to the history section on the Phoenix page. Got some help, and that's corrected, so I really trimmed down the History, and put the bulked out history onto the History page. Also, just added and changed a couple of photos. I'm going to ask one or two other editors to give it a go over and then submit it for FA status. Hope you don't mind if I mention you when I ask for FA review, you did a ton of work on this too. Onel5969 (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clackline Bridge[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like another set (or sets) of eyes to look over it before I nominate it for FA. Comments regarding any aspect of the FA criteria or general copyediting would be appreciated. Thanks, Evad37 [talk] 03:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. I'd streamline the lead section. While it should "stand alone as a concise overview" of the entire article, this section appears to have too much detail. It also has not a single citation, contrary to the MOS lead section guidelines. The description section is very detailed (I won't comment on if it is overly so), but it definitely needs copy edit work, especially in terms of ensuring the tenses are consistent. There is also an inconsistency in how measurements are written (e.g. sometimes it's 7.6 metres, other times it's 126.35-metre. Since the accidents in the safety sub-section play such a major role, you might want to expound upon them a bit more, and include citations. You seem to be very consistent about your use of "British English". Anyway, I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Onel5969. I'm not sure I agree with all of them, but I'll go through them point by point, and perhaps you might expand on your reasons. - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd streamline the lead section. While it should "stand alone as a concise overview" of the entire article, this section appears to have too much detail.
Really? I was wondering if it was long enough, WP:LEADLENGTH recommends two or three paragraphs for an article of it's size. Can you be more specific as to where you think it's over-detailed? - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also has not a single citation, contrary to the MOS lead section guidelines.
No, the WP:CITELEAD part of MOS:LEAD says "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." As the subject isn't complex / current / controversial, there aren't direct quotations/blp issues, and everything in the lead is later cited in the article, I don't think there is a great need for citations to be repeated in the lead. - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description section is very detailed (I won't comment on if it is overly so), but it definitely needs copy edit work, especially in terms of ensuring the tenses are consistent.
I'll get a copyeditor to go over the article before putting it up at FAC, but the tenses will differ through the descriptions section as some things no longer exist (ie the railway tracks) and have to be referred to in the past tense, while others still do exist, and therefore need to be referred to in the present tense. - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also an inconsistency in how measurements are written (e.g. sometimes it's 7.6 metres, other times it's 126.35-metre.
That depends on whether the measurement is used as an adjective (ie 'The span length is X metres' vs 'The X-metre-long span'). - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the accidents in the safety sub-section play such a major role, you might want to expound upon them a bit more, and include citations.
I'll have to see if I can find more sources/refs... it's something for me to look into. - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be very consistent about your use of "British English".
Australian English, actually (not that there's much difference ) - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few comments on this interesting article.
  • "passed between piers 16 and 17" - when was this line closed ? I can see that it's mentioned later on but here would be a good place also.
 Done - Evad37 [talk] 03:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot on the piers and alignment. While not a requirement I'd love to see a photo showing the piers or otherwise showing the bridge's structure
I'm not sure when or if I'll get a chance to go round there, but if I do, I'll be sure to snap some pictures. One of the refs had a couple of photos, but they can't be used as they're copyrighted. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They generally consisted of four rounded"..... shouldn't this be "They were constructed as" or something similar as they largely still consist of this material
 Done - Evad37 [talk] 03:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • stringers, corbels, and half caps. Corbels should be linked and I'd like to see a sentence explaining what these terms mean for those without a building/architectural background.
 Done in explanatory footnotes. The usage of corbel here doesn't match the article corbel, so I haven't linked it. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "repaired a number of times, especially around pier 13" - is there anything special mentioned about why this part of the bridge has suffered more ?
No, the source mentions that there's evidence of repair, but not why repair in that particular area was necessary. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The current bridge dimensions " - needs a year/date rather than the word current
 Done - Evad37 [talk] 03:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also the point where the road to Newcastle (now Toodyay) departed the Perth to Kalgoorlie road, adjacent to Clackline Brook, which was crossed by both road and rail" - I think the highlighted part should be part of a separate sentence.
 Done, split into two sentences - Evad37 [talk] 03:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bedlog bridge" - how is this different from a log bridge ?
That's the wording the source uses. I think its the same thing, so I've linked it. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was also involved" - in this and a few other places also does not add to the sentence and can be left out
 Done, I've taken out a number of the "also"s - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • having cost £9000.....that is so close to the original estimate it's oddly noteworthy
I don't know if that's noteworthy enough to explicitly mention in the article - the original sources don't mention it. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Peripitus (Talk) 06:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I will be replying/fixing issues on the weekend - Evad37 [talk] 15:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is taking longer than I expected, but real life has gotten busy. I'll try to do more next weekened. - Evad37 [talk] 07:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Peripitus: I have now responded to your comments above. Again, sorry about the delay. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Evad37: - Glad I could be of some help. If you need a second set of eyes on it in the future, just drop me a line. After some reading I suspect that "bedlog" means it's a log bridge where the road-bed is also logs (I assume the top was adzed flat though) rather than a log-frame bridge with a road-bed made from sawn planks. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the topic and music of this early inspired cantata by Bach was dear to the heart of the composer and is to mine. I want the article to be as good as possible. I am not sure if "arts" is the right classification, - it seemed closest of those offered.

Thanks for improvements and suggestions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Nothing much to add. The article is clear, judiciously laid out and its author's enthusiasm for the piece shines out of the page! Some very minor drafting points:

  • Lead
    • "Bach noted an unusual repeat" – I think this should be Bach "specified" or "stipulated" an unusual repeat
  • Background
    • "Bach applied successfully for the position, but declined" – If, as I suppose, this means that he changed his mind, I think it would be clearer to say something like, "Bach applied successfully for the position, but decided not to take it up."
    • Third para - "enjoyed" comes twice in quick succession.
  • Scoring and structure
    • "In the Weimar version, Bach noted after the chorale Chorus repetatur ab initio, to repeat the opening chorus" – another "noted" that I don't think is quite right. I'd rejig the sentence as something on the lines of "In the Weimar version, after the chorale Chorus repetatur ab initio, Bach called for a repeat of the opening chorus"
  • Music
    • Musicologist Julian Mincham – This is one the bees in my bonnet: in good BrEnglish one writes "The musicologist Julian Mincham". Omitting the definite article is fine in American English, but in British usage it is the province of tabloid papers. I know I'm fighting a losing battle on this, but I continue to fight nonetheless.

That's all I can find to suggest. It's a lovely article. – Tim riley (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim! I think I got it all in, please check, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Lead only, for the moment:

  • The English rendering of the title requires "O Songs" not "o songs"
    No, it doesn't, only if the English is a title itself. (It isn't. There were many discussions of this topic)
    What is the authority for your assertion? I have never seen this form before. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The latest discussion was this.
    That discussion is about translating foreign titles. My issue is one of format, not translation, namely that in English usage the vocative "O" is invariably capitalised. "O songs" would be OK, but not "o songs". Scroll through any number of hymnals, biblical texts, poetry anthologies etc, and you will find this to be the case. Brianboulton (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I understand, sorry. However, the source given does not capialise.
    For a compromise, I now use a different translation. Problem: it is more interested in the number of syllables than the exact wording.
  • The year of composition should be given in the first sentence, as well as date of first performance
    How would I do that, without a never-ending sentence? The lead for the c. 200 Bach cantatas should be similar, no? The date of performance is in the infobox (and the second sentence), composition time is never so clear for Bach, parts may have bee, composed earlier.
  • Who is "Nicolai"? Was it Philipp Nicolai? If so give full name and link. If not, give full name and a brief description
    I would give full name and link, if the hymn didn't have a link (which would lead anybody who doesn't know to the author). I heard "sea of blue" on other occasions, but am ready to discuss.
    You need the link in the lead. Most people with musical knowledge (e.g. me) think of "Nicolai" as the composer of The Merry Wives of Windsor. Forget the "sea of blue" argument; that only relates to overlinking of generally familiar terms. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I follow, reluctantly.
  • What will "festively scored" convey to the general reader?
    tried
  • "Bach noted an unusual repeat of the opening chorus after the chorale " – what does "Bach noted..." mean?
    Changed, see above,
  • "Bach performed the cantata later as Thomaskantor in Leipzig several times, in revisions sometimes in a different key and with partly different scoring, as a work that he particularly valued." This sentence is awkwardly expressed. I suggest something like: "Bach particularly valued this work. While serving as Thomaskantor (musical director) in Leipzig after 1723 he performed it several times, sometimes in a different key, and with changes in the scoring".
    The value thing is a conclusion, can't come first. It may work the other way round.
    I don't understand your reply. The present form of the sentence is not only awkward but could mislead; it sounds as if Thomaskantor is an alternative title to the work, rather than the post that Bach held. I had to struggle to understand this; a person with little musical knowledge will struggle more. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your reply, because the version you saw is not the "present" version. I took your wording, only wanted to explain why the several performances are mentioned first, the appreciation second, as concluded from the unusually many repeats we know.

Reading on, will post more. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Brian, I took some and look forward to more discussion. Probably you can help to word the lead better after reading more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff:

Background
  • "...during his tenure in Mühlhausen". Dates would be useful here
    added
  • (for the general reader) What is the "court capelle"
    tried
  • "in 1711 to 1713" → "in the period from 1711 to 1713"
    Green tickY
  • "he was asked to apply..." By whom?
    The source doesn't say by whom he was invited, - it would be OR to say that the initiative came from the church. I will try to look for a different source.
  • "a position" – close repetition
    Green tickY
  • "an honour which included a monthly performance..." Not clear; does this mean "giving a monthly performance"?
    tried
  • "Conditions were favourable..." Do you mean "Circumstances were favourable"? And can you clarify what they were favourable for?
    "Circumstances" taken without pomp ;) - 3 following: space, musicians, poet
  • "In Weimar, Bach composed using Franck's texts; ..." Colon, not semicolon, and would be better as "Works based on Franck's texts which Bach composed in Weimar include: ..."
Taken with thanks so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Occasion and words
  • What is the special nature of a "high holiday" in the Catholic church? The link article only refers to Jewish holidays.
    (Catholic???) There is no link article, the three high holidays are all mentioned with a link, what else do you think is needed for this specific cantata (that is not in List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function )? For Leipzig, I could tell you that they are all celebrated on three days, but I don't know if it was the same in Weimar.
  • "the series in Weimar" → "the Weimar series"
    Green tickY
  • Present wording implies that the "Holy Spirit" is a book from the bible along with Acts and John's Gospel. You could repunctuate and clarify: "The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Acts of the Apostles (the coming of the Holy Spirit, Ch. 2:1–13), and from the Gospel of John, where Jesus announces in his Farewell discourse..." etc
    tried
  • "Bach first performed the cantata on 20 May 1714..." One man can't have performed the cantata. Thus: "The cantata was first performed on 20 May 1714, with Bach probably playing first violin himself..." etc. Also, later: "Bach performed the cantata again..."
    Is there a way in English without the passive voice? A cantata is not performed, it's people performing it, and (at least in German) often the conductor is seen as the one who shapes it enough to be the only one mentioned. Learning. (And tried.)
  • "obviously" falls under WP:PEACOCK and must be deleted.
    done, but how to say that it can be derived from the many repetitions and his work on it over the years that he appreciated it?
  • From whom do the words "particularly valued" and "a pattern for his later approaches to the Pentecostal theme" originate?
    Gardiner, now mentioned. (I will think about mentioning the Pilgrimage here already.)
Taken with thanks so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scoring and structure
  • Again the unexplained "festive"
    but explained now
  • In the table, the "Time" column will confuse (perhaps a little less if it was headed "Tempo", but not much). Non-musical readers won't have a clue what it means, especially the common-time symbol. I don't think this column is necessary, and I would remove it.
    It's a standard feature, see Messiah Part I, II, III. I provided the link nowand explained the symbol. ("Tempo" would be "Adagio" etc, but it doesn't appear at the beginning of movements in this cantata.)
Music
  • The one-sentence summary that begins the section is too much to take in without a pause. It needs breaking up: How about: "The text opens with praise. It then concentrates on a line from the Gospel, before an address to the Holy Trinity. It continues by referring to the Spirit that was present at the Creation, before moving to a dialogue of the Soul and the Spirit and concluding with a stanza from Nicolai's joyful hymn."
    I will think about it and listen to others. The sequence from the general to the intimate seems to get lost in the repetition of "continues" and others. Actually, it doesn't continue, - just where you say "continues" is a sharp contrast between the three trumpets and the following gentle strings. - I would like to provide an overview before the details, but am no sure how to do it best.
  • "In the Weimar first version, the key of the first movements is C major, the fourth is A minor (a third lower), the following two F major (again a third lower)." Before the table you say that "The keys are given for the Weimar version", so why is it necessary to repeat the keys here? Also, phrases like "a third lower" will be meaningless to many readers.
    Please help improving. Every reader should get the idea of "lower", whether a third or not. It's a concept that goes together with the scoring, both towards the more intimate. ("came down from heaven" comes to mind.)
  • "A print of Franck's works..." English usage is "A printing" rather than "A print", which generally refers to a picture rather than a text.
    Green tickY
  • Franck is listed in the table as the text source, but here you say only that an earlier work of Franck's "may have served as a model". Besides which, this section is supposed to be about the music rather than the source of the text.
    No contradiction that Franck's earlier secular text may have served as a model for Franck's later text, more important: a (possible earlier) composition of the secular text may have served as a model for the sacred music. Better wording?
  • You need to explain what you mean by "in de Capo form". The WP article da Capo is of little use.
    I think the article da capo should be improved then. The idea of an article like that is that not every article referring to it needs to explain again, no?
  • "coloraturas" needs a link
    Green tickY
  • What is the meaning of the parenthetical (C2)?
    dropped, because it is explained twice afterwards
  • "shows also three sections": do you mean "also contains three sections"? And, what is a "triple meter", and is the American spelling "meter" deliberate?
    fixed
  • The second part of 4. is uncited
    is cited now
  • "Gardiner, who reflected the season of Pentecost after about half of the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage with his Monteverdi Choir..." Not clear what this is about. When and where was this pilgrimage, and was does "reflected" mean in this context?
    How much of the linked Pilgrimage needs to be repeated here? In 2000, all sacred cantatas within a year following liturgical sequence in historic places of mostly Europe. He wrote reflections.
  • A general point: you use quite a lot of quoted phrases, but it is often not clear whose words they are. Direct quotations should uusually be aattributed as well as cited; it is sometimes more convenient to paraphrase.
    For me, it is very difficult to paraphrase, not knowing equivalent words well enough. I use quotes from the text referenced at the end of a sentence. Should I repeat "Hofmann wrote" etc? Could you rephrase?

Overall, I can't fault the content, but the presentation needs a good deal more polishing. I have included some suggestions in my review as to how the prose might be clarified. It is important to bear in mind that you are writing for a general readership, not a music magazine, which means among other things a greater level of explanation of terms than you might normally expect to give. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many terms are treated in the linked "Bach cantata" and other linked articles. Let us find the amount of explanation necessary to follow this particular one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SchroCat[edit]

A few copy edits here and there: feel free to revert anything you dislike or disagree with.

Lead

Done briefly, but will get back to this once I've finished the rest.

  • "enriched": I think we're into peacock terms here
  • feel free to change to something better
    • Minor tweak to "worked on" - feel free to rv - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Konzertmeister" I'd be tempted to put a translation in brackets, not least because you've done that with Thomaskantor—or possibly link the term
  • hard to translate what it meant then, - responsibility not only for the organ but conducting the orchestra, - that is explained. Please no link because the modern term means the first violinist of an orchestra
  • "before which were set for modest forces": I'm not altogether clear what "modest forces" are
  • the clause was added after "festive" seemed not clear, modest recorders and oboes compared to festive trumpets and timpani, help in wording welcome
  • tweaked to "more restrained music", which is what I think you're saying (or possibly "restrained instrumentation", not quite sure) - feel free to tweak further of rv - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Do we need a link to Easter? It's common enough and it would reduce the blue links a little.
  • Green tickY

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second, and final, batch.

Infobox

  • Is "20 May 1714 – Weimar" the correct form? It looks slightly odd to me, although I presume you know otherwise.

General

  • I think you've covered everything I would want to see when I look at a music article: it gives a nice background, good history and decent technical coverage. The prose is a bit stilted in a few places, but that is the only thing I'd flag up on this. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to work on the prose. I have a tendency to stuff things found later in the existing sentences, instead of breaking them up. - I plan to add a bit to the individual movements, text-music relationship, and perhaps point out where ideas connect to later works: "love-duets", an aria with only brass, both repeated in the Mass in B minor, - perhaps also compare ideas and music to later Pentecost cantatas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streatham portrait[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to try and bring it to FA class, and (aside from the standard grammar clean up) I would like some input on the article as an article about a portrait, as I generally don't write about that subject.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

A few small points

  • Lead
    • "by a Streatham, London, collector" – bumpy prose. Perhaps "by a collector in Streatham, London
  • Description
    • "which is only reinforced" – I'd lose the "only" – ambiguous
  • National Portrait Gallery
    • Image caption: "The miniature Starkey" conjures up an odd vision of a midget historian. I think for once the passive voice might be better: "The miniature credited by Starkey"
    • "problem is — is it because" – is that an em dash (looks even bigger)? if so it shouldn't have spaces either side of it, I believe, according to the MoS.
    • "in early 2013 it was hung at Montacute House in Somerset as part of an exhibition" – is it still there or back at the NPG?
      • Will use PKM's source below. Looks like it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If, as appears, the article is in BrEng it could do with a tweak or two, which I should be pleased to do if you would like me to. – Tim riley (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gladly. Anyone who says this should be in American English should be hung by their thumbs (oops, did I say that?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from PKM
  • "Some which had been identified as her were later considered to be of other sitters, such as one of Catherine Parr, the last of the six wives of King Henry VIII, which was identified as Lady Jane Grey until 1996" - I think this needs a footnote.
    • I have written the following footnote, although I'm still waiting on a more reliable reproduction of the source before I put it in article space. "The full-length portrait, credited to Master John, had been acquired by the National Portrait Gallery in the mid-1960s. Though traditionally considered a portrait of Catherine Parr, the gallery's director Sir Roy Strong relabeled it as being of Jane, based in part on comparisons with a later engraving. In 1996, following the discovery of jewellery inventories which confirmed the broach in the portrait had been owned by Parr, the gallery labeled the portrait as one of her." Prose subject to change, of course.
      • I've updated that image with a better one, but I've been looking for a really high-res version or a scannable image for years with no luck. Still, it's better than it was. - PKM (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject - I'd identify her descent from Henry VII as through his younger daughter Mary through her second marriage, and identify and link Jane's father where you mention him Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk.
  • Montacute House - NPG shows the painting as currently in Room 2 at Montacute House, so you might change "as part of an exhibition" to "with other Tudor-era portraits in the National collection, where it remains" or similar, and footnote [13].
    • Thanks for the review and link! (Apparently I missed that in the side-bar). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google-fu, at your service. - PKM (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SchroCat

I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the minutiae of the art world, and the requirements of our art articles, so the following is based on the prose only. I've made a couple of minor copy edits: feel free to revert those you don't like or disagree with.

Lead

  • Is it worth putting Jane's dates in brackets after her name—it would help with the "dating to her lifetime" part of the sentence;
  • Should the two quotes be attributed?
  • As they are just phrases, and not whole sentences, I don't think the MOS requires it. "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." (MOS:QUOTE)
  • The lead says the portrait is displayed at Montacute House: the IB says the NPG and the location is London. Even if the NPG is made the owner (rather than the museum field) the location is still wrong. I suspect this needs IB tweaking, rather than re-writing the lead.
  • I don't know who merged the two parameters. "Museum", to me, says the institution which owns the painting. "City" does not necessarily mean where it is displayed. I've fixed, though I'm not adverse to losing the ibox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject

  • "After the king's death": Henry or Edward? - Edward VI. How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather nicely put together and provides, to my untutored eye, a good description of the subject. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was thinking of nominating it for GA status as it is very thorough on the events that went on during the nearly year of the stage of the conflict this represents. It is now over. Also there is a dearth of Afria-related GA articles. It would be nice to see, from another perspective, how this matches up with GA criteria at WP:GA?.

Thanks, Lihaas (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jojalozzo[edit]

  1. The present perfect verb tense is used in much of the article. This is incorrect for an encyclopedia relating past events. Instead of "has been" or "has caused", use "was" or "caused", respectively. Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.
  2. What is the topic and when did it start and stop? The first sentence says equivocally, "started essentially on 13 April 2013", and the second sentence says it's part of an ongoing conflict started in 2012.
    • Pairing "essentially" with a specific day is confusing, but I think the lead sentence needs a complete revision that will eliminate that construction as a matter of course.
    • I think the first sentence should emphasize that this is part of an ongoing conflict rather than something of major significance on its own. As I see it, the ongoing situation, that started in 2012, is primary with the time line punctuated by regime changes without there being a "start" of something new at each point other than the start of each regime.
    • I also think the first sentence should state the period of time the topic covers since the Djotodia regime has ended.
  3. I think the neutrality of the last sentence of the intro could be improved by replacing "cleansed" with "segregated" or another term that doesn't connote malice.
  4. In the Militarisation section:
    • I don't understand the following: "the writ of the state has apparently been effected with a prevalence of "insecurity" as a result of the proliferation of armed groups". I think the technical term for such writing is gobbledygook. "writ of state"? "apparently"?, "prevalence of \"insecurity\""?
    • "fighters from Chad and Darfur, Sudan"? I request editors working on this page please review it carefully for grammar before requesting outside review. I'm stopping now. Please notify me when you have cleaned it up.

Jojalozzo 19:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man Powered Up[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm putting this up for Peer Review because I would like to know what else I should do to the article before I take it to WP:GAN. Don't know what problems the article has so if anyone can help with addressing its issue, please check it out and let me know. Thanks, GamerPro64 02:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd suggest/gripe about in a GAN:

  • Add sources to Gameplay.
  • Add a "See also: Mega Man (video game)#Gameplay" to Gameplay.
  • The first paragraph of that section's a little long. Is there a way to split it?
  • Can the Reception section be a little bit more detailed?

It's quite good overall. Tezero (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/February_2014&oldid=602174053"