Wikipedia:Peer review/January 2009

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.

I Not Stupid Too[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is about a Singaporean movie about three youths who have a strained relationship with their parents. My goal is for this article to attain GA status. Please look through the article and point out issues (such as prose issues) that would prevent the article from attaining GA status. Note that due to systemic bias, referenced information on Singapore-related topics is scarce.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mention in the cast section who has returned from the first film, I Not Stupid and mention about any recastings. If there are reasons, that we can cite, talking about the casting, then those should be included too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done That would be original research. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts...

  • The title I Not Stupid Too should be italicized throughout the article. Do the same for newspapers in the article body and in the citation templates.
    Done How about names of other movies? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need the "Cast" section? It is very sparse, and some actors and their roles are already identified in the "Plot" section. Any chance of working in the rest and not worrying about a "Cast" section?.
    The Cast section includes a reference not mentioned in the Plot section. Unfortunately, the website is in Flash and you have to click Credits to get the information. I strive for uniformity among the GAs I write about Jack Neo movies, so if there is a consensus to remove the Cast section, it should go from my other GAs as well. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evaluate the article to make sure it has non-breaking spaces. For example, have one between S$1.41 and million in "S$1.41 million" and one between 9 and February in "9 February". This should be done for date= and accessdate= fields in citation templates, too.
    Er, why? Because the MOnSter is full of metapedian bias and its recommendations make editing difficult for exopedians, forcing them to do stuff that does not really help readers? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Sequels", can the talk show be backed by a reference for these details?
    Noted Several months ago, I tried to find a reliable online reference for the show (which I know exists) but failed to find any. These two sentences also included in I Not Stupid, a GA, and a discussion at the talk page led to a 3-0 consensus that said sentences did not need references. I will again try to find references, but if I cannot find any, are they necessary and should the sentences be removed? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done I removed the sentences about the talk show. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the release date, is there something better to cite than IMDb? It is not considered reliable by some editors, and I think something as prominent as the release date could be verified elsewhere and give everyone peace of mind.
    Noted Unfortunately, referenced information on Singaporean movies is scarce, so finding an alternative for IMDB would be tricky. I checked I Not Stupid's two references for the release date; one was a dead link, while the other did not actually mention the release date! (How careless the GA reviewer and I were.) Is DVDAsian a reliable source? If so, I would replace the IMDB reference with one to DVDAsian. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that could work... I just was not sure about IMDb because it is not quite warmly received in the FAC process. Maybe if you don't plan to go that far, it won't matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed that a screenshot was added to the "Plot" section, and I am not sure if it belongs. It may be worth looking at MOS:FILM#Non-free images. There needs to be critical commentary for a screenshot. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are screenshots no longer allowed in Plot sections? I always try to choose screenshots which ilustrate major themes, not just major plot events, and get Haemo to help me write the fair-use rationales. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the thing... without reliable sources, an editor is reading a lot into a film to extract any major themes to then illustrate. It's kind of like writing a "Themes" section with your opinion on the film. Some films are going to have themes that are well-explored by independent sources... a couple of examples are Pulp Fiction and Barton Fink. You could also try to illustrate aspects of production if they are irreplaceable, like I did for Fight Club. I know it is tough to do this for such a film that may not have received a lot of coverage... do you think that there is any screenshot that can match any kind of critical commentary in the article? Either about the production or how a critic responded to a specific scene? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the reviews do mention the major themes (such as parent-child communication), but do not discuss specific scenes. The best I can do is choose screenshots of scenes which clearly illustrate said themes and show major plot events. Original research is sometimes necessary when working on such articles, where information is limited. (Did you know that none of the Jack Neo movies have an entry on Rotten Tomatoes?) Be glad you are not Singaporean; if you were, the anti-fair use brigade would make editing difficult for you as well. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job so far. Here are a few suggestions after a quick read-through that you may want to take a look at.

  • In the infobox, the title is "I Not Stupid Too 2". Should that be altered?
    Done Good catch! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the intro: "The film explores issues such as poor parent-child communication." You either need to mention another issue or make issues singular.
    Done Changed to "the issue of poor parent-child communication", since my references did not really mention other major themes. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Released in cinemas on January 26, 2006, I Not Stupid Too earned over S$4 million, becoming the all-time second-highest grossing Singaporean film." Perhaps you can mention what the first place film is. Also the full date shouldn't be wikilinked.
    Done The highest grossing film, Money No Enough is mentioned in the Reception section, but no harm mentioning it in the lead, I suppose. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but lost to Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles." Italicize the film title. Do the same for I Not Stupid in the opening paragraph of the production section, Fearless/Money No Enough/Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles in the reception section, and the four occurrences of I Not Stupid in the sequels section.
    Done Tedious, but thankfully mindless. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to him, communicating with them was difficult,..." Is "them" referring to the gangsters or the extras?
    Done "Them" refers to the gangsters. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plot revolves around the lives of..." Instead of starting the section with "the plot", perhaps the opening sentence or two could be reworded to go straight into the description of the film synopsis?
    I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain. In my opinion, understanding the characters is important to understanding the story, as the story revolves around the characters. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you mention anything about the home video release? Features, sales, rentals, etc.?
    Not done Unfortunately, I could not find any information about that. If I could, I would be happy to add it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DVD release detected. "DVD reviews", Teo Cheng Wee, The Straits Times Life!, 20 May 2006. - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please Gmail the newspaper articles to me, Mailer diablo. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this helps a bit, and if I repeated anything from the other reviewers I apologize. If you have any questions or when you finish addressing these suggestions, please let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! It was very helpful. Now all I need is a thorough prose review and the article should be ready for a GAN. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check dabs in the meantime. I'll look up the source database and let you know more feedback. Apologies for the delay. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 00:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what Dabs does, but it only pointed out The Business Times, a disambiguation page which mentions two newspapers called The Business Times. Wikipedia does not have an article on either newspaper. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be a good idea to delink it for now. Indicate on reflist (Singapore) to avoid confusion. It is also flagged on the article itself. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Links removed. Perhaps we should create an article about the newspaper, fighting systemic bias in the process! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first screenshot appears to be flagged with suggestion to reduce its resolution. Second one might face similar issues.
    Noted I know as much about image policies as you know about chess, so I will leave this to someone who is more familiar with image policies. If you play chess, I retract that part of my comment. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions can be improved to enhance NFCC rationale?
    Noted As above, will leave this to someone who is more familiar with image policies. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Straits Times had a review on the movie as well. You might want to look it up.
    Please Gmail it to me. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede : "The film explores issues such as poor parent-child communication.". Perhaps "the issue of" (para 1)?
    Done Oh, dear! Nehrams2020 mentioned this above; I marked it as "done" but did not make the change! Now "done" for real. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy : (lede) "for being" -> "as"?
    Done Good catch. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity : Their parents' (Jack Neo and Xiang Yun) busy schedules give them little time to spend with their children. "Their" refers to who?
    Noted The first "their" refers to Tom and Jerry, while the other instances refer to the parents. I will ask my copyeditor to help refine the sentence. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Mailer Diablo 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Payoh ritual murders[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am listing this article for peer review, in the hopes of nominating it for Featured Article. The subject is a murder case: two children were killed by a trio. The case was a sensation in Singapore due to the revelations by the trio over their lifestyles and motivations. Sex, drugs, and violence, this case has it all. Thank you all. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A grisly story, compellingly told. The prose is generally good and clear. I have criticisms in two main areas:

  • Non-encyclopedic language: Although the article reads well, on many occasions it reads more like a magazine or newspaper account than an encyclopedia article. Or even like a well-written murder novel. That is not to say that encyclopedia articles must be dry and dull, but they should seek a relatively neutral, detached tone. Here are a few examples of phrases or expressions I find "non-encyclopedic":-
    • "As it turned out, transgressions in the Lion City might not be mild affairs, as illustrated in 1981" - this vaguely teasing approach is fine in a magazine, or in, say, a TV documentary, but not here. (Incidentally, you haven't explained the "Lion City" term, either.
    • "...had put up with the cacophony of..."
    • "Little did people know..." - that teasing voice again
    • "Stepping into the common corridor from the stairwell, Inspector Pereira was transfixed..."
    • "tricks of the trade"
    • The section and subsections "Unholy trinity" (novelistic, a bit clichéd) and "Adam Lim, the mastermind"
These are, as stated, examples. I suggest you try and tone these down, and also look for other instances where the same criticism might apply.
  • Over-detailing: This is a particular problem in the later stages of the article, particularly the sections dealing with the trial and its aftermath. There is simply too much detail here; I'd say these sections could be reduced by half and still give clear, summarised accounts. It's a case of a bit of blue pencil work.
  • Other than my main concerns, here are a few more trivial points picked up:-
    • Lack of an image in the lead impairs the presentation of the article. Surely, one of the images, probably that of Lim, should be promoted to the lead?
    • "...to ignore the transpirings..." is strange phrasing. "...to ignore what was happening..." would be more conventional.
    • Re Lim: "Described as a hot-tempered boy..." - described where and by whom?
    • "tricked his clients with several confidence tricks" - awkward repetition.

This has the potential to be a featured article. If you can consider the above points and perhaps act on them I will be happy to comment, and help where I can. Brianboulton (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all the above, except for the "over-detailing" and "further non-encyclopaedic content". A situation has cropped up at work, so for those two exceptions, I would try to resolve them later. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I agree with Brian's comments above (I read the article before the fixes started) and must also admit that I was somewhat disturbed by the article and did not read it as closely as I perhaps should have. Ugh.

  • I think the captions need the most work.
    • I usually look at the lead picture and read its caption before reading the lead, but the needle and egg trick reference in the lead image caption just left me puzzled. Perhaps something like Adrian Lim conned many and was willing to kidnap, rape, and kill to further his goals. would work better?
    • The image of their flat is great, perhaps the caption could be something like Lim's flat (highlighted in red) was in Block 12 (right), Toa Payoh Lorong 7. By 2008, the neighboring Blocks 10 and 11 (centre and left) had been replaced with taller structures. The captions for Lim's accomplices are OK.
    • The altar photo should make it clearer this is Lim's altar, perhaps Lim prayed [at this altar] to a variety of gods, such as Buddha, Pragngan, and Kali.
    • Perhaps Singaporeans crowded the grounds of the Subordinate Court (pictured) and other courts to catch a glimpse of the killers.?
  • I would avoid overly general statement like ... and the population believed in spirits that inhabit the jungles, and in gods and devils that hovered around, capable of benevolence and mischief. Perhaps something like ... and most of the population believed in spirits that inhabit the jungles, and in gods and devils that hovered around, capable of benevolence and mischief.
  • I would link lift in Hours later, her body was found stuffed in a bag outside a lift in Block 11 ... as most Americans would think of this as an elevator
  • I am uncertain about the nature of the needle trick - I assume that the victim's did not know there were needles in the eggs (so their appearance on breaking the egg was impressive)? This needs to be made clearer.
  • Some editor's might find it better to refer to all three killers by name - things like and took Lim and his two women in for questioning might be seen as POV.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions, I have fixed what you have pointed out (captions, clarification of trick, and POV-ish text). I will continue to try to trim the excessive details. Jappalang (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know Awadewit frequently says we have to remember that not everyone in the world is as interested in all of the details as we (the principal authors of the articles) are. Perhaps this is why we are called "editors" ;-) . This is well done overall, just needs some polish Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs

This is certainly a disturbing subject, but it led to a very interesting article. I agree with the above that some of the language sounds a bit melodramatic. There are several instances of a slightly sensational sentence or two to set up what we are going to know, and I don't think those are necessary (the one that bothered me most - In 1981, the credence of the government's warning was proven by a crime that shocked the nation.). I didn't think that the trial section was too long, but I thought there might be too much detail on the three prepatrators. We may also not need as much detail on the previous rape. Overall, though, I thought this a well-written article, and if the language is toned down just a bit I would probably support it at FAC with the content intact. Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, my reading habits have spilled into my work (too many novels and "exciting" accounts, too little down-to-earth non-fiction...). I will keep trying to tone them down—have to find a better way to segue one section into another. Time to see if I can better summarize the details on Lim, Tan, and Hoe, as well as the Lucy Lau incident. Thank you! Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is currently on the main page, in the ITN section. It's an evolving story in Canada, but the article should become fairly stable for a little bit, because the Governor General (our head of state) has complied with the Prime Minister's demands to shut down Parliament, so that he can stall for time.

Besides a few of the references being without the proper "cite" templates, what should be changed?

Thanks, Zanimum (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bit too soon to request a peer review? Things are rapidly changing by the day. It's probably a better idea to discuss with the article's other editors on its talk page about what the article needs first, as there are currently a lot of people involved with the article. Gary King (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A peer review might be necessary because of the loyalists to the various political parties that are editing the article. It is rapidly losing its NPOV. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made the above comment 11 days ago (nearly two weeks). It has changed a lot since then, so perhaps it does need one now. Gary King (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick scan / read through the article - would someone more familiar with Canadian politics be able to review it for POV issues? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As noted above, I do not see major POV issues (but am also not an expert on Canadian politics). Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There is a Neutrality disputed tag on the Unity crisis section, but I do not really have the time to read up on this and see what the problem is.
  • While the article is generally well cited, there are a few places that need references. I think this is especially important when there are POV issues. For example, the last phrases here need a ref (or two): was strongly rejected by the opposition on the grounds that it lacked any fiscal stimulus during the ongoing economic crisis,[9][10] for its suspension of federal civil servants' ability to strike, and for suspending the right for women to seek recourse from the courts for pay equity issues. especially since the women's pay issue has not been mentioned before. Or the last sentences of the first paragraph in the Formation of a coalition section need a ref (though I suspect it may just be a repeat of the ref for the dirtect quotation).
  • While I like the six photo infobox, the photos in it are small. The rest of the article is pretty text-dense and lacks images. I wonder if it might be better to have a single, different lead image (perhaps the Ottawa Parliament photo?), with the six photos distributed throughout the rest of the article? Just an idea.
  • It might be confusing for non-Canadians to refer to the Governor General as the viceroy, as in Harper's office also organised protests outside of the viceroy's residence,
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Power, Gay Politics[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because although it's new I believe it is at or near Good Article status and wanted another set of eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. This looks very good to me, I think it should do well at WP:GAN - these are mostly nitpicks.

  • To provide context for the reader, would it make sense to add the year to the first sentence? I know the air date is given later in the lead, but I think adding the year earlier would help.
  • Spell out abbreviations before their first use, so fix LGBT and BDSM (not sure if there are others). Most people will know what these mean, but not everyone will
  • Is there more information available on its original airing? What kind of ratings did it get? What sort of initial critical response did it get? Did it ever air as a rerun (I guess not). Is it available on DVD? This kind of infdrmation is often included in television episode articles.
  • When did this occur: Right-wing groups used copies of Gay Power, Gay Politics as fundraising tools until CBS forced them to stop. ?
  • For NPOV, could a bit more on what the right wing groups said about the episode be added?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sunderland A.F.C.[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 improve it to GA class, and would like some comments on what I could do to reach that target. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Until I can give the article a proper review, I'll limit myself to these two comments:
    • First, I would like to see each section given a subtitle that gives some indication of why those years have been grouped together. This is more of a stylistic point than to do with content, so it's not essential if you're only going for GA status, but it would be nice. Done - I've added some.
    • I noticed that there is a lack of consistency with regard to the use of endashes in date ranges. Make sure that all hyphens in date ranges are replaced with endashes. Done - Went over with a MOS tool, should've caught them all.
      • I think you've still missed some. You're better off going over it visually yourself. Just go through the article with your browser's "Find" function looking for all the hyphens and see which ones need changing to endashes. – PeeJay 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right I went through it manually, and the Opera browser doesn't seem to like to do it the easy way. I think this time I've changed all of them.
  • I might come back soon, when I can give the article a more thorough going-over, but this will have to do for now. I'm sure others will point out most of the things that need improving anyway. – PeeJay 20:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Washington, D.C.[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 only a B-class article, and I would like to improve it as much as I can. However, I don't really have much experience with sustained work on one article, I've pretty much just been a WikiGnome up until now, so I'd appreciate all the help and advice I can get!

Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dtbohrer

  • "... Native Americans settled in Washington, D.C. at least 4000 B.P." — What's "B.P."? Possible mispelling of "B.C."?
  • "Built in 1765, the Old Stone House is located in Georgetown and is the oldest standing building in the District" — Sounds a little awkward
    • Suggest: The Old Stone House, located in Georgetown, was built in 1765 and is the oldest standing building in the District.
  • Not too fond of the GIF animation of the changes in DC boundaries. It's helpful but not scaled all too well. Someone at the Graphics Lab might be able to help.
  • "From March 1781 the government" — Missing comma and "from" doesn't sound right unless an ending date is added
    • Suggest: Starting in March 1781, the government...
  • "...only time that a U.S. president" — President should be capitalized.
  • "... including a U.S. congressman" & mdash; Congressman should be capitalized.
  • There is still a "citation needed" tag that should be taken care of.
  • There some instances of Overlinking.

Try looking a simlar FA article like History of Miami to see what else could done with this article. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes per your suggestions. B.P. is Before Present, which is used in archaeology, geology, etc. I have wikilinked that. --Aude (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked here and there on the article, though it still has a ways to go. The key thing with an article like this is that so much as been written about the history of Washington, D.C., with scores of scholarly books. Here is a list of some key books. [1] The Records of the Columbia Historical Society is another treasure trove of good information on the history of Washington, D.C. I think the article would be vastly improved if the article used more of such sources.

To start with, I would suggest picking any of the key books [2] , many available at the library, and ues it to improve the article. --Aude (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediocre (album)[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 believe this article has potential to become an A-class (or FA-class) article. It has recently become a good article, and I would like to have feedback so it can be upgraded to at least A-class. If possible, I would love it to meet the criteria for featured articles.

Thanks a million, – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This generally reads well. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the ideas developed in the main text sections. The existing lead does not mention the material included in "Theme" or "Musical style". I think you could fix this by adding some material about theme and style right after the first sentence of the lead and then perhaps starting the second paragraph with "Mediocre reached #10... " The third paragraph would be the one that starts "Mediocre garnered good reviews... "You would then have a three-paragraph lead, which I think would be about right.
  • It's customary to arrange multiple reference numbers in ascending order when they appear together in the text. For example, at the end of first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Theme" section, the note numbers appear as 7,8,4. To fix this, you need to move the ref 4 to first place so that the order is 4,7,8.
  • The Manual of Style advises against linking anything within a direct quote. The reason is that link might give emphasis to the linked material that was not intended in the original. Thus, "'50s", "prototype", and so on should be unlinked. I see five more of these in the Ron Bronson quotes in the "Critical reception" section. If something in a quote cries out for linking, one option is to construct a footnote with a link. That way you can link outside the direct quotation.
  • The link to "Uruguayan" in the "Recording and production" section goes to a disambiguation page. You probably want it to go to Uruguayan.
  • The MoS generally frowns on orphan paragraphs such as "Mediocre peaked at #10 on Billboard's Latin Pop Albums, and #38 on Billboard's Top Latin Albums." The two options are to move this sentence into the bigger paragraph above or expand the single sentence into a longer paragraph if you have sufficient material. Ditto for the orphan paragraph that ends the "Awards and nominations" section.
  • In the "Awards and nominations" section, you don't need to link the word "English" three times and probably not at all. Better, I think, would be to put the English translation in parentheses after the Spanish.
  • Perhaps the other Spanish titles such as "Vidas Paralelas" should also be translated the first time they appear in the main text.
  • The MoS recommends against addressing the reader directly as "you". Instead of saying, "You may click on the arrow to sort it by last name or role", you might say, "Clicking the arrows changes the sort order".
  • It would be good to have another editor copyedit the next revision of the article to look for small errors or deviations from the MoS.

I hope you find these brief suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efe comments
  • I suggest you not to use flag icons in the infobox per WP:MOSFLAG.
  • Merge "Recording and production" to related section, if the former cannot be expanded into two or more paragraphs; it looks stubby
  • Same through with "Recording and production", probably merged with the preceding paragraph
  • Why there are red links in the track listing table?
  • I think the singles table could be merged in related section without the table.
  • The credits table is too listy and there are some contents that are not significant in this article.
  • Beware of using samples. It should meet the criteria.

Hope these helps. --Efe (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire[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 wondering what specific areas of this article could use improvement.

Thanks, Master&Expert (Talk) 01:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's weird. I'm positive I commented on this PR yesterday. O.o Oh well. Just a few quick general observations:
  • It's my understanding that there shouldn't be any citations in the lead. As the lead is supposed to summarise the content of the article, there shouldn't be any new information introduced in there, so the cites go in the body of the article.
  • There are large sections of the article without any citations whatsoever. There's a lot of great detail in there, but I think you really need to focus on getting those references to back it up.
  • Also make sure your refs are formatted consistently - WP:CITET might be a help here.
  • The article is very long. Perhaps it might be a good idea to move some of the information off into a new History of the Ottoman Empire article?
  • Also, some of the sections are longer than the main articles they're summarising - like Decline of the Ottoman Empire. Maybe again some of the info in this article could be moved over there.
  • There are some very useful suggestions in the automated PR here and in the GA reassessment that resulted in its delisting here.
Hope that's of some help! -Shoemoney2night (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petrevene[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 think that this article would benefit greatly from external peer review. I realize that this article may not be as developed as many other peer reviews, however, after being kindly encouraged by Ruhrfisch and Geometry guy, I decided to go ahead and nominate it. This article is relatively well referenced, and follows a consistent style. It is free from clean up banners and is more or less balanced.

I am interested to find out other users opinion of it and how I should go about improving it. I would very much like to push this article from a "C" to a "B" class in the short term, and eventually make it a GA. Please feel free to give suggestions as to how this can be achieved, and any other helpful advice and comments. In terms of sections that are complete and ready to be fully reviewed there are the Etymology, History and Culture and Traditions sections. I will continue to work on it myself, but please do edit and develop anything that you feel needs work.

Thanks, P.Marlow (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. Looksl ike a nice place to visit and it is clear a lot of work has gone into the article.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be longer than three sentences - probably 2 or 3 paragraphs. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Provide both English and metirc units - the {{convert}} template may be useful here. DONE
  • "Climate and drainage" section and the "Culture and traditions" section both need references (have none now) - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Interviews with people are not reliable sources - see WP:RS, generally refs need to be published.
  • I think the WP:MOS says you do not have to have both the common and Latin names for animals and plants
  • Avoid external links in the text (like the one in Petrevene is located 2.5 kilometers away from Geopark Iskar-Panega) convert to an inline citation / reference instead. DONE
  • Article needs a copyedit

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Children[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I wrote this article about the battle for gay rights in Miami in 1977 and 1978, and though I'm not sure of its ultimate trajectory - if it should go to FA or not - I have two primary concerns: that it has POV issues, although it addresses two very opposite viewpoints; and it is unfocused, or rather that it focuses too much on Anita Bryant's role. I have tried to make clear that this campaign was unique because of her role, but an editor has stated that it seems to stray from the campaign to focus more about Bryant. I'm looking for as much input into these issues as I can get. If I have been unclear, or I need to provide more detail on a specific issue, I'll be happy to do that. I just need to know where. Thank you for reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think the article is pretty well done and could be FA with a little work. I also think that it does a pretty good job of following the ramifications of the whole can of worms that Save Our Children and Anita opened. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicks.

  • There are several places that seem to need references, for example the last two sentences of the first paragraph of the Background section, or the very last two sentences of the same section, or Far exceeding the required 10,000 signatures, the coalition delivered more than 64,000 signatures within six weeks demanding a referendum vote, which the commission set for June 7, 1977. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • I would change the header "Reaction to the ordinance" to something like "Reaction to the proposed ordinance" - as it is the current header makes it sound like the orinance had already passed, when it only does so in the last sentence of the section.
  • Direct quote needs a ref immediately following per WP:MOSQUOTE in Foster and Geto set the public tone of the campaign battling Save Our Children and were determined not to "get down in the gutter with them", refusing to run an ad showing Bryant in a revealing outfit she had performed in in 1971, nor run commercials to point out that child molesters were primarily heterosexual.
  • To me the part of the article that seems to possibly be overly detailed is less the material on Anita Bryant (whose connection to Save Our Children is clear) as much as it is the detail of the "Other locations" section. I think talking about them in the context of the article is fine, but the amount of detail on elcetions where Save the Children was not directly involved seems a bit much. Could this be put in another article and summary style used here?
  • In the Fallout section, could it be made clearer when Bryant and Green stopped their association with Save Our Children?
  • The language is a bit rough in spots, but I know you always get good copyedits before the article is done.

Sorry not to have more comments - I think this is well done and balanced. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium of Light[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 receive a broad outlook on how to improve the article. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)
  • The article is very well referenced, but I'm concerned about the chronology of the History section. You start talking about the expansion of the stadium in the third paragraph, but then in the fourth paragraph you go back to its opening. I understand that it does help to group related topics together (i.e. construction and expansion), but I found that very confusing. Done - Moved it around a bit.
  • What are the actual names of the stands? From what I gather, they are currently named "Kronenbourg Stand", "West Stand", "South Stand" and "East Stand", but at one point you refer to the "north stand". If that was the previous name for the Kronenbourg Stand, I think it should probably be written as "North Stand". Comment - The stands are the South Stand, North Stand, East Stand, West Stand. The upper tier of the stadium also have different names, the west part of the upper tier is called the Kronenburg upper stand, and the west upper stand is called the Premier Concourse.
    • OK, I still think you should change "north stand" to "North Stand" though. – PeeJay 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When referring to the construction costs, I would suggest that instead of writing out "£23,000,000", you should go for "£23 million" instead. Would seem to fit with the usage of "£15 million" you went with earlier on. Done
  • The statement about the shape of the stadium creating a louder atmosphere needs sourcing. Done - Couldn't find a source, must've been there before, removed it now.
  • I think that the statement about the stadium hosting the University of Sunderland's graduation ceremony should probably be placed somewhere else in the Other uses section, as it would seem more appropriate to put the other sporting uses at the top of that section, followed by the more unorthodox uses. Did that one myself.

Hope these comments help. – PeeJay 21:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Xangsane[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.
    All workable suggestions (in my opinion) from the automated review have been acted upon. TheCoffee (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a Good Article, and I would like to see it become a Featured Article. There are two other typhoon FAs (Typhoon Pongsona and Typhoon Paka), and this one has roughly the same length and follows the same outline (meteorological history, preparations, impact, aftermath). Note that I didn't personally do any work on this article, just putting it up for peer review, and I'm willing to follow up and guide it to FA. TheCoffee (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there TheCoffee. I would acctully love to see Typhoon Xangsane as featured as it is a retired storm though there are several things that need doing before this goes for FA.

  1. Pre tropical storm infomation - (Check the JTWC Archives and the JMA Archives for this.
  2. Referencing of Meterological History Use [Gary Padgett's Summuary here] - Again for the JTWC advisories Check the JTWC Archives
  3. Put in a section entitiled Naming - In this talk about what Xangsane means and when it was used last in the Pacific (2000]]). Also PAGASA naming goes in here as well and retirement. see some of the 2008 Pacific Typhoon season articles for an example.
  4. Its not a good idea to have PAGASA upgrades/downgrades in an article unless its a storm that only PAGASA monitored.
  5. Merge the section you have for Retirement into a section called naming (See Above).
  6. You have a link for Retirement that redirects to the chinese verson of the CMA homepage so change it for the english verson produced by the Hong Kong Observatory.
  7. You will need to find a source that says Millenyo was retired. - Now for this keep your eyes peeled on the 2009 PTS talk page as i believe we should in a couple of weeks have all the replacement names for PAGASA as we are using the final list this year.
  8. I would also use the 2006 ATCRs for the JMA and the JTWC for met history.

If you would like some help or clarification then just let me know. Jason Rees (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to worry I'm a bit underqualified for the more technical aspects needed for the article, but I'll see what I can do. Why do you say including PAGASA upgrades/downgrades is a bad idea? They're considered the authority in the Philippines, which was hit hardest by the storm. TheCoffee (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the Philippines being the hardest hit, PAGASA isn't the main agency in the Western Pacific, the Japan Meteorological Agency is. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its also because PAGASA does not monitor a Typhoon for the whole of its lifetime for example Typhoon Dolphin - Also if you include PAGASA then you have to include TMD HKO CMA etc Upgrades and Downgrades Jason Rees (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a storm with almost 300 fatalities, the impact is rather short. Although it may have the same structure, articles shouldn't determine the length of another article. Please look for impact in both english and Filipino. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the impact section needs expansion. TheCoffee (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men Origins: Wolverine[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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 per WP:GT requirements, this has to be peer reviewed per bla bla bla. Read it here at criterion 3.c. This coincides with the X-Men films Good topic candidacy. Wildroot (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. I came from the FT discussion. Per {{Cite web}} and {{cite news}}, references should use the same date format as the main text of the article. They have proper fields so it can be done right. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions...

  • Trim "Starring" in the infobox to the first three names. I don't think we know at this point the extent of the other actors' involvement in the film.
  • In the "Cast" section, may I suggest removing the bold formatting? I know that the formatting has been commonplace in many film articles, a review of MOS:BOLD seems to suggest that bolding anything like the names of the actors and roles is not part of its limited scope. (Nevermind for now... trying to verify whether or not bold formatting is okay in cast lists.)
  • The trailer information in "Marketing" seems ancillary per MOS:FILM#Marketing. I suggest removing it and retitling the section "Video game" for the time being.
  • Make sure that there are non-breaking spaces for the dates in the article. For example, insert one in "May 1".
  • I agree with Matthewedwards about consistency in the citations. May I also suggest writing out the full dates since without the auto-formatting that existed before, we only see ISO formatting? Clean up like this, for example.

I am not sure what else there is to cover. There will definitely be more content as the film's release gets closer. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

York Park[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 believe that the article is better than C-class. After i've recently made some major contributions.

Thanks, Aaroncrick (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall nice job, needs some work for GA or more for FA. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would rewrite the lead first paragraph as something like York Park, known since 2004 as Aurora Stadium under a naming-rights sponsorship deal, is an Australian rules football ground located in the Inveresk and York Park Precinct, Invermay. It is the largest capacity stadium in Tasmania, holding 20,000.[1] This avoids "presently" and avoids repeating capacity twice in one sentence.
  • Refs do not have to be in the lead except for direct quotes and extraordinary claims - the lead should be a summary of the whole article and the refs can be there. It is OK to keep refs in the lead, but then it should be referenced completely like all other parts of the article.
  • Article could use a copyedit to polish the language - one example To get it up to scratch for AFL football the ground has had a series of re-developments totaling up to over AU$20 million. could be something like To get it able to host AFL football, the ground has had a series of re-developments totaling over AU$20 million. ("up to scratch" seems too slang-y, "up to over" does not seem grammatical in American English, not sure of Australian English) I also do not understand this sentence in light of the history that it has hosted Australian rules football since the 1920s - perhaps provide the date (since ...)
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should probably be only three paragraphs - could combine two paragraphs
  • Spell out abbreviations before first use, so AFL or NAB (and link them).
  • I would also link St Kilda and Hawthorn (the teams)
  • Be consistent about names - it is both 'Aurora Stadium and Aurora Stadium in just the lead.
  • I would try to put sentences in chronological order in the History section - the first paragraph goes from 1923 to 1921 (with a mention of 1901), why not put the 1921 name sentence first, then the 1923 stuff?
  • Any history between 1923 and 1988?
  • Article needs more references, for example the whole Record crowds and Transport sections have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should either be combined with others to improve the flow of the article, or perhaps expanded.
  • A model article is often useful for ideas or examples to follow - see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreation and as one example of a stadium, Old Trafford

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Friend the Rat[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 article has undergone significant improvements needs a neutral person to review it and check what's missing. I think it's now up for B-class and need your opinion about it.

Thanks, Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This sounds like a fun short film. I have a few suggestions for improving the article.

  • The lead of an article should be a summary of the main ideas in the sections below the lead. In addition, the lead should not introduce material that is undeveloped in the main text sections. Please see WP:LEAD. A good way to expand this article would be to develop the ideas in the lead. For example, you might create a "critical reception" section that would include the Annie Award information, perhaps explain what the Annie Award is, and perhaps add some comments from film critics if any are to be found. Ditto for the idea of the "longest Pixar short", which could be developed in the "Production" section. You might be able to tell us what other shorts Pixar has done, for example.
  • The citations need repairs and more data. My rule of thumb is to include author, title, work, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date when all of these can be found. I tracked down and added missing elements to citation 6, which you can imitate. The "date" parameter means the date of publication rather than the access date. You can often but not always find a date on the source page. Authors are generally listed last name first, and I added parameters to citation 6 to make this easier; the cite template does the arranging automatically.
  • The Manual of Style (MoS) no longer recommends the autoformatting of full dates. Please see WP:UNLINKDATES. I see a couple that you will probably want to unlink.
  • Abbreviations such as 3D should be spelled out and abbreviated on first use like this: three-dimensional (3D). After that you can just use 3D, and readers will know what you mean. I would recommend doing this for 2D, CGI, and even for DVD.
  • I would suggest linking 3D to the article on 3-D film. Be careful not to link to the 3-D disambiguation page. I think 2D should also be linked, probably to traditional animation.
  • The MoS generally deprecates orphan paragraphs composed of only one or two sentences. You can either expand the short ones or merge them with other paragraphs.
  • I see quite a few small grammar and syntax problems that a copyeditor, if you can find one, would probably catch and fix. I fixed a few but not all.

I hope these brief suggestions are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have decided to nominate this article on the deadliest tornado outbreak this decade for a peer review. It is currently a GA, and I have set a goal of making it an FA before February 5, 2009, the first anniversary of the event. Feel free to leave any comments or suggestions. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some math in the Aftermath section and the grand total dollar damage figure in the introduction, please. 69.228.196.41 (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article and will leave comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments I am confining my comments to questions of prose, clarity and a spot of MOS. I am happy to trust your expertise on the technical side; certainly the facts you have marshalled seem comprehensive.

  • Lead
    • This is not a sentence, and needs to be rewritten: "As well as the largest single outbreak since the May 31, 1985 outbreak, which killed 76 across Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as claiming 12 victims in Ontario, Canada."
    • The word "also" is unnecessary in the final paragraph
  • Meteorological synopsis
    • What are "dewpoint temperatures"? Also you have "dewpoint" (one word) and "dew points" (two words) - which is correct?
    • The phrase "...the first such issuance in February since February 10, 1998" is unnecessarily wordy, and could be reduced, simply, to: "...the first in February since 1998."
    • "Later in the morning at 10.30 am..." 10.30 am is later in the morning, so I suggest start the sentence "At 10.30 am...."
    • CST and UTC need explaining at first mention
    • "tornadic supercells" is specialist language, so is "spin-up tornadoes". You need either to explain such terms, or to find a different, more accessible form of words.
  • Tornadoes reported: This section consists entirely of a graphic, without text. It would be better if the graphic was treated in the same way as other images and charts. In any event it needs explaining - what do EF0, EF1 etc signify?
  • North-central Arkansas: Not much wrong here, but check for non-break spaces (140 people, 200 hours). Check elsewhere for others.
  • Memphis area
    • The sentence beginning "In addition, damage was reported..." is too long and complex, especially with a parenthetical note in the middle. I suggest you reconstruct into at least two sentences, absorbing the parenthetical part into the main text.
    • "Electricity was briefly cut to about 63,000 customers". I suggest this should be "Electricity supply to about 63,000 customers was briefly cut."

I am continuing to read the article, and will add further notes soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Continuing the review)

  • Jackson area
    • "just about" - just is unnecessary
    • "In addition" and "also" in same sentence - one is redundant
    • What does "l-40 rest area" mean?
    • "Hurst, Watters and McAfee dormitories were the hardest hit, with approximately 80% of them rendered uninhabitable." The word "them" is incorrect here. I think you mean "approximately 80% of their accommodation" was rendered uninhabitable.
    • Para 3: the word "tornado" is overused here. It occurs four times in the first sentence, and there is also avoidable repetition of the word in the two following sentences.
    • The word "had" needs to be inserted between "EF4" and "devastated"
    • "by this tornadoes" must be either "by these tornadoes" or "by this tornado"
    • NWS needs explaining
  • NE Nashville
    • The moving graphic is eye-catching, but hard for a layperson to interpret, with no key to the colours and a somewhat opaque caption.
    • "Twister" - explain term
    • Avoid using contractions ("didn't")
    • Another problem sentence: "In addition, due to being critically injured, the tornado claimed the life of a 14th Macon County resident on March 13, 2008." Suggest something like: On 13 March the tornado claimed the life of a 14th Macon County resident, who had been critically injured."
    • Penultimate paragraph, note in parentheses: "which was" and "initially" are not necessary.
    • "impinging" needs an "on" after
    • The last sentence of the penultimate paragraph needs some punctuation
    • Final sentence of the section goes into present tense: "This tornado is..."
  • North-central Alabama: no comment
  • Non-tornadic events: no comment
  • Flooding: The sentence beginning "Among the areas hardest hit..." needs some reorganisation for clarity.
  • Winter storm: "whiteout" is one word
  • Aftermath: "half the revenue made from tickets for the game would be..." can be simplified to "half the ticket sales revenue would be..."

I hope that you find the above comments helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Last Night?[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think if it's not at GA status it certainly has the potential and I would like another set of eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts...

  1. Can there be a brief description of "Production Code" in the lead section so the reader does not have to follow it to fully know what it means? Perhaps a small addition like "censorship guidelines".
  2. Perhaps add the film years in parentheses after the title? For example, for Bride of Frankenstein (1935)... it's not imperative, but it helps give the reader an idea of what timeline exists.
  3. "Laemmle agreed..." to "Laemmle agreed to excluding the word..."
  4. For the dates, can you add non-breaking spaces between the month and the day?
  5. For "Cast" section, do you think you could provide a brief description of each character? Something like "His Wife" is a good start... I think it gives the reader a chance to get an idea of who the actors played without actually getting into the plot detail. Again, not imperative, though. :)
  6. The article says that the film got "mixed reviews". I assume this was an assessment based on the tone of the ensuing reviews? Is there any chance of finding retrospective coverage about the overall reception? MOS:FILM#Critical reception says, "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' general consensus of the film. These will be more reliable in retrospect." If you can't find anything, it's fine, but I think it is more accurate than trying to eyeball the approximate tone from the reviews in the article.

Hope these help! Do you feel like the well is pretty dry in terms of additional sourcing? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1)[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 move this to FL. However, I'm not entirely sure what an FL would include, so I'd like to run this article/list through here first.

Thanks, DARTH PANDAduel 02:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a series I have never heard of. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are many episode list FLs, some on anime series - I would look at some of those for ideas and examples to follow. One possible model FL is List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1).
  • I would make clearer the connection between the manga and the episodes - are they new material or an adaptation of the books?
  • I would also explain the extra two episodes on the DVDs - were they ever broadcast? How did the events in them affect the second season? Why were they made?
  • There are several abbreviations that need to be explained on first use, for example ... animated by AIC, and produced by TBS.[1] I note that TBS is explained in the next sentence, but it needs to be explained in the first place it is used.
  • The episode summaries call Belldandy a "goddess" but the lead calles her an "angel" - which is it?
  • What are TV-sized versions of the theme music?
  • Language is unclear in several places - for example The season was released to Japan between April and December of 2005.[3] seems to be about the Japanese DVD release, but is not clear.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... NOCTURNENOIRtalk 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New South Greenland[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is a divergence from my usual expedition histories - a shortish account of the discovery of an Antarctic land that never was, by an American sealing captain in the 1820s. General review comments welcomed. I would particularly appreciate it if someone can confirm that what I've said about Fata Morgana mirages is accurate (I failed Physics 'O' Level examinations at school) Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments As expected, a very nice, very solid piece of work about a little known subject. I know little about Antartic exploration and have never previously been particularly enthused by it, but I have to say that Brianboulton's articles never cease to interest and intrigue me and this is no exception. I only have a couple of comments: Firstly independant articles on Benjamin Morrell and Robert Johnson would be particularly interesting in gaining a better understanding of the men who had such an effect on this subject, although this is hardly an actionable issue for FAC or similar. Secondly, when you say "According to Mills", I would give his full name again "W.J. Mills" because it has been a while since we saw him and there is another historian with a similar surname, which can create confusion. I will look through it again soon, but I don't think that I have any more issues to add (and the sailing stuff sounds fine to me as well). Great work. --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your helpful comments. I have taken your suggestion and specified "WJ Mills" to distinguish him more clearly from Hugh Robert Mill. On the matter of independent articles for Morrell and Johnson, I am seriously investigating the possibilities of one for Morrell. The present difficulty is finding neutral sources, i.e. other than his own Four voyages account, which cannot be relied upon. As to Johnson, it is very hard to find out anything about him beyond what I have included in the New South Greenland article, but I continue to be on the lookout. These might be very interesting projects for the future as I move my emphasis away from the Heroic Age. Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments

  • The first section (after the lead) jumps right in with "Wasp sailed south". This works if the reader has read the lead, but I think it would be better to have the body of the article step back for a sentence or two and say something like "In the early 19th century, the geography of Antarctica was almost completely unknown, though sightings of land had been made for over a hundred years by fishing and sealing ships" and set the scene a little. (I just made that up; I don't know if it's accurate.) For example, it appears that Morrell was deliberately exploring, rather than just sealing -- e.g. he searches for the Aurora Islands; is that the case? Was this a combined exploration/sealing expedition? Was that usual, or was Morrell unusual in this? Was Wasp already his ship? Had he explored in it before? I don't think you need more than two or three sentences, but it's a little too abrupt a start right now.
    • I have adopted your suggestion, and added a brief scene-setting paragraph. I think it provides sufficient context, and adds that Morrell had already been south, before his appointment to command Wasp. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the new first paragraph works well. One possible change would be to make "who had the previous year sailed to the South Sandwich Islands" into "who had sailed to the South Sandwich Islands the previous year"; a slightly more natural phrasing. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed and done Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morrell wrongly recorded his position there, placing his anchorage to the south and west of the island's coastline": I'm not sure from this what his error was. Did he actually anchor to the south and west? Or does this mean that he thought the position he was recording was actually on the coastline, but the position he gave was off to the south and west, well away from the coast? The size of the error would be interesting too, given that the reader immediately wonders how it compares with the difference between his sighting of New South Greenland and the similarly-shaped coast of Graham Land. (And that in turn implies that a scale would be good to have on that picture.)
    • I hope that my slight rewording has made things clear. The main object of this paragraph is to draw attention to factors which impinge on Morrell's credibility: he anchors at South Georgia but gives the wrong coordinates; then he finds the elusive Bouvet Island with "suspicious ease"; he then misdescribes the island, omitting its most visible feature. Should this man's account be trusted? Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The fix you've made works. I think the paragraph does have the effect you want; 60 miles is enough for a reader's eyebrows to go up and to make them think Morrell is unreliable, so I think it's worth being specific. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a misleading description": is "misleading" what you want here? Isn't the description flat-out inaccurate, not really misleading?
    • I'd still say more misleading than flat-out inaccurate, but for fear of being accused of POV adjectives, I've avaoided both, and simply reported that Morrell omitted the island's most salient feature in his description. Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, OK, but surely Mills says something quotable in this context to the effect that Morrell is incompetent or unreliable or both? Would be good to point this out to the reader. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The word Mills uses is "unreliable", so I've worked that in by a slight adjustment to the text.
  • "otherwise, he claims, in these open waters he could have taken the ship to 85°": I'd suggest "claimed" to stay in a consistent past tense.
    • When Morrell does things I use the past tense; when he says or describes things I use the "literary present". I think I have been fairly consistent, but I will check again. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right; my mistake. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morrell describes seal hunting activities along this putative coast, which activity continued during the remainder of the day": what's the difference between what Morrell describes and the activity that continues for the remainder of the day? In other words, could this be compressed to something like "Morrell describes seal hunting activities continuing along this putative coast for the remainder of the day"?
  • The first paragraph of "Searches for Morrell's land" seems to me to need an additional sentence after the first. You have a sentence commenting that geographers often dismissed the sighting, followed by a description of the limited early voyages into the Weddell Sea. I think a sentence linking these is needed; perhaps something like "This scepticism about Morrell's observations could not be confirmed for decades, as the Weddell Sea was only penetrated once more in the next eighty years. The sole expedition in that time was Sir James Clark Ross's voyage of 1843 ..." or something like that--I haven't phrased it just right there, but I think some segue like that would be useful.
    • I have taken the spirit of your suggestion rather than the wording, and I hope I have put it clearly and satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that works well. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only mention the title of Morrell's book in the lead. I think it would be good to mention early on that he made four voyages overall and that this was the first, perhaps in the additional context sentences I suggested at the start of the body. Then I would mention the title of the book at the end, where you talk about him writing it.
    • I've mentioned the four voyages in the context paragraph, with a footnote to indicate where they went. I'll add the title to the final para.
      That does it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the position on the map marked "? mountains" the point from which Morrell turned north (67°52'S, 48°11W)? If so, I'd suggest either putting the coordinates on the map, as you did with the North Cape position, or else making it clearer in the label that this corresponds to the furthest southern point to which Morrell sailed.
    • The position of the mythical "mountains" is not given; we are told it was about 70 miles south of the point where Morrell turned north. This position ought to be indicated, and I will raise the matter with the patient Ruhrfisch. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The calculated position is now on the map. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time thinking about whether another map, showing Bouvet Island and perhaps even the Kerguelens on the same map as the Weddell Sea, would be useful, but finally decided that this is about New South Greenland, not about Morrell, so I think the one you have is fine. Overall a concise, interesting and well-written article. Thanks for the chance to review it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these most helpful comments. A map extending to Bouvet Island, the Kerguelens anf the Farthest East would have to be on a very small scale, and would not be that informative. Also, as you indicate, the focus in this article should be on New South Greenland, rather than on the wider voyage. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, if you're still watching this page, what do you think of this map Image:1894 map of Antactica.jpg? It shows how little was known of Antarctic geography even 70 years after Morrell. The bottom map shows Ross's Appearance, but (perhaps significantly) does not mention Morrell, or New South Greenland. If you think the map ought to be in the article, where do you think it should go? Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be useful, particularly because of the inclusion of Ross's Appearance. How about making it a thumbnail on the right at the top of the "First Phase" section? You might also consider cropping it to just show the lower map, which is what's of particular interest here. I think the caption should make the same point you do -- that this is seventy years later, and Ross's Appearance is included but Morrell's is not. Mike Christie (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added the map - the full version, because my cropped version won't magnify up to readable form. It doesn't look right in the First Phase section, which doesn't involve the Weddell Sea, so I've put it in the appropriate section, in place of the Filchner image which was relatively uninformative. Also, I've been able to expand the article a bit, after finding a new source which gave additional information, so things are looking good! Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the distance scale in kilometres to the map I made. Let me know if you want labels changed (the southernmost point originally had latitude and longitude, but that was estimated from another map and removed later). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I see the scale is on the top left of the map as well as the bottom right; at top left it conflicts with the South American peninsula. Could it be removed from the top left? Incidentally, how do you create these? I see you use Online Map Creation; how do you recolour the map? I occasionally need maps for my own articles, and I'd love to know how you do these. Mike Christie (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I fixed the map, thanks for pointing that out. I use MS Paint or Paint.net. To color I use the semi official map colors and fill or erase as needed. I have some details on how I do maps at User:Ruhrfisch/Resources#Making_Maps Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel[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 WP:FLC. Please ignore the episode summaries that have not yet been written (obviously), as I am still working on those.

Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is well written with few spelling or punctuation issues. I have done some moderate copyediting- you can never have enough copyediting.
    • Thank you
  • In episode four Beagle reverted to his maiden name of Flywheel- and the firm's name changed to Flywheel, Shyster and Flywheel, implying that Groucho's character was both of the Flywheels. Is this oddity mentioned or explained anywhere? I would like to know, and I bet anyone reading the article will wonder too.
    • He is both Flywheels. The character thought he was so important the company should be given his name twice. I'll have to think about how I can word that, and look for a reference that backs it up.
  • In your summary of episode 7, who gets thrown out of the house by the butler? I assume it's Flywheel and Ravelli, but it doesn't read that way.

Regards, Reyk YO! 01:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Fink[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 take it to FA status. I've very confident about the research and writing components. Copyediting and organizational feedback are especially welcome (although I'm confident on those, too). Thanks! Scartol • Tok 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whew! Very extensive article you've put together! It is nice to see a film article use books as references. Do you feel that there is not much more to be found in newspaper articles, magazine articles, or academic journals? Also, I am not sure about citing IMDb for the budget... IMDb mainly runs on user submissions. Is the budget not cited elsewhere? Also, I think that the "Themes" section could benefit from an actual screenshot; a symbol of the slave ship would be pretty welcome. I think that the Hitler and Larry King images are a little bit too tangential for the article. Just some initial thoughts... let me know how you feel about other sources as references! —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this source... Dunne, Michael (2000). "Barton Fink, intertextuality, and the (almost) unbearable richness of viewing". Literature/Film Quarterly. 28 (4): 303–311. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into the Film Quarterly piece. I hunted for newspaper and magazine articles, but mostly found reviews. I can't honestly imagine that they would have info that wasn't later collected into the books I used. (One of them, for example, is a compendium of interviews.) I, too, am uncertain about using IMDB, but a number of other film articles use it, so I figure it's accepted. But maybe not? Scartol • Tok 02:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has actually been an ongoing discussion about it. I think, though, that it would be best to be safe and find an alternative reference. A quick Google search shows this as a good replacement, since you already cite this book in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, except that the quote you mention isn't really a specific bit of research. It's just producer Joel Silver talking. (I do use the quote in the article, but only as a bit of an afterthought.) Anyway, I'll scan the books to see if I can get some numbers from them. Thanks for the discussion link – I'll have a look when I have a minute. Scartol • Tok 11:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed a bit about IMDb forums speculating on the symbolism. We don't report on user opinion. You might as well quote my opinion on the symbolism of the film. You need to stick to professional writers' opinions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I knew that was on the edge of acceptability; I actually meant to revisit it before moving to article namespace, but must have forgotten. Thanks for removing it. Scartol • Tok 19:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reading the "Plot" section of this article, and there seems to be some switching back and forth with the characters' names. I think it would be better to establish consistency, though I'm not sure if it would be better to use the first name or the surname. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I meant to check. I'll try to unify the names, but I do think some characters should be referred to by first names (Charlie is almost always called "Charlie" in the movie) and others by surname (Mayhew, for example). Scartol • Tok 19:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that some of the images used in the article should be reevaluated. Per WP:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedicity, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." The image of the directors, the filming location, and the actors are fine, in my opinion. I do not think that the Pearl Harbor image, the Hitchcock image, the Hitler image, and the Larry King image are significantly relative to the topic. I am on the fence about the Hollywood sign image and the golem image. I think images are great visual aids for an article, but another approach to break the "wall of text" is to use quoteboxes. You have numerous quotes throughout, so you could put a few in a left-align or right-align quotebox. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian extraordinaire Awadewit, who has constructed more FAs than nearly anyone else around, once said – and I agree – that image captions should provide info not also found in the article text. That said, I agree that images need to relate to the text, and for this reason I'm fine with removing the golem image. Most of the others are all directly connected to the nearby article text. (There's another Larry King quote in "Reception", for instance, and the "Setting" section discusses WWII in depth.) Scartol • Tok 19:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are trying to do, but I think that the images should be clearly relevant to the film. For example, the images of Pearl Harbor and Hitler are not directly relevant to the film. The circumstances surrounding these images are, so it seems like a hop, skip, and leap away from the topic itself to make these images relevant. The same goes for Larry King... seeing the picture of him, one could assume, wow, he must have really responded to this film, where it looks like it is just one person in a group of people who responded. You know what I mean? Also, I do not have a specific stance on captions... I tend to have an informative caption and a little more substance in the neighboring text (if necessary). Removing the images does not mean the captions can't be used elsewhere. Quoteboxes was just a tangential suggestion, since not all thematic coverage can easily summon an image to illustrate it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; I think the images of Pearl Harbor and Hitler are directly relevant to the film. The Coens said they specifically chose the onset of WWII as the setting, and the date of 9 December on the clapperboard is a particularly relevant detail in the text. I'm not at all married to the images of the golem or Larry King, but insofar as King is someone prominent who spoke positively about the end of the film, I think it's fair to include an image of him. (Especially since we don't have any free images of Canby or Rosenbaum.) I personally don't care for quoteboxes; they often feel like filler. But if we don't have an option, I suppose they'll have to do. I'm curious to know what others think. Scartol • Tok 15:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to get others' thoughts. At least we are dealing with freely licensed images here! :) I am not trying to force this change, but I do not find as much relevance as you. Maybe others feel differently. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am only giving this article a cursory read, but my initial reaction is that this is an excellent example of writing, from both a stylistic and technical level. More to come. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: When you use a non-free image, you need critical commentary in the text (not just the caption) to support the image. Otherwise, it just seems like a random image in the section, that may have a good fair-use rationale for, doesn't have a concrete location. There were only 4 that I could tell were non-free, the two comparison images and the soundtrack image. Speaking of, we generally don't include images of soundtracks unless there is commentary on the image itself. I would scrap the mini-infobox, move the links down to the EL section. You've got so many images (free ones at that) in the article, it gets a bit cluttered. Removing the unnecessary album box will give some breather. Might I also suggest moving the "Background and writing" into "Production" as a subsection called "Development". Then put what is already in the Production section under a new subsection of "Filming", as the "Background and writing" was basically their development, which is essentially part of the production of the movie (just not in the literal sense).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I included the soundtrack infobox because it was there when I started, and I always try to preserve as much of the existing article as I can. However, I despise infoboxes and I'm totally fine with eliminating it (along with the soundtrack picture). I don't agree with the suggestions for rearranging the first sections; I think that in the case of Barton Fink the writing process is uniquely relevant, and deserves a section of its own. Moni3 has suggested putting the "Plot" section before "Production", which may help to delineate the differences more clearly. But she hasn't posted an actual review per se, so I'm waiting to see what she says when she does. Scartol • Tok 15:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to take this to FAC you need to take a look at the image placements. Pay particular attention to those that impact upon section headers. See WP:ACCESS#Images for further details. Per WP:DASH, most of those spaced en dashes should be replaced with unspaced em dashes. Steve T • C 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. All of the images are within the section they're meant to illustrate, and there are no left-aligned images just below third-level headers. Was there another part of the WP:ACCESS#Images guidelines I'm missing? As for the en dashes: if you look carefully at WP:DASH, you'll notice that the WP MOS allows spaced en dashes to be used as an alternative to unspaced em dashes. Scartol • Tok 15:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any luck with the Literature/Film Quarterly resource? I actually printed out this article for some reading and copy-editing, but I just recycled all my white papers this morning. :( I will have to re-print the article and see if there are any suggestions I can make. Definitely want to pick up this film with all this published depth, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Holes and Revelations[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This has a FAC back in August which was withdrawn as it wasn't really ready. I've been workong in the concerns listed there, but would appreciate more specific comments about which bits of the prose suck (and why - I'm no good at this copyediting stuff) and general areas for improvement. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks, THE GROOVE 02:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I get the feeling that the article is a bit... disjointed. You start talking about "Soldier's Poem" before the rest of the tracks in musical style. My suggestion would be to merge the style and content sections. The article is lacking context. I want to know more about the songs, but there's surprisingly little there. The reception suffers from too much quoting and not enough summarizing of concrete issues critics too, or praise. Don't just do postive/negative. Split it up by their sound, the content, et al. I think a major issue is that the article doesn't have enough sources. Go through newspaper archives to find print sources. Move the Charts section up to reception, so that the sales and charting information can be discussed critically in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. You're completely right, I feel that way myself. It's as if a lot of the sentences don't really follow on from previous sentences and the whole thing is lots of little facts stuck together with no 'flow' or context. This writing thing is really damn hard. Heh. It's weird that I can't find more sources really, you'd think that anyone and everyone would be talking about albums released by a band this big. I will see what I can dig up, musewiki has lots of links to interviews and other reviews and suchlike so maybe I'll find something new there. THE GROOVE 03:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to a LexisNexis account, so if you want I can go trawling and send you PDFs of sources (it'll take a couple weeks, prolly.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be awesome, I'd really appreciate that. Also, I just found this which has a loooot of information about the recording and sound of the album. I don't know if it's strictly reliable though; they have scans of the magazine and obviously I'd cite the magazine, not the wiki, but sourcing rules are a bit arcane to me at times. THE GROOVE 03:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, so if it was just a transcript of the text on the wiki you would have to source the wiki (which is obviously not reliable.) As they've got the scanned pages, however, you should be able to use those and cite it directly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've got a bunch of stuff. There was something like 600 hits, not counting duplicates, so I kinda went down and picked ones which weren't just short reviews (alone). Some of them are still short, but there's at least one or two somewhat lengthy features in there. Send me an email and I'll reply back with the attachments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efe comment
  • There are shifts from USA to US. Should use one throughout. --Efe (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Anthony All Stars[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 love to get feedback on how I could improve it further with a view to eventually seeing it brought up to GA-quality.

Thanks, Shoemoney2night (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Generally well done, here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicks. *

  • There are several direct quotes without a ref directly following as required per WP:MOSQUOTE. For example Ferguson recalls: "Richard was playing the guitar—something from Cat Stevens—one day and I walked up to him and we did 'Wild Thing'. I sang a few lyrics and jumped about like a mad thing. Lo and behold we made a stack of money in ten minutes." needs a ref at the end.
  • Not too many errors, but I did see a few places that could benefit from a copyedit - one example I recall is Fidler says that in their earlier performances, busking and performing in clubs, ... shouldn't this be Fidler said?
  • Per WP:NFCC I am not sure what the second fair use image adds to the article - what does it show that the other images do not?
  • A few places could provide context for the reader better - for example, former Australian politician Doug Anthony, was a much-loved Prime Minister of Australia who had been assassinated on November 11, 1975, by right wing extremists - could explain that he was never PM, was still alive in 1975, and my guess is he might not be much loved, but this could be clearer. See WP:PCR
  • This is unclear to me Book sold 30,000 copies in England within the first two weeks of publication before being censored. When DAAS refused to release an edited version of the book or permit a warning sticker on the cover, the issue was taken to court where the censorship was overturned.[13][14] Usually when something is censored it is published with part removed or blacked out. Was it banned (could not be sold)?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the PR, your comments are always extremely helpful. I'm working through addressing the issues you've brought up now.
The second fair use image was intended as an example of the group's involvement of the audience and invasion of people's personal space, which was fairly unique at the time (the image shows Paul McDermott with an audience member's shoe shoved down his pants). But I'm beginning to think that's not shown clearly enough in the image I've used. I think there was one sketch they did in which they held guns to an audience members head (these were innocent times :P)... would that be a better example? Otherwise I'll just remove the image entirely.
Cheers, -Shoemoney2night (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emilie Schindler[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I haven't created this article, however I have considerably worked on it to make it at least a C class article. Emilie Schindler is not as much well known as Oskar Schindler, therefore there was much less data available about her and I had to work with the limited available sources. It will be really helpful if I can get some guidance on how to improve the quality of the article.

Thanks, Marsa Lahminal (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Review by Headbomb

  • Rule of thumb, if it's in the lead, it should probably be in the main text too. If she's known for saving jews and humanitarian aid, then this should be expanded.
  • The first thing that struck me is the lack of citation for the number of jews she saved.
 Done
  • The books "Ich, Emilie Schindler" and "A Memoir Where Light And Shadow Meet" are mentionned in the text for the depiction of her life but not used as a reference... that is a bit weird.
  • Consider using material from that book and Schindler's Ark/A Memoir Where Light And Shadow Meet to expand the section on humanitarian aid/jew saving/whatever these books say about her...
  • Some things are not made obvious or not put in context. For example "He was number 142 on the list". What list? Schindler's List? Grocery list? Is the fact that he's number 142 important?
No its not important for the article, so I have removed it.
  • Some weasel words are present such as "has been described as". Described by whom? What's the source?
Removed
  • Any reaction from the public and the media when she died (and after)?
  • How is her friendship with Rita Reitz relevant to this article? Is Reitz a notable person? Did this friendship influenced her later views or shows some aspect of her character? If not, then it should be slashed.
Rita Reif is not a notable person, but somehow she did change Emilie's perception of Jews. However, I could not find any exact source verifying it so I have removed it.
  • Her tombstone include date of birth/death/cross? Is this really necessary? Tombstone epitath is ok.
Removed.
  • "Little house" --> house, or be a bit more specific in the description.
Changed it to 'small'. A small house defines the conditions (i.e she was poor) better.

That's about what I have to suggest for improvements. As far as I'm concerned, the article's material is good enough for a C-class if some referencing from books other than "Oskar Schindler: The Untold Account of His Life, Wartime Activities, and the True Story Behind the List." is done.

Judgment Day (2008)[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 have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature article status. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Judgment Day (2008)/archive1.

Karakuridôji Ultimo[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 for GA-class. A section I would like to be reviewed is the Media section. Comments. I honestly don't know what else needs to be done so i'll take any comments. : )

Thanks, – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 00:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Article needs a copyedit to clean up the language and for typos. I do not think it is up to GA standards with its current language.
    • For example "it's" is a contraction for "it is", but "it's" is often used where the possessive "its" should be used.
    • Or should it be "Mt. Fuji" instead of Mt. Fuzi?
    • Or this sentence Also a man in Central Tokyo has invested into the moment and member K found Vice's arm and planned to take all of it's power. - I do not know what "has invested into the moment" means, the "it's" error is there, and I am not sure what it means to take the power from a detached arm.
  • The plot does not make clear to me which robot is good and which is evil.
  • Given the one critical review cited, quoting so much of the Stan Lee press releases might be seen as being too POV?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I fixed the "it's" errors, I make them alot. Sorry bout that. : P Mt. Fuzi is actually what they called it for some reason. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 05:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed that one sentence to Member K found Vice's powerful shape-shifting arm and planned to obtain all of its power. If that makes more sense. : P – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 05:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Coon[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm requesting a peer review for this article because I would like to take it through the FAC process. It is currently a GAN. I am looking for any room for improvement and maybe thoughts, specifically, on the images. (Are they good enough? Do some need to be removed? Etc.)

Thank you so much to everyone who is willing to help. – Ms. Sarita Confer 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda: My main comment is that the prose needs a thorough going-over. There are a number of grammatical errors, redundancies, and confusing statements. Here are some examples:

  • One such folktale includes that of Marie Antoinette, the Queen of France, who was executed in 1793. The phrase includes that of doesn't make sense in this context. Ditto at the start of the next paragraph.
  • bred with other short-haired breeds—bred ... breeds is a bit repetitive. Also if the original cats are long-haired, then other is not correct.
  • a mass amount of long-haired cats—mass amount is odd and should be replaced, e.g. by several, or even omitted.
    • I think this was taken care of in a revision for the GA review. – Ms. Sarita Confer 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A theory which is biologically-based, albeit impossible—again, albeit impossible is odd; though impossible might be better. The article also needs to state why this is impossible.
    • This was also taken care of during the GA review. – Ms. Sarita Confer 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The connection to the Vikings is noted through the strong resemblance of the Maine Coon to that of the Norwegian Forest Cat, another breed which is said to be descendents of cats that traveled with the Vikings.—'is noted through' is odd 'is seen in' would be better. 'that of' is incorrect and not needed. 'descendents' is incorrectly spelled, and the plural sounds odd with the preceding singular verb.
  • The first Maine Coon to be mentioned in literature was in 1861—Does this mean 'the first recorded mention', or the first mention in a literary work?
  • farmers located in Maine would tell stories about their cats and hold—these could just be straight past tense verbs.
  • she was the first cat to ever win an official award—first cat in the world or the US? Also the reference given at the end of the following sentence doesn't mention this fact.
  • Maine Coons subsequently became popular in cat shows in New York and a dozen Maine Coons were entered into a show in Boston in 1878. The problem with this sentence is that subsequently is referring to a cat show in 1895, which makes the reference to the 1878 show logically inconsistent.
  • The last recorded win ... was recorded—second instance of recorded is redundant.
  • breed was declared extinct in the 1950s, although this declaration was considered to be exaggerated—as the breed was not extinct, considered to be is unnecessary, unless the sentence is trying to say it was considered at the time to be an exaggeration.

There are more instances of these sort of problems in the rest of the article. Some other points:

  • In the first two paragraphs you say the Maine Coon is native to Maine, but then say the date and manner of its introduction to the US is unknown. If it was introduced, then it can't be a native! This needs clarifying.
  • It would be good if the origins section indicated more clearly which is the generally-accepted theory of their origin.
    • I believe the last paragraph in the "Origins" section states this...? I'll revise it anyway. – Ms. Sarita Confer 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overseas is used a few times. This should possibly be replaced or rephrased in a less US-centric manner (since the US is 'overseas' to those outside it, like me!). Similarly, things like 'second most popular cat breed'—in the world or just in the US?
    • I understand what you're saying. However, the lead paragraph specifically states that the Maine Coon is an American breed, whose known history is entirely restricted to the United States/North America. The second most popular cat breed sentences have been revised. – Ms. Sarita Confer 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional breed status, championship status need to be explained.
    • Done. Can you have a look to make sure it looks okay? It seems awkward, but I couldn't find a better way to revise it. – Ms. Sarita Confer 03:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we really need to know where the world's longest cat lives :)
  • Maine Coons can be seen in all colors with the exception of those indicating hybridization ... Such colors are unaccepted by breed standards. The logic here is a bit convoluted. If certain colours indicate hybridisation, that means cats in these colours must exist/have existed.
    • Thanks for catching this. I revised this sentence. – Ms. Sarita Confer 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references which are in pdf format should be explicitly indicated by |format=pdf in the {{cite web}} template. Also is there any reason you are putting the publisher in italics outside the template rather than using the |publisher= field?
    • Edited refs to include the |format=pdf information. – Ms. Sarita Confer 03:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of images is fine, though I don't think the one of the male's face really adds anything to the article.
    • I disagree. The image of the 2 year old Maine Coon is the only image we have that shows the breed's facial features, up close and personal. But I am not against removing it. What do you think? – Ms. Sarita Confer 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason the books listed in 'Further reading are not used in the article?
    • This was brought up in the GA review. I was able to find one of the books and incorporated it into the article. However, I currently have no way of finding/time to find the other books to see if they're of use and confirm the information. – Ms. Sarita Confer 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you find these comments useful. Dr pda (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C.[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 am quite confident that, with a little bit of work, this article isn't far away from Featured Article status. I'm fairly sure that most of the article is up to scratch, and I'm well aware that the History section needs a fair bit of referencing, so I'm really looking for comments about the quality of the prose rather than about the feeble referencing.

Many thanks, – PeeJay 21:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. PJ, per the AutoPR, regarding captioning consistency, I'm thinking there should be periods at the end of every caption, regardless of whether or not it's a "complete" sentence. Calebrw (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. If it's a sentence fragment or a phrase, there is no need to put a full stop (that's what we call "periods" over here) at the end of the caption. – PeeJay 19:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scout (association football)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have started this article on scouting for football (association football). I feel it is already somewhat developed (at least beyond a stub level) and it already has a fair number of references. Requesting for further peer review please. Thanks, Veinofstars (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy[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 is very imformative and it has been written with a neutral point of view for a very notable but controversial person and has been done after a great deal of hardwork and after resolving disputes it was protected at one point for over 9 months .I would like to thank all involved for resolving disputes and and building the article.

Thanks, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vulcanoid asteroid[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 rewritten it pretty much from scratch and I've reached the limit of what I can do on my own. I think I've got it to a reasonable standard but I'd like some ideas for improvement- particularly the lead, which I think is a bit patchy. I would like to push for good article status fairly soon.

Thanks, Reyk YO! 06:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting and seems pretty close to GA to me, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • According to WP:HEAD, History and Observation should be History and observation
    • Done
  • I would add details on their possible sizes (upper and lower limits) and perhaps most likely orbits to the lead
    • Done
  • Suggested copyedit to first two sentences The vulcanoids are a hypothetical population of asteroids that may orbit the sun in a dynamically stable zone within the orbit of the planet Mercury. They are named after the hypothetical planet Vulcan, whose existence was disproven in YEAR.
    • Done
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. They should also be in numerical order.
    • Mostly done- all the inline citations are now in numerical order and come after the punctuation. The mid-sentence citations I have left because putting them at the end of the sentence would imply that the sources for that sentence back up the whole sentence, rather than just a portion of it. The example given at Wikipedia:References does the same.
  • Nice images (nice job making some of them too) However in File:Vulcanoidorbits.png the orbit labels are too small to read legibly on my monitor and the caption should make it clearer that the green disc is the region meant.
    • Done. Thanks. I'm particularly happy with the way the first one came out.
  • There are a few one or two sentence paragraphs that should probably be expanded or combined with others to improve flow.
    • Done
  • I would explain why the 2000 and 2002 attempts by Stern did not find anything.
    • I can't find an explanation in any of the sources.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! Your input is very much appreciated. Regards, Reyk YO! 23:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Hope Is Gone[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 would like some peer input before we submit it for a FAC.

Thanks, REZTER TALK ø 15:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cannibaloki (talk · contribs)
  • "It was released on August 26, 2008, by…" → "…on August 26, 2008 by…"
    • Done.
  • You told me in the lead, which the album was released in a special edition..., okay, but and the normal edition?
    • Done.
  • "The album was Slipknot's first #1 debut on the Billboard 200." → The other albums also peaked at number one, but the difference is that this first to debut in that position?
    • Cleared up.
  • Billboard 200 → Billboard 200
    • Done.
  • "Noted to have begun preparation in 2007, recording was due to begin in January 2008; however, it was delayed to February." → What does this sentence? Talk a little from where it was recorded (to keep this sentence, 'okay').
    • Done.
  • Music style → Musical style
    • Done.
  • On All Hope Is Gone Slipknot expanded on their use of traditional song structures, acoustics and solos that they first introduced on their previous album Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses). → Source?
    • That's just a generalist comment based on all the information which follows, almost like a little introduction, all the information afterwards is sourced.
  • "Percussionist Crahan, compared it with the song "(sic)" from their debut album…"
  • "Crahan stated…" ??? → "In an interview to Artistdirect, Crahan stated…"
  • "Crahan cited "This Cold Black" as one..." → "He also cited "This Cold Black" as one..."
    • Overall Crahan three times.
    • Done.
  • "...topped only by The Verve's album, Forth. [43]" → "...topped only by The Verve's album, Forth.[43]" (empty space between)
    • Done.
  • "50 Best Guitar Albums of the Year"
    • Done.
  • Who composed the music and wrote the lyrics? (Track listing section)
    • Done.
  • "...and "Sulfur" .[52]" → "...and "Sulfur".[52]" (space again)
    • Done.

Regards, Cannibaloki 14:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Garland as gay icon[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 think it comes close to GA standards but may not be there yet. Another set of eyes before a GA nom would be most welcome.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sorry this article is not close to GA. As it stands it is just a list of quotations loosely, and poorly strung together. The article lacks flow and depth. Very good resources such as Richard Dyer's work have not been fully exploited. The article lacks a coherent structure. Although we have the main article you have to say who and what she was, the years that she was active, and something about her genre. Then some social history is needed; more is needed about the attitudes to homosexuality (particularly to gay men) at the time. It is not enough to just include quotations about boys in tight trousers. You have to say homosexual relations between men were illegal and life was a struggle for them. The article should describe Garland's place in the wider gay sub-culture of the era. To produce a Good Article on this subject much more research is needed. It is an important subject but unfortunately the article is little more than a stub at the moment. I hate having to write this but if the article were to get an "easy" GA review and was then put up at FAC, it would be torn to shreds. Please don't shoot the messenger. Graham Colm Talk 12:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dress shirt[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 stuck on ways to improve it further, and a fresh pair of eyes for little style and layout fixes would help anyway. I reckon it is not insurmountably far from 'good article', so any comments on how close we are would be helpful.

Thanks, Kan8eDie (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Uncia (talk · contribs)

The article is interesting and well-written. The biggest weakness is the referencing. As it stands there is a block of reference works at the end, but few specific statements are referenced. WP:CITE gives guidelines for citations; specifically "To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor." I am skeptical of some of the statements here (more on that below) but there's no easy way for me to verify them.

Some specific points and areas of improvement:

  • Lede says "The term button-down is often used now in American English to refer to shirts in general" - I don't believe this is true, I think it still refers to the button-down collar. Please give a reference for this.
  • Collars: Duke of Windsor is linked to Edward VIII of the United Kingdom rather than Duke of Windsor, which is a little sneaky, since it probably is named after this particular Duke of Windsor. Probably it would be better to name both, that is, say it is named "after Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, the Duke of Windsor".
    • Kan8eDie: Technically it was not named after "Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor" (he never carried both titles at once, and was not King at the time of the shirt collars). He was Edward VIII for under a year, and spent the vast majority of his adult life with the name "Duke of Windsor". There has only ever been one Duke of Windsor, so the term refers unambiguously to him. I think users are more likely to be interested in the man than the title (since we are using the term to refer to the man), so that is where the link goes.
  • Fit: Most of the Fit section applies to ready-to-wear shirts, and this should be noted (there are no 15-1/2 34 made to measure or bespoke shirts).
    • Kan8eDie: fixed.
  • Notable makers: (1) "best": it's always good to explain the criteria for "best" of anything; you can get this from the referenced article; (2) it's not clear from the article that this was an "independent survey", in fact it's not clear what the source of the rating was: no one is named as the source, and it's unbelievable that the author personally tried all these shirtmakers (plus obviously many more who didn't make the rankings) to come up with this list. Although these probably are fine shirtmakers and deserve to be mentioned, the claim of their excellence is probably too strong.
    • Kan8eDie: Good point. For Forbes, with the wealth of its target market, it is however highly likely that they have had some contact with shirts from all these makers. The person who added the list I guess wanted to name some shirtmakers, and had the admirable idea of using a published source rather than his own assessment. For that purpose this list is good.
  • (general) "bespoke" is primarily a British term, although becoming more common in the US; the American term is "custom-made". It's OK to use bespoke, but you should include the American term too. See WP:ENGVAR
    • Kan8eDie: easily fixed.

Some things that might be added to the article:

  • Oxford (cloth) is not mentioned but probably should be (under Materials) - in the US dress shirts are nearly always either broadcloth or oxford cloth.
  • Polyester-cotton blends are very popular, not only because of cost but because they are more durable
  • Made to measure shirts are an important part of the market but are not mentioned here (should go under Fit).
    • Kan8eDie: sentence added.
  • You might mention power dressing under Materials. In Dress for Success (book) John T. Molloy developed an elaborate theory (that he backed up with research) of shirt colors and patterns that supposedly provide an authoritative or a soft look.
    • ditto
  • Brooks Brothers claims to have invented the button-down shirt, which you might mention. They are known for their very traditional style, which you might also mention.
    • Kan8eDie: first point was already there actually.
Response by Kan8eDie (talk · contribs)

Right, thanks for the helpful review. I responded to some of these points, and fixed the article for a few more. I will look some stuff up and edit accordingly for the rest soon (for example I need to use sources to find out about point 1 first). The guideline for when to add cites is hard to balance ("challenged or likely to be challenged" material). Certainly "challenged" is easy: if you don't like what you see or dispute it, add {{fact}} and the cite should be added. "Likely to be challenged" is harder: there are hardly any articles citing every statement, and there are FAs with whole paragraphs (proper ones, not section summaries of a main article) unreferenced. In general, I agree that the article needs more inline cites, but I don't really have enough time or sources to do this for everything, so I page-refed the statements I felt more challengable, and to avoid an endless column of page numbers for the same book, put them as general reading at the end. I appreciate this is not ideal, so thanks for bringing that up. To get to FA certainly tons more books would be needed, and some more for GA too I suspect (lower criterion for inlines: "likely to be challenged" only refers to "controversial or counter-intuitive" material, so I am just about border-line here).— Kan8eDie (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to get this article peer reviewed in order to prepare it for a future FA nomination. Any and all comments are welcome. I am concerned about the "series chronology" and "differences between media" sections for possibly have OR issues. I am aware that a general copyedit is needed. Thanks, 十八 11:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paul Reubens[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 Yamanbaiia has gone above and beyond in her efforts to make this page a GA -- it definitely appears to be very nearly close to FA status (well-written, comprehensive, widely sourced) What else needs to be done?

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal review[edit]

I will keep it brief. Looking at the criteria listed under WP:FA? I am prepared to say that this article meets each of those criteria. However I will leave it up to you to nominate this article for such status. For now I would rate this article and A on the quality scale. Congratulations to all of it's editors. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could complain that the citations of sources do not appear in the lead section. However if one reads on the sources to back up what's in the lead are in the body of the article. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think this needs some work before it is ready for FAC.

  • The hardest criterion for most articles to achieve at FAC is being written at a professional level of English1a "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" see WP:WIAFA. I do not think this there yet, here are a few examples:
    • Biographies typcially refer to their subject by last name only, so change things like Paul has two younger siblings ...
    • Is it Pee-wee Herman (throughout the lead) or is it "Pee-wee Herman" (in quotes), such as The character of "Pee-wee Herman" first originated during a 1978 improvisation exercise with The Groundlings where Reubens came up with the idea ... or Reubens says that there is no specific source for "Pee-wee" but rather a collection of ideas.
    • Just in the lead, this could be improved. In 1982 Reubens put up a show about a character he had been developing during the last few years. The show was called The Pee-wee Herman Show and it ran for five sellout months with HBO producing a successful special with it. First off the HBO sepcial was in 1981 according to the article, so having the theater show that preceded it in 1982 makes no sense. The sentences do not make it clear it was a stage show first and are needlessly repetitive. Perhaps this coyuld be changed to something like Reubens originated the character of Pee-wee Herman in 1978, and in 1981 brought The Pee-wee Herman Show to the stage for five sellout months. HBO produced a successful special based on the show.
    • Or After his arrest, Reubens spent the next two years caring for his terminally-ill father in Florida, who died on February 21, 2004 of cancer.[4][70] could be After his arrest, Reubens spent the next two years in Florida caring for his terminally-ill father, who died of cancer on February 21, 2004.[4][70]
    • The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which interrupt its flow - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • The lead image caption is unclear - it needs to say which chacater he is portraying (presumably Pee-Wee Herman, although he looks different). Provide context for the reader
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • Per WP:HEAD headers of subsections should not repeat the section, unless in a title. So the movies and TV show as headers are OK, but change "Pee-wee's legacy" to just "Legacy"
  • Article is way overlinked - Phil Hartman is linked three times in three paragraphs - see WP:OVERLINK

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Buddha and His Dhamma[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want review regarding making of this book.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Ganesh Dhamodkar 06:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This moment, the article just above stub class. The article needs sections

  • about the main ideas expressed
  • About the author
  • critical analysis by other scholars
  • Reception (sales)
  • Editions

--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's No Place Like Home (Lost)[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 it for FAC. I am looking for a general copy-edit/ review of the article. This article is about an episode of Lost and I am looking for a reviewer who isn't too familar with the show because as an avid watcher I can't really gauge what is in-universe and what isn't.

Thanks, Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: While Jackieboy87 probably welcomes my comments, I am not the "reviewer who isn't too familiar" whom he is hoping for.
    I have not read over the article yet, but I do not think that it is yet ready for FAC due simply to lack of some information, e.g. Live + 7 viewers, that Damon considers the scene with Jack and Locke in the greenhouse to be the pivotal moment of the season, that Damon and Carlton went over the whole eighty-five-page script, hoping to edit off twenty plus pages and found at the end that they had only gotten rid of half a page, etc. Due to its scope (and of course, your fantastic editing skills), I believe that this article has the potential to be the next great Wikipedia episode article, like Through the Looking Glass (Lost) was and more recently, The Stolen Earth has quietly become. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greece Runestones[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 nominate it for FA.--Berig (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Berig (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit (film)[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 believe with recent improvements it comes close to if not meets GA status. As the primary author I always like to get another set of eyes on the article before making the GA nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I had never heard of this film, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should probably be at least two paragraphs long.
  • The plot decription seem overly long / detailed, especially compared to the length of the rest of the article. Most of the article is just plot summary - the majority of the article should be about things other than the plot.
  • The prose is awkward in spots, one example He temporarily moves in with his cousin Tad (Daniel Kucan), who is living with his suddenly ex-boyfriend Gill (Brian Lane Green) and Tad's new boyfriend Julian (Darryl Stephens). Not sure what "suddenly ex-boyfriend" means here.
  • There are also a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and even some sections, which should be combined with others or expanded.
  • Last sentence of Critical reception and the DVD section need refs.
  • Any information on how it did at the box office - have you looked at Box Office Mojo?
  • Might be useful to provide some context for readers who do not know what circuit parties are.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Material[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 page has underwent some major updates recently and there has been a lot of controversy surrounding whether or not it is suitably presented. Feedback would be most helpful.

Thanks, NoVomit (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • If at all possible, there should be an image in the article, preferably in the top right corner of the lead. Since the author is dead, I think a fair use rationale could be made for an image of her.
  • Article needs more references, for example there are many citation needed tags throughout and several paragraphs have no refs at all, such as the second paragraph in the History section. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The article has most of its references from the book itself, but most of the refs should be from sources about the book. This is a WP:NPOV issue, see also WP:IN-U (describe things from outside the perspective of the book) and WP:PCR (provide context for the reader)
  • At least some of the refs do not seem to be reliable sources - what makes this a reliable source?
  • The refs are not consistent - books need author, publisher, place of publication, etc. {{cite book}} and other cite teplates may help here.
  • Since the official title seems to be "The Seth Material", should the article title be that too?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulasa[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 article could be much better and I would like to hear what others have to say on the matter.

Thanks, NoVomit (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: With respect, the article in its present condition doesn't meet the minimum requirements for submission to peer review because it contains major clean-up tags. The PR limits are explained in detail here. Please consider re-submitting when the clean-up issues have been resolved. Finetooth (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Rogue Squadron[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 worked very hard on it over the past month and I think it is close to GA. Ultimately I would like to get it to FA. I think the article is very well sourced and pretty well written. Any comments on these areas are welcome. I'm also looking for any advice with the free(...?) content on the page. Any help is appreciated!

Thanks, --TorsodogTalk 16:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Headbomb

  • It's indeed a very high quality article. A few comments.
  • You mention the default 5 playable ships. Any reason why the unlockables ones aren't mentioned (Millenium Falcon, Car, ...)?
Only because they aren't playable by default. They have stipulations to how and why you can play with them and they are all mentioned in the Unlockable section. --TorsodogTalk 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the setting, perhaps a brief mention of who Skywalker and Antilles are is order. It's obvious to me, but I'm a Star Wars whore. Other might not be so knowledgeable.
  • "Mysterious new leader". If I recall correctly, that leader was mentionned by name, and it should be explicited right there. Is it Kohl Seerdon?
The problem with this is that I'm not sure who the leader is. As far as I can tell, it is never mentioned explicitly in the game and I'm not that knowledgeable in Stars Wars lore to know or confirm that it is Seerdon. --TorsodogTalk 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the new leader's not mentioned in the N64 game or manual. Dates in Star Wars says "Emperor Palpatine is reborn in a clone body" six years after the Battle of Endor (ten years after the Battle of Yavin), and cites the Dark Empire books (which I don't own). That may be what they meant, but they never say in-game or in-manual. Bah. --an odd name 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crix Madine/Kasan Moor/Rieekan... I'm surprised that Madine doesn't have his own article, but wikilink to a list of star wars characters in is order. Same goes for any other character mentioned.
The only reason I didn't link these people to the character lists is because they aren't even IN these lists, to my surprise. --TorsodogTalk 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Actually, two were and I added Moor to the list and then linked them all. --TorsodogTalk 17:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TorsodogTalk 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • at a mere 22 kHz that's weasel-word ish. Rephrasing into something like "at the relatively low 22 kHz sampling rate" would be better.
 Done --TorsodogTalk 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon its release in 1998, many reviews directly compared Star Wars: Rogue Squadron to one of its inspirations, a flight combat level in Shadows of the Empire that is generally considered to be one of the game's best levels. Which flight combat level? There were more than one.
 Done --TorsodogTalk 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mac Donald who is this guy and why is his opinion considered notable?
 Done --TorsodogTalk 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • N64's most well-hiden code. Wasn't the GoldenEye code to unlock all characters for multiplayer even "more hidden"? Note that I don't know this, I'm just throwing something I know took a pretty long to be known.
Well, it is a quote from IGN, so that is why it is worded that way. But you also have to remember, this code was never discovered, it was simply official unveiled earlier. --TorsodogTalk 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid contraction's such as "can't" or "doesn't". Just search for the "n't" string and you'll find them all in a heart beat.
 Done --TorsodogTalk 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it's extremely solid and extremely well written. I'd definitely support this for FA. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! It was a lot of help! I hope I addressed all of your concerns adequately. If you have any more comments, please feel free to let me know! --TorsodogTalk 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Jappalang
  • Lede
  • "It was one of the first games to take advantage of the console's Expansion Pak, which allowed players to view the game in a high-resolution mode."
This deserves a contrasting element, i.e. bring in a mention of the standard resolution the N64 used.
 Done - Changed to It was one of the first games to take advantage of the console's Expansion Pak, which allowed players to play the game with a 640x480 resolution display instead of the standard 320x240 resolution. --TorsodogTalk 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gameplay
  • "Before each mission, the player selects one of five default craft: a(n) X-wing, A-wing, Y-wing, Snowspeeder or V-wing. Only one vehicle is initially usable in each mission, but completing the game once allows any of the craft to be selected upon replay (excluding missions that require the use of the Snowspeeder or Y-wing). Each craft has its own unique set of characteristics consisting of primary lasers, secondary weapons, speed and maneuverability."
"a(n)" is not needed
Suggestion: "The game offers five futuristic crafts for the player to control: X-wing, A-wing, Y-wing, Snowspeeder and V-wing. Each vehicle has its own set of characteristics that consists of primary lasers, secondary weapons, speed and maneuverability. The game initially restricts the player to a particular craft for each mission; however; after the player has completed a mission, he or she can replay it with any vehicle."
 Done - Great suggestion! This was the last section I edited and for some reason I was having problems with it. Thanks for the help. --TorsodogTalk 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enemy craft and characters with which the player must contend include both air and ground vehicles. Enemy aircraft are primarily TIE fighters and probe droids. Ground defenses are more varied and include three different kinds of walkers, laser and missile turrets, stormtroopers and speeder bikes."
This can be moved to the end of "... where enemy, friendly and neutral NPCs are located and guides players to the locations of mission objectives." and rewritten as:
"Enemies comprise air and ground units. Their aircrafts are primarily TIE fighters and probe droids. Ground defences are more varied and include three different kinds of walkers, laser and missile turrets, stormtroopers and speeder bikes."
 Done - Thanks for the suggestion again. It helped to clean up this section a lot. --TorsodogTalk 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the sources? Primary sources (game manuals and guides) are acceptable for gameplay descriptions.
Again, last section I edited and I got lazy. My manual is at my other house, so I will update with sources ASAP! --TorsodogTalk 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synopsis
  • Seriously, both sub-sections should be trimmed (mostly Plot). There is no need to explicitly state every story detail of the game.
I disagree with the need to trim the Setting sub-section, but you are probably correct on Plot. My thought was that it was better to fully flesh it out and trim if needed instead of having to added to a meger Plot section. I will try to cut it down as soon as I have time. Feel free to take a stab at it if you are feeling up to the challenge! (Especially if you haven't played the game before, I might be a bit too attached to write the Plot section correctly.) --TorsodogTalk 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I cut it down a bit and now believe that the plot section is a good length for a story driven game. It is no longer the longest section in the article, and it is comparable to other FA with similar sections. --TorsodogTalk 17:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development
  • "but at the time LucasFilm was not keen on having games draw directly from the Star Wars films, and the proposal was shot down."
Plagiarism alert, From Shoemaker's Star Wars Rogue Squadron: A Retrospective, "At the time, however, LucasFilm wasn't keen on having games drawn directly from the Star Wars films, so Factor 5's initial pitch for a game that offered missions similar to fans' favorite Star Wars action sequences was shot down."
Please write in your own words the context of what the source has said.
 Done --TorsodogTalk 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The team then stumbled upon the Star Wars: X-wing Rogue Squadron comics set during the original trilogy that followed a group of pilots (including several characters from the films) led by Luke Skywalker. Factor 5 then set out to create a flight action game set in the Star Wars universe that featured original missions executed by the team of pilots from the comic books."
Again, from Shoemaker, "Then the group stumbled on a comic book named Rogue Squadron that was based on the elite group of pilots led by Luke Skywalker in the classic trilogy. Factor 5 set about creating a flight action game with an emphasis on original missions that would be set in the Star Wars universe and would focus on the elite team of pilots from the comic books."
 Done --TorsodogTalk 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A demo of the game was shown at E3 1998, but it was little more than a tech demo that could render a basic height map. It also featured an AT-AT model that was unable to move and AI-less TIE Fighters that simply flew and fired in a predetermined path."
Again, "the demo on display at the show was little more than a tech demo that could render a basic height map. It also showed an AT-AT model that was unable to move, and it had TIE Fighters with no AI that simply flew and fired over a predetermined path."
 Done --TorsodogTalk 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Factor 5 wanted to use the Nintendo 64's Expansion Pak, a memory expansion module for the console, to improve the game's graphics, but Nintendo was initially hesitant; Nintendo considered the technology reserved for new N64 hardware peripherals alone. After Turok 2: Seeds of Evil used the expansion to achieve a higher resolution, Factor 5 was also allowed to use it to allow gamers to play the game in a higher resolution (640x480) instead of the standard (320x240)."
Now from the second page of Shoemaker's,[3] "The team wanted to use the Nintendo 64's memory expansion module to improve Rogue Squadron's graphics, but Nintendo was initially hesitant; Nintendo considered the technology reserved for new N64 hardware peripherals alone. But after Turok 2: Seeds of Evil used the expansion to achieve a higher resolution, Factor 5 was also allowed to up Rogue Squadron's graphical ante."
 Done --TorsodogTalk 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the game's sound, LucasFilm was wary of allowing the game's sound designer Rudolph Stember access to the Star Wars library of sound effects because the company did not like the prospect of others using them outside of LucasFilm. As a compromise, it provided Stember with a assortment of sounds sampled at a mere 22 kHz, half the sampling rate needed to achieve realistic sound. Stember found that the effects he had lifted from VHS tapes of the original movies for a previous project actually sounded better than the clips provided by LucasFilm."
Further plagiarism from the same source above, "Unfortunately, at the time, LucasFilm was wary of permitting the Star Wars library of sound effects to be used outside of the company, so it provided Stember with a meager assortment of sounds sampled at a mere 22 kHz (which is only half the sampling rate needed to achieve realistic sound). Stember found that the effects he had lifted from VHS tapes of the original movies for a previous project actually sounded better than the clips provided by LucasFilm."
Changed a bit, but I plan to add more from a different source, so I will change more substantially ASAP. --TorsodogTalk 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This set of sound drivers utilizes both of the Nintendo 64's processors and is much less processor-taxing than the previous drivers. Advanced compression techniques were also employed to fit a large quantity of sound data in relatively little space."
Where in IGN's Best Sound of 1999 does this statement of claims and comparisons come from?
"Instead of trying to get Nintendo's aging sound drivers to do anything, Factor 5 went back to the drawing board and designed its own sound tools from scratch. The outcome is a much less processor-taxing way to handle sound that uses both processors and pumps out high quality stereo audio." Here they mention the original sound drivers, then in the next sentence they state that the new drivers are much less processor-taxing. --TorsodogTalk 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am stopping here. Please rewrite the Development section. It should not bear such similiarity with Shoemaker's work. Once rewritten, please remove the {{copypaste}} tag I have added to the section. Jappalang (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Cutie Honey[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 ten months after splitting the article from Cutie Honey, and almost a week after its current B-class rating, I don't think I have much more to add about the 1994 OVA series. In short, I want to make it a GA, at least.

  • I've noticed several discussions (such as this and this), suggesting e.g. that plot info and minor characters should be left out of the "Characters" section. To date I've considered the villains of each episode to be minor and have left them out. What (or who) else should be removed (or added) there? How should I split out plot-related character stuff: to a subsection of "Production" or "Characters", or should I just remove it? What other info should I re-arrange?
    • I'd suggest, moving the characters section to List of Cutie Honey characters as a foundation for a character list for the whole franchise, and simply placing a {{See also|List of Cutie Honey characters}} on top of the plot section. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Check the list and main article, I moved the characters. With all the Honey media out there, though, I won't even attempt to make that list comprehensive. --an odd name 22:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      (I split off a list of episodes as well.) --an odd name 01:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      (See also the merge suggestion I made at Talk:Cutie Honey The Live.) --an odd name 06:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I decided to put the character list back. I unindented it and put the voice-actor lines within the prose (at the end), and there might still be plot (in Spider, etc.) that can be moved to the episode list I split off, so it might be barely small enough to stay. The size of the bigger listings (Honey, Danbei, Chokkei, Dolmeck) might be a problem, but I think they are justified by their relative importance and length of time in the OVA. --an odd name 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      An embedded list is fine. Right now however, the character section is too large. Could you reduce it to a thrid of its current size? (You might want to look at Serial Experiments Lain for inspiration.) -- Goodraise (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure I can get it to a third of the original, but check now. I moved cameo stuff to the "Production" section. --an odd name 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only statement of the third paragraph of "Production and background" that's relevant is "Jessica Calvello [...] was hand-picked by Nagai to perform the voice of Honey". The rest is off-topic to the article. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reduced size of the characters section is a lot better, especially with the increased "Production and background" section, but it is still too large. At the very least, it should not be the largest section. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've reduced it still further, and tried to lengthen and copyedit other sections. I doubt it'll ever get to the desired length (short of making the characters unrecognizable, or using non-prose or shorthand) but I've proposed deletion of the spinoff article as it'll now only serve to dupe everything in the main one. Won't go for speedy-delete as others have edited it. --an odd name 22:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This size is good. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm considering removing the stuff about George Manley in "Reception" that I added, because he is an ADV voice actor. Thoughts? Should CmdrTaco's review be axed too?
    Taco's been removed (both sites linked by the statement are down anyway). --an odd name 22:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If George Manley isn't independent, perhaps his statements fit into the "Production and background" section? -- Goodraise (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds right to me. Moved. --an odd name 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lacking reliable English sources for many facts, I tried to make some reasonable Japanese translations based on what Unihan (一応, "for the time being", was surprisingly troubling for online translators—Web programmers take note!), http://nihongo.j-talk.org/, translation sites, the little Japanese I've actually learned in school, and common sense could all tell me; I'm pretty sure I've screwed something up.
  • I have yet to find any sales figures or Japanese reviews for this series. Anyone know of sources containing them?

I'd welcome any other suggestions for improvement. (This is my first peer review request.)

Thanks, an odd name 19:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few edits to clear things up for me, and I've a couple of questions - was Daiko a sukeban, perchance? Why is Go Nagai's image right down at the very bottom? Why don't the individual episodes have episode summaries? I've added a line to Danbei saying that he's a carry-on character from the 70s versions of Cutie Honey, as the summary kind of raises a question, by saying he is *now* such-and-such. Someone who is unfamiliar with the franchise may get confused. The article is really very good!!!!! :D --Malkinann (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits, Malkinann (I still don't like "gynoid" because that article isn't well-sourced on that, but I'll keep it in). For your three questions:
  1. According to geocities.com/mayor_light, Daiko and Akakabu are, in fact, modeled after two characters from Nagai's Oira Sukeban (Delinquent in Drag). I hope e.g. the Perfect Guides say more on this, as fansites aren't quite the best sources and it would be nice to say more than "well see, some guy on Geocities says they kinda look alike, and well they kinda do, there you go that's my source!" (There's also this slightly related fact that I can't quite verify, lacking the actual encyclopedia or even a page #.)
  2. I moved Go to "Production" and re-staggered the images and media.
  3. That'll take a while. :(
--an odd name 08:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fill in some episode summaries (more still need to be written, so I'll have to watch the whole series again which I won't mind :P) and address suggestions. Some things I mentioned weren't talked about, but were minor to me anyway. Frankly I think the main article is (at least damn close to) a GA now, so I'll close this review; I thank Malkinann, Goodraise, and Ryulong (who commented here) for their help and comments. To quote Magus, "Forward..." --an odd name 20:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jada Pinkett Smith[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like a peer review for this article because I want to take it through the FAC process, but I want to tackle any issues that may come up now before I nominate it. Any suggestions for potential improvements are welcome.

Thank you very much for everyone's time. – Ms. Sarita Confer 06:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang
  • I think the language is generally pretty good, although there is a bit of quirks here and there.
  • "She continued on to portray Lyric in another romance film, Jason's Lyric (1994)."
This seems to imply that she acted as Lyric in a previous film.
  • "with Pinkett Smith commenting,", "charity focusing on youth", "With Pinkett Smith's aunt, Banfield Evans, being diagnosed with lupus"
Noun-plus-ing constructs are frowned upon by the stricter grammaticians (see User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing).
  • "... second-stage lineup at 2005's Ozzfest. Ozzfest fans were outraged ..."
Ozzfest repetition — how about replacing "Ozzfest fans" with "Fans of the festival"?
These have all been taken care of. The noun-plus-ing constructs may be a little iffy, but it's a start. – Ms. Sarita Confer 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the changes are good. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am quite sure the last sentence of "Relationships and family" can be integrated with either larger paragraphs (short lone sentences are frowned upon). I also think the single sentence in "Charity work and politics" can be merged with other paragraphs.
I always did feel that those sentences were kind of tacky. I moved them into appropriate paragraphs. – Ms. Sarita Confer 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Jada Pinkett Smith Niobe.jpg — aside from its placement in violation of MOS (portraits face towards the text), is there any strong reason for this to be in the article other than "to show her image in this film"?
I moved the image to the right per MOS. There is no strong reason. The article was extremely bare with a lack of photos and seeing as how The Matrix series is what really gained her a lot of exposure, I figured the image was fitting. However, if you feel that it should really be removed, I have no problem with taking it out. – Ms. Sarita Confer 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any non-free image use can be justified by writing a strong and convincing rationale for why the photo should remain. If the photo is a notable high point of Pinkett Smith's career (that it is an identifying image of her), then write it in the NFCC template (the current "To be used on Jada Pinkett Smith article, highlighting a breakthrough role for the actor." is not very convincing).
I note your comment that removing this image leaves the article bare. There is File:Will Smith.jpg, which shows Pinkett Smith and her husband at an Academy Awards. It can be placed in the Relationships and family section. It is free, but some might comment that she is only a peripheral figure in the photo. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not going to check through all the links (unable to access all of them at this time), but what makes about.com reliable? The site has been proven to be not reliable at FACs (the claim of the authors as experts is not 100% true), so the onus is to prove the expertise/reliability of the authors of the about.com site you are referencing. Similarly, IMDb is going to be questioned on at FAC.
You are correct regarding the About.com reference, so I removed it and the sentence it was supporting (didn't feel it was all that important anyway). Regarding IMDb, the reason I like to use the website for citing awards and nominations is because there is a less likely chance that the page will be deleted in the future. I've seen IMDb sourced at several FAs (e.g., Cillian Murphy and Angelina Jolie), so I'm confident that it will be okay. – Ms. Sarita Confer 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that IMDb is used in other FA articles is not a good defence to rely on. The use of IMDb is debated on the Village Pump and Reliable sources noticeboard. Take a look there and see if there is concensus for using the entire site or just only parts of it. The key point is context. Is IMDb reliable for its list of awards and nominations? If yes, it can be likely accepted for that role only. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources were used for interviews with Pinkett Smith, which I believe to be okay. I mean...these sources can't just pluck out interviews from thin air and say that Pinkett Smith said all these things...can they? Or, am I totally wrong? – Ms. Sarita Confer
Generally, questions would be brought up on sites that provide interviews (although I have rarely seen opposes just for this). The concern with using sites of unknown reliability for interviews is if the site will "edit" the interview to cast the subject's comments in a different light (e.g. leading the subject in a series of questions, then cutting out some parts of the interview). There is no harm in trying to bring these interviews to FAC, but be prepared to defend them in case someone raises questions on them. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also several dead links, notably the goasa.com and billboard.com links.
The goasa.com was dead, so I replaced it. Thoughts on the reference being used now (reference 53)? I wouldn't want that quote to be lost. Also, I used Checklinks and, even though it says that the Billboard.com links are dead, they work perfectly fine when I click on the links from the article. Glitch? – Ms. Sarita Confer 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the links look fine now; I agree the billboard link probably glitched the tool. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Jappalang (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Aloud 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 because… I want to take it to WP:FL and would like to know what else needs doing to it.

Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diocletianic Persecution[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 it reviewed by my peers? I've done work on the featured articles Diocletian and Maximian in the past, so I've already done quite a bit of reading on the subject. I'm interested in whatever you good gentlemen and ladies have to say on it, whatever you're content to deal with. In descending order of what I consider the issues most likely to cause comment, that would be: Prose, organization/article structure, MOS, referencing, and coverage. I had a bit of trouble organizing the page. I eventually settled on having two major sections covering the body of the persecution: A overview and description of empire-wide effects, followed by more detailed coverage of the process of persecution, area by area. There's some redundancy in this method, but the alternatives (combining empire-wide and detailed coverage; omitting detailed coverage altogether; omitting empire-wide coverage altogether; removing small redundancies) seemed to compromise readability, accessibility, or comprehensiveness. If you have a better solution, do tell!

I've raised a bit of trouble regarding the article title (it's all my fault, again), because almost nobody calls the thing the "Diocletianic Persecution". The more common term is "Great Persecution", but that's hardly unambiguous, as Septentrionalis informed me (the Restoration suppression of Dissent in England is sometimes referred to by the same name). My primary objection to the term is that "Diocletianic" is a non-ideal moniker: If Lactantius is to be believed, it should be a "Galerian" persecution. I'd vouch for "Tetrarchic persecution" (note the lower-case "p" in "persecution", following WP:NAME), if Great Persecution is otherwise unavailable. (Currently it redirects here.)

Thanks in advance! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it is a big article. 71 kb readable prose size, which suggests that the article "probably should be divided", by about 11k or so. Do tell me what should be on the chopping block. Suggestions: "Palestine and Syria", "Evasions", and elements of "Background". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. We're at 60 kb now. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 12:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Suggest that the first paragraph of the lead is perhaps a bit too much information for the lead. I'd suggest writing the first paragraph to be a summary-summary of the WHOLE article, giving the absolute high points, then the next three paragraphs expand that first paragraph a bit more.
  • Watch the passive voice ... First paragraph of "prior persecutions", second sentence "...could be subject to ..." would read better "could be arrested and condemned to death...". This is just an example.
  • Prior persecutions. Might point out that while Jewish people were also loathed by most Pagan Romans, they were felt to be following their ancestral religion, and thus escaped official condemnation. When Christianity separated itself from Judiasm, it lost that protection.
  • I don't have the sources for a full discussion of that yet. If it were included, I feel I'd have to also to note that, during the first two centuries, Jews were explicitly political in a way that Christians weren't (John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this Earth"), bringing about the Jewish–Roman wars (which probably killed more Jews than the persecutions did Christians). I'll be on the lookout. I have two sentences on that later on, in "Persecution and...": "The unique position of the Christians and Jews of the empire became increasingly apparent. The Jews had earned imperial toleration on account of the great antiquity of their faith, and continued to enjoy it under Tetrarchic government. (The Palestinian Talmud records that when Diocletian paid a visit to the region, he decreed that "sacrifices should be offered by all the people except the Jews".[43]) Christians had no such excuse.[44]" Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior persecutions section, third paragraph, first sentence - first two centuries of what?
  • First two centuries AD. Now "of the Christian era". Is the formulation too archaic? I could make it "Until the third century" or "Until the 200s". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section and paragraph, persecutions were also carried out as a lynch mob type behavior also, without official authority.
  • I haven't seen anything on that yet. My sources all note that the early (limited) persecutions were all driven by popular hatred, but don't remark on any popular vigilantism. Could this be a legendary accretion/saintly exaggeration? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch. Same section, sentence starting "They were of limited threat to the estabilshed Church." ... historians disagree about whether there WAS an established church at this point, or whether it was a gathering of loosely organized local groups in contact with each other. Might want to make this more ... soft and less picking a side in the historical disagreement.
  • In my defense: When I wrote the phrase, I didn't think of "Church" as an institutional body with a clear chain of command and consistent operating practices (for which, read: liturgy) and business model (for which, read: theology). I meant something along the lines of: a decentralized community of faithful divided by many features but united by a common faith in Jesus as God. A sort of friendly/fuzzy proto-unitarian universal way of looking at the early Catholic (as in, "universal") Church. So much for the apology! It's been replaced by "Christianity as a whole". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persecution section, second paragraph, first sentence "Diocletian did not favor Maiximan and Hercules..." don't you mean Jupiter and Hercules?
  • Make sure you're not overlinking. Probably don't need to link slaves (First editc section) whipping (christians in the army..)
  • I really didn't have time to do an indepth reading, but I did want to look it over quickly. If I find more time later, I'll try to revisit. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the early review, Ealdgyth. Especially so, given the general busyness of this time of year and your own particular workload. Some of your comments will require more research on my part, and might take more time to address than the average PR. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on spelling of sourced author name: In the article, "Keresztes" is spelled 13 times as "Keresztes" and 27 times as "Kersetzes". I believe they refer to the same author, with the 27-count spelling looking like it is incorrect based on sources. The count exceeds my, admittedly low, boredom threshold to fix myself. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks, Devore. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doom 3[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm listing this for peer review as I want to get it to FA, and there's little else I can see that's wrong with the article, but I do not doubt that there are issues with it somewhere. I have a sneaking feeling there's something wrong about the plot section, but I'm utterly useless at trying to make those things properly concise. Any feedback to help get this to FA would be appreciated. -- Sabre (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jappalang
  • Lede
  • "The game is a reboot of the Doom franchise, disregarding the storylines of the previous Doom video games."
Not happy with this sentence. It expects the reader to have an inkling of what a reboot of a franchise is (disregarding the Wiki-link). I am certain this can be written in more common terms.
  • Gameplay
  • "story-driven"
Video game jargon: while one might understand "action-driven" from media reviews, "story-driven" might prove confusing. In any case, "story-driven" is a misnomer for this game, since it is mainly remembered to be "run-and-shoot" with B-grade horror elements.
  • "more story-centered approach"
Who stated this as fact?
  • "The corpses of demons are reduced to ashes after death, leaving no trace of their body behind."
Does this really matter? Regardless, having only this without reference to "zombies" would mean that zombies leave their bodies behind when dead..., which is pretty trivial to the game, is it not? Why not just take out this sentence?
  • "the most prominent of which is darkness."
"—most prominently, darkness."
  • "This design choice is not only intended to ..."
This is attributed to a review; unless the reviewer stated the designer's intent, it is more likely the reviewer's reaction.
  • "This aspect is further enhanced by the fact that the player must choose between holding a weapon and holding the flashlight, forcing the player to choose between being able to see and having a readied weapon upon entering a room, which consequently leads to a more deliberate pace for the player."
Long snaky sentence, which bears the bad sentence structure "the fact that" and the repetition of "choose between".
  • "the player often hears ... through their radio transmitter"
Pronoun conflict.
  • "is provided with a personal digital assistant (PDA). PDAs contain security"
Immediate repetition of personal digital assistant / PDA.
  • Multiplayer
  • "The four game modes are all deathmatch orientated."
"The four game modes are oriented toward deathmatches."
Note: "orientated" is not the same as "oriented".
  • "involves each player moving around a level"
"Noun-plus-ing"
  • "with the player with the highest kills when the time runs out winning."
Bad sentence construct.
  • Synopsis
  • "According to the game's backstory, the Union Aerospace Corporation (UAC) has grown to become the largest corporate entity in existence, and has set up a research facility on Mars."
This sentence sets up the UAC as a real-world entity by introducing it as a definitive noun and phrasing it as if the player (not character) would be friendly enough to know it is a company (as if from real life) that has grown in the game.
"According to the game's backstory, a research facility has been set up on Mars." would do fine, especially judging that the UAC serves just as well as a nameless corporation (use "find" to see how UAC is used in the article).
  • "Rumors regarding the nature of experiments in the UAC's Delta Labs division are especially prevalent among the base's employees."
Is this crucial to the article...?
  • Characters
  • "... xxx, voiced by yyy, does ..."
Is there any substance for having the voice actors? Some critical reception or evaluation of their performance should be there to justify their inclusion, otherwise their listing is just for the sake of trivia. In fact, only Neil Ross seems to be notable.
  • "principle characters" should be "principal characters".
  • Plot
  • Yes, indeed, this is overly long and deserves heavy chopping. 350 words would suffice for this game's story. At 961 words for an action game, this really takes the cake in over-indulgent in-universe navel gazing. I am not going to go beyond the second sentence here.
  • "The game opens with Elliott Swann and Jack Campbell arriving at Mars City, the main access to the UAC's Mars base, disembarking from an Earth transport, with the player's anonymous marine just behind them."
This is one long snaky sentence, that also has a bad "noun-plus-ing" construct.
  • Development
  • "In June 2000, id Software's game engine designer John Carmack posted an internal company plan announcing a remake of Doom using next generation technology."
More "noun-plus-ing".
  • "although artist Paul Steed, one of the instigators, was fired in retaliation"
This very contentious statement is sourced to John Carmack, who is the primary source. Is there a secondary source, who has checked and verified this statement? This is only Carmack's side of the story; what about Cloud's, Adrian Carmack's, or Steed's?
  • "was set to compose the music and sound"
This phrase means "was prepared to compose the music and sound". The next sentence "However, due to "time, money and bad management", none of Trent Reznor's sound effects or music made the final product." contradicts this by presenting the story that Reznor did compose, but was excluded due to "time, money and bad management". So was Reznor prepared to do the job but was phased out, or did he finished the job but got left out?
  • "Doom 3 achieved gold status on July 14, 2004"
Game industry jargon; please rephrase in simpler terms.
  • The paragraph about the id-Creative deal is sourced to Shacknews' parroting of Carmack's opinion. Strictly saying, Shacknews is performing as a primary source here. Carmack's opinion also never stated anything about licensing Creative's technology.
  • Technology
  • The information about the game world computers is too much for attribution to just one source, which is primary to boot!
  • Reception
  • "GameSpot's Greg Kasavin described getting "the impression that Doom 3 takes place in a fully realized world""
This is a very awkward sentence.
"GameSpot's Greg Kasavin had "the impression that Doom 3 takes place in a fully realized world"" would do.
  • "the game was alternatively praised and criticized for this element."
Another inappropriately phrased sentence; the impression it gives is reviewer A says "yay!", reviewer B says "nay!", reviewer C says "yummy", reviewer D says, "yuck", and so on. Just drop "alternatively".
  • "with GameSpot noting that"
"Noun-plus-ing" again.
  • "The game was praised and faulted ... although the game was ..."
Repetitive "The game", the second time could simply be "it".
  • "However, some criticism was directed towards slow-downs in play due to the game engine, despite being scaled down for the Xbox, still being demanding on the Xbox hardware."
Bad sentence structure. Break it into separate sentences if you have to.
  • Legacy
  • "with ticket sales for the opening weekend totalling more than"
"Noun-plus-ing" again.
  • Images
  • Sources
  • What makes PlanetDoom reliable? It is simply a hosted fansite on GameSpy, and does not share the host's editorial policies. A heavy amount of subjective atmosphere of the game is attributed to this source, e.g. this Gameplay paragraph "Frequent radio transmissions through ... from the game's antagonists."
  • Prepare to defend kikizo for its interview

Personal opinion: there might be too much details and some things could be summarized further. I am not certain Development requires a blow-by-blow account of when the game would be released. Furthermore, with the above language issues, I would advise getting a copyeditor who is not as savvy with gaming jargon as we are. There are the peer review volunteers and the Guild of Copy Editors to look for a willing volunteer. Jappalang (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Alba[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 would like to nominate this article for FAC but I would like to have it reviewed before I do so.

Thanks, Hda3ku (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My Review

Looking at the criteria listed under WP:FA? To my eye this article meets most of those criteria. The prose could be sharper, but what's here is as good as many things that make it to print these days. So IMHO this article is class A. Congratulations. I will not nominate this for featured article status. I leave that to you, after you work more on the prose. --Hfarmer (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks much better than its last PR. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Language is better, but still could use a copyedit to polish things. Just in the lead She also appeared on the cover of Playboy, which was followed by a lawsuit, which was later dropped.[9] could be clearer - perhaps something like After Playboy featured her on its March 2006 cover without her consent, Alba filed a lawsuit which was later dropped.
  • Could more details on critical reception of her work be included? Most of her movies have no information on critical reception. The sentence Co-created by Cameron, the series starred Alba, and ran for two seasons until 2002, earning her critical acclaim as well as a Golden Globe nomination.[22][5] could give some specifics as to the critical acclaim, for example (in the sentence or after in new sentences).
  • Quoted sentence above has refs out of numerical order - they should be in order.
  • The quote in Religion uses {{cquote}} but according to WP:MOSQUOTE, {{blockquote}} should be used. Even that is supposed to be for quotes of 4 lines or more, but the quote on my monitor is less than 2 complete lines of text.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes[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 move this to FL. However, I'm not entirely sure what an FL would include, so I'd like to run this article/list through here first.

Thanks, DARTH PANDAduel 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Goodraise (talk · contribs)
  • The list is insufficiently categorized.
    • I added a single category, but I couldn't think of anything else to add... NOCTURNENOIRtalk 13:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs a complete overhaul, using other episode lists from Category:FL-Class anime and manga articles as examples.
  • The list as a whole needs cleanup. MOS violations include:
    • References shouldn't state the language, if it is English.
    • Some references are missing a publisher.
    • The caption of the image in the lead is overly long.
    • There should be no bolded text in the lead.
    • The list shouldn't start with "This is an episode listing".
    • The kanji and romanization of the series' title should only be given in the main article, not here.
    • Using parentheses within the prose should be avoided if possible. For example, "distributed in North America by Pioneer Entertainment (now Geneon Entertainment)" could be changed to "distributed in North America by Geneon Entertainment, formerly known as Pioneer Entertainment".
  • Lastly, I suspect, the list will need a thorough copy-edit. But, that's not exactly my strong side...

Hope this was helpful. Good luck. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just realized that I had fixed the other list I had on pr... Crossed out items are now fixed on this list. NOCTURNENOIRtalk 02:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners[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 nominate this list as a featured list candidate.

Thanks, TheLastAmigo (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Biggest problem as I see it is a nearly complete lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The one ref cited is used twice - use the <ref name = "blah">Ref goes here</ref> tag the first time, then just use <ref name = "blah"/> the next times.
  • The one ref used appears to be from a blog - not sure this meets the criteria for reliable sources
  • What if the name of the article was "List of people who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners" as the second list of producers, composers, etc. is not reflected in the title.
  • Inclusion criteria are not specified - are all credited actors in a fiolm considered? What about someone like the key grip?
  • Is there any way the films could be individually sortable - perhaps five colums in the actor list?
  • Say "As of 2008" not currently

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see no reason to indent every films column with &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp . Reywas92Talk 17:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (30 Rock)[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 already been through two failed FAC's, and I was planning on submitting for a third. Please be a brutal as possible with your reviews and review like this was FAC please. Any help is much appreciated.

Thanks, [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 20:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • "After a fellow commuter begins an argument, Liz buys $150 worth " This anecdote won't make sense to anyone who hasn't watched the episode. Why did she buy $150 worth of hot dogs? What is the importance of this?
    • "passersby, hobos, and colleagues" Are you sure it's "hobos" and not just homeless people? The term hobo has a unique connotation.
    • "After inadvertently insulting her, Liz..." Misplaced modifier.
    • "In comparison to Liz, the narcissistic star of The Girlie Show, Jenna Maroney (Jane Krakowski) takes..." Ambiguous modifier. -> "In comparison to Liz, Jenna Maroney (Jane Krakowski), the narcissistic star of The Girlie Show, takes..."
    • The plot section should feature more than just a recount of what happened. It should offer readers a picture of the characters. Instead of telling readers just that Jack wants to hire Tracy, explain why he wants to. Instead of just stating that Jenna "takes to Jack", explain why. What is it about him that she likes?
    • "She begins to worry when she" This seems to contradict the previous sentence, so a transitional word such as "however" may be appropriate here to prepare readers for the contradiction.
    • "Against her own judgment," How is this against her judgment? She voluntarily chose to meet with him (at least according to the sentence). Was she forced to meet with him?
    • "but when Tracy discovers that he does not like the food they go to another restaurant" This is a simplistic description that sucks the humor out of the situation. FA prose needs to be engaging, so find a way to recast this sentence such that it's not simply retelling the story in bland language.
    • "While Liz tried to convince Tracy " Why the past tense here?
    • ", he discusses conspiracy theories." OK, but add to this description. For example, "confirming Liz's worries about Tracy's off-the-wall behavior."
    • "Liz learns that Jack fired Pete earlier that day." For what?
    • "Tracy and Liz arrive at the studio " Wait, I thought she was returning home?
    • " Liz sends Tracy out on stage to talk off the last bit of the show," Why?
    • In general, the plot does an adequate job of telling readers what happened, but it needs to be far more engaging and should delve into the motivations and consequences of what happened.
    • "performer" Avoid Easter egg links
    • "felt that "Fey was using the news setting as a fig leaf for her own experience and [he] encouraged her to write what she knew."" Using quotation marks here implies that Reilly said this. This is not the case. It's a false attribute of quotation (albeit inadvertent), which is a big no-no.
    • More to come later, perhaps. BuddingJournalist 17:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Military Academy[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work to increase the quality of this article. I would like to see the rating classification improve from it's current B-class. I think that its currently up to par if not better than the articles for Air Force or Navy, which are both GA-rated, but I want to make it better. I have tried to model the flow of the article after some other colleges that are FAs, such as Duke and Texas A&M, but West Point has some unique qualities that don't conform to an article about a civilian college. I was not sure what category to list it under for peer review (history, military history, social science). Perhaps a more experienced editor could help me better classify it for review, but for now I'll put it here. Please post any suggestions for improvement.

Thanks, Ahodges7 (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Madcoverboy
  • Remove the mission statement from the lead as the lead should be a summary not an introduction. If it has some historical significance, place it in history, if it's just an artifact of 1990s mission statement-ese, emphasize the important parts and leave the rest for a citation.
Thanks, I removed it. USMA takes the wording of its mission statement very seriously. Other than adding another section for it, I didn't think it did it justice to put it in another section.Ahodges7 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs a good scrub-down for consistency in punctuation and formatting style: punctuation in or out of quotes, citations before or after stops, etc.
  • Organization and density of pictures in some sections upsets the flow of text.
  • Citations and references are spotty in many sections like Curriculum.
by spotty do you mean that they are not high quality or they are not thorough enough? I've added a few more and will continue to refine the references for this section.Ahodges7 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the list of academic majors as this isn't good practice in any UNI article (WP:IINFO) and there's nothing particularly surprising.
Done. I've reworked the academic section, reduced the info, and converted the table to prose.Ahodges7 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section seems excellent: well sourced and comprehensive
Thanks.Ahodges7 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curriculum needs to be tightened up and condensed (e.g., take out the three rules of thumb, as just one example). It may also be appropriate to demote Admissions and merge it with Curriculum.
I'm going to leave admissions as its own section for now unless I get more feedback from reviewers who feel the same way. I feel the admission process to USMA (Air Force & Navy also) is unique because of the requirement for governmental appointment. If other experienced editors disagree, I'll be happy to merge it with curriculum. As it is, I'll condense it, as it probably is too long.Ahodges7 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cadet rank & organization section should probably be a subsection within Student life or Organization. Staff should be merged into an Organization section as well.
I moved the rank & organization section down to the "cadet life" section and reworked it into prose.Ahodges7 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The embedded lists throughout need to be prose-ified - traditions especially.
  • Change the caption of the picture with Coaches Knight & K to emphasize their relationship with USMA
Done.Ahodges7 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think club or company sports/athletics have substantial enough notability to warrant inclusion.
  • "litany of traditions, songs, and facts about the Academy that all cadets are required to learn their freshman summer." Without getting crufty, this should definitely be expanded upon.
  • Alumni section needs to be unpackaged as well. Listing last names of alumni w/o contextualizing. Some more descriptive info about the number of alumni holding significant posts (congressmen, senators, governors, fortune 500 CEOs, astronauts, etc.) I would also recommend merging the two daughter articles as it seems like a strange spin out.
  • Take out the trivia section "West Point in fiction & media"
Done!Ahodges7 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that peacockery and boosterism is generally well under control. The primary issue is condensing and reorganizing the structure and then secondly tightening the sections under curriculum. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it would pain you more to ask a midshipman, Aggie, or Hokie for advice, but if I had to choose among these military-oriented universities, Texas A&M has some of the most exemplary content and talented editors that all university articles should strive to adopt. I would strongly encourage you to get in contact with BQZip01 (talk · contribs) and ask for his advice/feedback. Madcoverboy (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw geez. Thanks Madcoverboy. <user blushes, puts hands behind his back, and twists toe into the ground> — BQZip01 — talk 09:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll contact BQZip01 (talk · contribs). Don't mind talking to Middies or Hokies either if it will improve the article. Ahodges7 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USMA help[edit]

Sure. I'd be happy to help. As far as "improving and then getting FA", I'd say scrap that plan altogether and just go for FA. I've brought two articles straight from stub class up to FA and it isn't that hard, but it can be tedious. In general, I think the article is almost there. The references seem pretty good and are varied. As a start on how to find stuff that will be a problem in the FA process, read User:BQZip01/FA Tips for more info.

A few things I'd run by first

  1. Citations - make sure they all use the EXACT same format and the links work
    OK. I formatted them all wrong. I'll have to go back and redo them all to WP:CIT standard. dang, this will take a while, I had to go back to work today... Ahodges7 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Images - remove all pixel sizing. Use [[File:Image name.jpg|thumb|right/left/center|description]] add |upright in there if the image is a portait.
    Complete!Ahodges7 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WP:MoS - I think this one will bite you the most. Do yourself a favor and at least read through it once (don't memorize it or anything, but be familiar with it).
    Working through WP:MoS now. Will do best to conform ASAP.Ahodges7 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Realize that almost any number has an associated unit of measurement: 14 feet, 80 students, 190 classes of cadets, etc. and all need no-break spaces.
    I think I've gotten them all. Ahodges7 (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. After a glance through the lead, I noticed that a few terms did not have metric equivalents included (namely "acres"). If you'll look through Texas A&M's page, you can find a simple program that will provide automatic conversions with many of the measurements.

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Roberts[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the page has recently underwent an update and any feedback would be helpful.

Thanks, NoVomit (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I also reviewed Seth Material, so many of the criticisms there also apply here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but Skidmore is only in the lead, for example. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way and all the main ideas. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs an image
  • Article needs more references, for example the second paragraph of the Seth Material section has no refs and there are several citation needed tags. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE you should use {{blockquote}}, not {{cquote}}. Also block quotes should be about 4 lines of text and on my screen it is only 1.5 lines, so it may be too short for a block quote.
  • There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow of the article - in most cases these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Having read both this and the Seth Material, there is not a lot in here that is not also in the other article. There is relatively little on her life - what did she die of? Did she have children? What did she like to do besides write and channel? What did her SF works do in terms of sales?
  • Language is a bit awkward in spots - Roberts also purportedly channeled several other personalities,[1] including the philosopher William James,[6] through a process she described as using a typewriter to write "automatically",[7][8][9] and the impressionist painter Paul Cézanne.[10][1] would read much more smoothly as Roberts also purportedly channeled several other personalities,[1] including the philosopher William James[6] and the impressionist painter Paul Cézanne,[1][10] through a process she described as using a typewriter to write "automatically".[7][8][9] Note I also put the refs in numerical order.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tropical cyclone records[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
What is this list missing besides an intro? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more records. There was talk of getting rid of List of tropical cyclones, and moving the content to List of tropical cyclone records. If that were the case, then some changes would have to be made. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? The only ones that are left out seem to be those that refer to US. For example I wanted to add the one with most damages, but I think there is nothing out there that refers to stuff outside US. Nergaal (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Costliest, most rainfall produced, closest to the equator. Those are a few notable ones which should be included, but I wouldn't stop there. My other major concern is the validity of the records. There is a big debate over whether Marco should be the smallest on record, since the source provided specifies the record is small, and that Marco's record was only for the Atlantic Ocean. Also the most rapid intensification is debated. Of course, people outside of the hurricane community wouldn't know that, but the issues still exist. Are you planning taking it to FL? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering it, but I want to know weather it is possible for me to do that. About the rainfall: over what period should the record(s) be (I found at least 5 classes)? And about the costliest one, is it enough to say that it was the 1926 Great Miami Hurricane - because I cannot find any source saying anything about costs outside US? Nergaal (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the thing. A lot of those records have levels to them, meaning a basic table might not be the best format. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodland, California[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 think that a peer review would be very beneficial to this article. I'd like to get input and perspectives from others on how to better this article. In the near future I would like this article to make GA status, and hopefully one day FA status. I have just changed all the references to cite template references and I've made changes according to a feeback post from WP:FEED. Most of the major work on the article I completed this past summer.

Thanks in advance, Killiondude (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Your idea of using FA city articles as models is a good one, and I see that you've been looking at the WP:CITY page for ideas, and that is also good. I see at least one big problem with the article as it stands, and I have some suggestions for improvement.

  • The big problem is that the entire "Indigenous culture" subsection of the "History" section is copied word-for-word from the source. Even if the source material were licensed for unlimited reproduction, which it does not seem to be, copying is bad. It's much harder to read source material, to abstract from it, and to re-state the main points in new language, but that's what has to be done. The task is easier if you can find multiple sources for each of the content sections. My first suggestion, then, is to do more research on the indigenous culture(s) of Woodland and to re-write this section. The next thing to do would be to check the other sections of the article to make sure the copying problem has not occurred there as well.
 Done -Killiondude (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many parts of the article lack sources. Personal research, which often amounts to "I saw it with my own eyes", can't substitute for a verifiable source. Please see WP:V. My rule of thumb is to include a source for every paragraph, every unusual claim, every direct quote, and every statistic or quantitative claim. Groups of statistics may need only one source for the whole group. The whole "Economy" section of the article is unsourced. Much of the history is unsourced. The claim about the size of the plot of land the Yolo Museum sits on needs a source.
  • Generally, short paragraphs of only one or two sentences should either be expanded or merged with other paragraphs. Ditto for short sections.
 In progress. I began to do this yesterday with a few sections, and will continue. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest adding a "Geography" section that would include information about where Woodland is in relation to surrounding towns and cities, what highways pass through or near it, what rivers or streams pass through or near it, and so on. Something about the geology of the Woodland area would be good to include in this section as well. Soils, rock types, and unusual formations, if any, could be mentioned here.
 Done-ish. See comment below. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "Climate" section would also be a good idea. This could include information about temperatures, precipitation, growing seasons, winds, storms, or anything else related to climate.
 Done. See comment below. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead of a Wikipedia article should be a summary or abstract of the ideas developed in the main text sections and should not introduce material that is undeveloped in the main text sections. I'd suggest adding "Geography" and "Climate" first and then re-writing the lead to include at least a mention of those two and all of the other sections that are not mentioned in the existing lead. Please see WP:LEAD.

I hope these brief comments prove helpful. I would suggest tackling the copying/copyvio problem first. Finetooth (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were useful. It took me a few hours tonight, but I finished rewording and marking where facts were taking from, all throughout the history section. I also cleaned things up and (hopefully) made it more clear in the indigenous people section. I'll work more on the article tomorrow in regards to your other suggestions. Killiondude (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday (or perhaps a couple days ago) I began to merge several short paragraphs into larger paragraphs. I'll continue this, and try to fix short, choppy sentences. I just added a geography section (with a "climate" subsection). I have no references for the geography section other than "I saw it with my own eyes", which I know is looked down upon, but Woodland doesn't really have a whole lot of coverage. The climate section's table info I got from the Weather Channel, but again, coverage on Woodland's climate is not extensive. I will continue to add info to both the Climate and Geography section (finding sources if at all possible), but I feel that right now all I have to work with (for these two topics) are stuff that I know from living there. Any suggestions for this dilemma would be greatly appreciated. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Governors of Bombay[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
If you are willing to review this List and want a review of your article, then please inform me. I'll surely review it.

I've listed this article for peer review because this may be the next FL

Thanks, KensplanetTalkContributions 07:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reviewing the article. Regarding the map File:Map of India (1882).jpg, we'll have to find a better one, as it is not that accurate and the reader has to strain his/her eyes to locate the Bombay Presidency with respect to rest of India. The grammar and prose is good. If possible, please expand.SanfyTalk

Thankyou for your concerns. You have done a great Job creating many governor article as can be seen from Special:Contributions/Sanfy. File:Map of India (1882).jpg has been removed since the Presidency cannot be seen easily. KensplanetTalkContributions 11:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you specify what needs to be expanded, then that may be done. The Lead, List or what. Thanks, KensplanetTC 11:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of the section List_of_Governors_of_Bombay#Crown_Governors_.281862_-_1947.29, is a bit short if there is any more information on the section, you may add the needful. Even expand the list of section List_of_Governors_of_Bombay#British_Empire_.281662_-_1668.29. Revise the books, sources, etc one more to check if there's no mistake or if any govenor's name is missing. Thanks.SanfyTalk

  • Impossible to miss out anyone. The Dates are continuous right from 1662 to 1960. Infact, the article includes Officiating and Acting governors which some reliable sources tend to miss out. KensplanetTC 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried Web sources. May be Books are required here. I'll expand if possible. Thanks, KensplanetTC 18:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the images File:India 1804 map.jpg & File:British dominion of India(1783).jpg, they are good but I think we'll need a self-made image like File:Mangalorean catholic migration.JPG to make the image more clear and visible, as the maps are still not accurate in showing the location of the Bombay Presidency. Thanks.SanfyTalk
Excellent suggestion. Really worth considering. Maybe some professional skills may be required there. KensplanetTC 18:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A GIF needs to be created. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:BartleFrere.jpg had a copyright problem. I have changed the licence to {{PD-old}}, please check if this is correct.SanfyTalk
  • It is correct. Anyway the Image has to be in the Public domain since it was published in 1880. KensplanetTC 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz comments:

  • When i click on any name in the "Graphical" I reach this link: [4] Please correct it.
  • In my web browser, Modzilla, I can't see the names in "Graphical" properly, can the font be increased? Also the dates of the last entries are been cut. Can the representation be put in another better way.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are U sure when you click the name in the "Graphical" you reach Secure Wikimedia link. The Governors have been wikilinked and in my and many browsers, it opens the EN-WIkipedia link. I checked it. It still opens the EN-wikipedia link. If you check Internet explorer, the links don't work at all. I myself am not aware how to correct such browser differences. KensplanetTC 06:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all Governors should be visible now. The timeline has been expanded. I'll surely check whether tools are available for increasing fonts. I'm working with the Graphical chart for the first time. KensplanetTC 07:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it doesn't look nice. I don't look how much visual appeal counts in an encyclopaedia? --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is out of my hands then. This is the only Graphical chart I know. Forgive me as I dunno anything about lists KensplanetTC 03:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the way the graphical chart is. Nothing much that can be done unless the code is modified. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dineshkannambadi

Interesting short article.

It'not an article but a list. :) KensplanetTC 03:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The city was originally an archipelago of seven islands. Is it not an archipelago now? I could have corrected this myself, but I am not quite sure if any geological works, such as water dredging, has been done to connect a few islands.
I don't think it is now. In 1782, William Hornby assumed the office of Governor of Bombay, and initiated the Hornby Vellard engineering project of uniting the seven islands into a single landmass. All the seven islands were united and the city was then referred as Old Bombay. Do you think it is still an archipelago KensplanetTC 03:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Governors of Bombay were the most important officials after the Viceroy, and were appointed by the Crown. Were they more important than governors in say Madras presidency or other places in the Raj?
Actually the Reference says The Governors of Bombay and Madras are the most important officials after the Viceroy, and are appointed by the Crown (http://books.google.com/books?id=rxcJ1ACY_74C&printsec=frontcover#PPA61,M1) So we can say that the Governors of Bombay and Madras were more powerful than the Governors of any other place in the Raj since these presidencies were huge. KensplanetTC 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that numerous governors occupied their chair for several terms. Would it be possible, to add another table which gives important contributions or important achievements by some of these governors–constructions, bills, regulations etc.

More later. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to me, there was only 1 Governor who repeated his term. That was George Russell Clerk (1847-1848) who repeated again in 1860-1862. Please tell me if you could you find more. Yes, it's possible to have achievements but that may leave no space for Images. Without Images, the article may be a bit difficult for people to visualize about the Bombay Presidency.KensplanetTC 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be something like what I have done in British Empire (1662 - 1668) section? KensplanetTC 05:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could mention the geological works that united the islands just for clarification. Now it would be one island, unless it was joined with mainland India, in which case it becomes a sort of tiny peninsula. You could just say the governor of Bombay, along with that of Madras presidency was the most influential.... Yes, the table under British Empire is what I wanted. You dont have to do that for every governor, only the most important ones, in a different table so that your images are not compromised. BTW, "Achievements" may be changed to Achievements/Events because the very first one in the British Empire template is not exactly an achievement.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK...Will mention geological works. Added info about Madras in the Lead. The table was just for test purposes. I'll remove it. The first 4 Governors's contributions are not so significant so as to be mentioned in the List. If people are interested then they can check the individual articles. I'll again draw a test table. KensplanetTC 05:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While your suggestions are excellent, but it may be a bit difficult to implement it. All the Governors had some significant contributions to the city. I dunno what to put and what to strike out. If you check the Governor FL's at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Politics and government, none of them have achievements or anything. If people want, they can check the individual governor articles. I'm a bit reluctant to put it. :) KensplanetTC 06:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The article (list) is well written anyway.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It needs to be directly specified in the first paragraph that we're talking about British Bombay and later independent India. This goes with clarifying "the Crown".
    • Done
  • "...as the dowry of Catherine de Braganza and Abraham Shipman was appointed the first governor..." A comma is needed between "Braganza" and "and". Same in the next sentence between 1668 and "and".
    • Done
  • "landing in Bombay by the Portuguese, and died..." No comma.
    • Done
  • In every table, "Term" should be changed to "Terms", and the definition of a term should be clarified (i.e. a term is one year long)
    • Done
  • "there was a demand from the Congress, that the city be constituted..." No comma before "that".
    • Done
  • The Primary sources and References sections should be merged into one, either References or Bibliography.
Removed Primary Sources. References stay since they are books and other pages which cannot be cited. KensplanetTC 14:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Bombay as its capital" needs a period.
  • Done
    • Overall this is an excellent list with the graphical lists and clean tables. This is a very informative list and I wish you good luck at FLC. As you said above, if you have time, I would appreciate it if you reviewed my governors list at WP:FLC#List of Governors of Indiana. Reywas92Talk 03:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Manual of style
  1. (1672 - 1675) --> Date ranges needs to be separated by an ndash (see WP:DASH) and without spacing
    Done
  2. Citations, Primary Sources, and References --> Why the distinction?
    Removed Primary Sources. References stay since they are books and other pages which cannot be cited. KensplanetTC 14:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Island...' --> island should be lower case
    Done. KensplanetTC 14:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. western coast -- remove link
    Done. KensplanetTC 14:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  1. It would seem to have fallen into disuse some time between 1720 and 1758 -- Peacock/Weasel term
    Changed to It fell into disuse between 1720 and 1758.
  2. held Bombay for the Crown --> odd grammar
    I don't think it's odd. Can you suggeest anything better
  3. the head of the rebellion --> odd wording
    Done
  4. Bombay (now Mumbai) --> reads odd. Change to Bombay, renamed as Mumbai in 1995...
    Done. KensplanetTC 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rename the titles to: "Royal Governors", "Company Governors" and "Crown Governors"
    Renamed. KensplanetTC 15:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ...were the most important officials... -- cite needed
  7. Remove salary part
    Removed. KensplanetTC 14:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The link to Viceroy is not helpful; link to Governor-General of India
    Done. KensplanetTC 14:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 'of uniting the -- odd word "uniting"; use "coalescing" instead?
    Done. KensplanetTC 15:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Context
  1. What's an officiating/acting governor?
    Mentioned as a Note
  2. I have a list of deputy governors till 1690, would you like to add that?
    Please add it. KensplanetTC 15:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mention how the state was split during Partition, and later how the princely states were amalgamated into Bombay state
    Mentioned about 4 divisions and 26 districts.
  4. From 1960, the designation of the Governor of Bombay changed into Governor of Maharashtra. --> it wasn't a designation change: The old Bombay State was split into Gujarat and Maharashtra, and consequently, the title governor of Bombay ceased to exist. Maharashtra was not made up of only a Bombay State, but also part of Central Provinces. So change all mention of a direct inheritance.
    It was a designation change. Check http://rajbhavan.maharashtra.gov.in/previous/default.htm It mentions it was a designation change. Beter to go with the source. KensplanetTC 07:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. the Company was accused of mismanagement, and Bombay reverted to the British crown -- too little lead text. See British India#British India for a summary. Integrate relevant sentences into this article.
    Integrated Relevant sentences
  6. See if this picture can be added: File:Bombay-fort-1703.JPG
    Picture added. You may wish to modify it in the article. KensplanetTC 14:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Anjediva - where? Mention the location
    Mentioned North Canara. KensplanetTC 14:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. You meed to mention why the Company moved HQ to Bombay (more secure, better harbour)
    Mentioned
  9. was prevented from landing in Bombay by the Portuguese -- why?
    Because of some alleged irregularity in the form of letters or patent of agreement of accession of Bombay and Salsette
  10. The list of governors are also mentioned in The Origins of Bombay by José Gerson da Cunha. (pg 323-324) You can also add the book in =Further Reading=
    Mentioned. There's only a limited mention till 1690. Still it's a good source. It's available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=miD5YO05jpUC&printsec=frontcover#PPA323,M1 KensplanetTC 14:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mention the HQ of the Governor: First at Bombay Castle, then Parel and finally Raj Bhavan. (See Bombay Castle article for reference and the link [5])

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Mentioned Bombay Castle was the official residence of the Governor of Bombay till the 1770s. The residence was later moved to Parel in the 1770s and then to Malabar Hill in 1883

Dubstep[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 had one a while back, but it has expanded a bit since. I'd just like to see what wikipedians in general think needs improvement, because it's not too far off FA, really. Sometimes enthusiasts are a bit too close to articles to spot things that are obvious to a more general audience.

Thanks, Kaini (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I qualify as an outsider and general reader who knows almost nothing of the subject. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The most difficult thing for a total outsider to comprehend might be the unfamiliar jargon. A lot of terms in the article are wikilinked, which is good. I think it would be possible for a newcomer to get a kind of quick musical education by carefully reading this article. Even so, it would be helpful to a newbie to see even more of the terms explained or spelled out on first use. "Scene" is an example of this kind of jargon. Scene (community) do it, but another option would be to include a brief explanation of the term in the main text. Other terms that not every reader will understand are "B-side", "jungle nights", "pirate station", 12"s, "underground hard graft", and "mix CD". As you look through this with the general reader in mind, you might think of an audience of grandmothers and grandfathers familiar with "bass" and "octave" but not "grime" or "jungle".
  • A copyedit by an outside editor would probably catch and fix small things such as the use of "drum 'n' bass" in one place and "drum and bass" in another, the use of the archaic "whilst" instead of the modern "while", and the incorrect placement of reference numbers before punctuation instead of after.
  • I'd think about expanding the lead to include at least a mention of some of the musicians and main venues. The existing lead is a bit thin.
  • This sentence in the lead is too complex: "Dubstep started to spread beyond small local scenes in late 2005 and early 2006, with many websites devoted to the genre appearing on the Internet and thus aiding the growth of the scene, such as dubstepforum, the download site Barefiles and blogs such as gutterbreakz." You might re-organize it something like this: "Dubstep started to spread beyond small local scenes in late 2005 and early 2006. Devoted to the genre, websites such as dubstepforum, the download site Barefiles, and blogs such as gutterbreakz aided the growth of the scene."
  • Abbreviations such as "bpm" should be spelled out on first use, like this: beats per minute (bpm). It can then be abbreviated on subsequent use without spelling it out. Another example: disk jockey (DJ). Another: Master of Ceremonies (MC). Another: microphone (mic).
  • Many of the citations are incomplete and should be fixed. A general rule of thumb is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. It's not always possible to find an author name or a date of publication, but you should include as much of this data as you can.

I hope you find these brief comments to be helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Maga[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 trying to bring it to featured status. Maga was a complex figure who successfully ruled over one of France's least valuable ex-colonies, Dahomey (now Benin). I'm sure he would love the constructive comments you will give me!

Thanks, ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Few Thoughts[edit]

Nice work! I left a few problems that need to be addressed, however. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 23:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Born a peasant in 1916, Maga served as a schoolmaster from 1936 to 1946, where he gained considerable influence among the uneducated. - 'Where' seems to be the wrong word, why not 1946, giving him considerable influence...
  • Capitalising on this, he was elected to Dahomey's territorial assembly in 1947 - 'Capitalising on this' also seems wrong, why not 'With this support,'?
  • served under various positions, including Premier from 1959-1960. - Served under -> Served in
  • His presidency oversaw a collapse of the national economy. - Oversaw makes it seem like the collapse was intentional.
  • There were little foreign investment in the country, and unemployment was on the rise. - were -> was, on the rise -> rising.
  • by way of forcing labor on the nation's youths. - Should be something like 'By forcing labour onto the nations youths'
  • unity crisis - What is a unity crisis? Wikilink if possible.
  • assassination attempt on him by the main opposition leader, Justin Ahomadegbé-Tomêtin, in May 1961. - Did Ahomadegbe-Tometin physically attempt to take Maga's life? Or was it co-ordinated by him?
  • By the time Maga set him free in November 1962 the president established a single-party state and many restrictions on the opposition press. - Doesn't mention Tometin being jailed before mentioning his release.
  • When riots over the release of a murderer broke out in the summer of 1963, they quickly refocused on Maga's handling of these problems. Again, this sentence doesn't give any context. How about, 'In 1963, NAME, a convicted murderer was released from prison, prompting riots around the country (?). Rioters blamed Maga for...'
    • Changed to "In 1963, Bokhiri, a convicted murderer was released from prison, prompting riots around the country. The focus of these riots soon shifted toward Maga's problems as president." ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 12:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They became so intense that in October, Chief of Staff of the Dahomeyan Army Christophe Soglo took control of the country to prevent a civil war. - They -> The rioting. This seems to be chronologically after the start of the next paragraph.
  • After having Maga sign his resignation, Soglo gave Maga, Ahomadégbé-Tomêtin, and vice president Sourou Migan Apithy the title of Minister of State. -> Merge with last sentence of previous paragraph and reword remove passive voice. eg 'Maga was forced to resign by...'
  • Maga was incarcerated, though the former charge was dropped in 1964 and Maga took refuge in Paris. - How can he be incarcerated and then taking refuge in Paris? Did he escape? Or did he never go to jail?
  • The latter took over the chairmanship for a few months in 1972, until a new coup took place October 26 the same year, installing Major Mathieu Kérékou as the new President of the Republic. Flip the two clauses. eg 'On October 26 1972, Kerekou was installed by a coup, overthrowing the then chaiman Tometin.
  • Maga and the rest of the council were imprisoned and not released until 1981. - maybe Maga, along with the other members of the council were imprisoned until 1981.
  • Other than participated in the National Conference of 1990, which gave amnesty to all Beninese political refugees, Maga retired from public life. - Reword to maybe 'Maga retired from Public life in WHEN?, only making an appearance at the National conference of 1990. etc.

Those are just initial comments about the lead. There are some prose issues further on in the text, I haven't got enough time to list them. Maybe getting another member of the local WikiProject, or a WP:GoCE member to copyedit for you would be a good idea. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 23:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish football champions[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 ideas on how to improve the list. The red links will disappear eventually when I get round to creating the articles. Thanks, NapHit (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by User:Darth Panda Following WP:WIAFL, which is what I assume you are going for.

  • Prose.
  • The sentences in the lead are mostly run-ons and/or incomplete.
  • "The Spanish football champions are the winners of the highest league in Spanish football, namely La Liga, it is also referred to as the Primera División." -> "The Spanish football champions are the winners of La Liga, or the Primera División, the highest league in Spanish football."
  • "The league was cancelled from 1936–37 to 1938–39 due to the Spanish Civil War." -> "The league was canceled between 1936 and 1939 due to the Spanish Civil War."
  • "The league was first established in 1929, comprising of ten teams, at its peak the league contained 22 teams, this was during the 1995–96 season." -> "The league, first established in 1929, originally contained ten teams. At its peak during the 1995-96 season, it fielded twenty-two teams."
  • "Of the ten clubs that founded the league only Real Madrid, Barcelona and Athletic Bilbao have not been relegated, since its inception in 1929."
  • "No other club has won the title on more than nine occasions, with the most recent club outside of Real Madrid and Barcelona to win the league is Valencia in the 2003–04 season." -> Information seems extraneous.
  • "Athletic Bilbao have won the Spanish version of The Double the most, winning the league and cup five times in their history." -> "Athletic Bilbao has won the Spanish version of The Double the most, having won the league and cup five times in its history."
  • "No Spanish team has won The Treble, which includes winning the European Cup as well as the league and cup. although a number of clubs have come close." -> "No Spanish team has won The Treble, which includes the European Cup in addition to winning the league and the cup, although a number of clubs have come close."
  • Lead.
  • No issues.
  • Comprehensiveness.
  • Perhaps a note should be made about why there isn't any data for 1936-1939 in the graph itself (in addition to in the lead)?
  • Structure.
  • Placement of key is a bit odd.
  • For the "Total Titles Won" section, it might be good to give the place of each team (i.e. another column with 1st, 2nd, etc.)
  • Style.
  • No issues.
  • Visual Appeal.
  • For your references, instead of using {{es icon}}, you can set the language as part of the {{cite web}} template.
  • The image is just a bunch of trophies. I don't know if your average reader would be able to connect them with Spanish football, so I wonder if there exists a better picture of just one trophy so it shows the lettering?
  • Stability.
  • No issues.

Cheers, and best of luck! DARTH PANDAduel 01:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High-Definition Multimedia Interface[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 would like to eventually make it into a featured article. I have worked on this article in order to make sure that it is accurate and well referenced and I am open to any suggestions on how to improve it.

Thanks, GrandDrake (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find information as to how an archival copy could be made when copy protection is engaged, so in its current form I can not approve of the article. 69.228.196.41 (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I made a link to the HDCP article clearer (it has a paragraph on HDCP circumvention), added information on HDCP strippers, and added information on a recent HDCP stripper for HDMI. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This has improved since the last peer review. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are so many acronyms and abbreviations used here that the article becomes hard to follow. The MOS asks that each be defined (spelled out in full) before its first use, but this is not done consistently. In some places (CE for consumer electronics) it is done on the second use. See WP:JARGON too.
Done. Fixed issue with consumer electronics being spelled out the first time. As for jargon the article is detailed and as such is technical. I have tried to make sure that any complex terms are either explained in the article or have a link to a relevant Wikipedi article. --GrandDrake (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could use a copyedit to polish the language - one example The first computer monitors with HDCP support started being released in 2005 and by February 2006 a dozen had been released.[20][21] I think you mean a dozen different models of monitor had been released, but it makes it sound as if only 12 total monitors had been made.
Done. Made the sentence clearer. --GrandDrake (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move "The HDMI Founders ..." paragraph from Overview to History. As it is, the History section does not even tell us who began the development, etc. Who owns the company or patents / designs? Where are its headquarters, research facilities, and manufacturing plants?
Done. Moved paragraph to History section and added information and references on HDMI Authorized Testing Centers. --GrandDrake (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not understand this sentence: Type B is electrically compatible with dual link DVI-D and is not used in any CE products.[38][40] If it is not used in CE, where is it used?
Done. Changed sentence to reflect the fact that currently no products use the Type B connector. --GrandDrake (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:HEAD do not repeat the name of the article in section headers if at all possible, so change (as one example) HDMI and Blu-ray Disc players.
Done. Changed section headers so that none of them use the term HDMI. --GrandDrake (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think some of my comments from the last peer review are valid - what sort of reviews has this had in CE or other trade magazines / websites?
Done. Have noted a PC World award given to HDMI and a Technology and Engineering Emmy Award given to ten companies for their development of HDMI. --GrandDrake (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larbert[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd be grateful for any feedback on this article. It isn't the most rivetting of subjects. I expanded the article about a year ago and would be delighted for any advice Wikipedians might want to give on how to improve it.

Thanks, Globaltraveller (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I liked this article a lot. I thought it needed a copyedit to fix small things mostly related to the Manual of Style or to improve the prose flow here and there. Thus, I did a copyedit as well as this peer review. I think you could try for GA soon, and you might think in terms of what you would need to do to try for FA. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

  • The Manual of Style generally deprecates orphan paragraphs consisting of only one or two sentences. The existing article has several, such as the first two paragraphs of the History section and the waste-management paragraph of the "Public amenities" section. You can solve the problem either by expanding the orphans or merging them with other paragraphs.
  • I noticed that the article's talk page says that "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain." However, I don't see any mention of that encyclopedia in the article or its citations. Maybe I'm just missing it, but if not, shouldn't it be there? I would not have guessed from reading the article that any of it came from Encyclopedia Britannica.
  • Possibilities for expansion occurred to me as I read. I wondered about precipitation amounts and whether it fell only as rain. Likewise, I wondered about temperatures. It might be possible to create a Larbert climate chart such as the one used in the "Climate" section of Edinburgh. In the "Public amenities" section, you might include information about other utilities such as water, phone, electricity, cable television, and Internet service. Mention of public parks, if any, might go here too. The "Demography" section might include statistics about gender, race, and religion if the data is available.
  • I didn't know what the term "purpose built" meant in the phrase "a new purpose built 434-pupil primary school". One solution would be to delete "purpose built", but it might mean something specific that I'm unfamiliar with.
  • A reference to (Hall and Hunter 2001) appears at the end of the fourth paragraph of the "History" section. This should probably be turned into an in-line citation with title, publisher, etc.
  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article. The existing lead is good but could be improved by adding at least a mention of government, transportation, and perhaps a famous Larbert person.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful to you. If you can find the time, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan.ca Comments

  • Try not to write article text into a thumbnail of a photograph. Keep article text in the paragraph and your image captions short.
  • Try to use citation templates when citing your sources. See WP:CITE for more information.
  • As referenced by the previous review, try to follow the guidelines for the lead as described in WP:LEAD.
  • Try to avoid stray sentences by working towards cohesive and complete paragraphs.
  • Get out and take some photos under good light! The photos in the article are a good start, but the desperately need upgrading in most cases.

I was impressed by the effort put into citing the sources of the material. Content with cited sources is a critical step towards creating a Feature Article. I will rate it a C class article for WP:City. Alan.ca (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual transsexual[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
There is an article cleanup tag on this page and I want to know if the quality of the article is such that it can be removed. This is a controversial article. There is currently a POV dispute. I am not looking for anything related to that dispute. Simply is the article good enough to not have a cleanup tag at the top. I am seeking at least two reviews before doing anything. Hfarmer (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on the Automated peer review. The issues it brings up are not issues. A picture is a non-starter for an article like this. The placement of the citations has consensus. Each claim that has a citation right next to it within a sentence needs it because it is controversial. (Basically if we don't put it there then somone or the other will claim it is uncited. This is the simplest solution IMO). The Don't thing, length of lead etc. All arrived at slowly and painfully by consensus.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please read the intructions at the top of the WP:PR page, which says in part "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners ..." which includes the POV dispute as well as cleanup. A WP:RfC may be a better way to get consensus on this. As for the semi-automated peer review, the Manual of Style at Wikipedia:MOS#Images says "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image... ". The length of lead comes from right from WP:LEAD. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking for any input into the POV dispute. I am asking if the article looks good enough to not have the actual cleanup tag on it? It is likely that as controversial as this topic is someone from one side or the other will put a pov tag there. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and when I say a picture is a "non starter". I suppose that's an expression not everyone uses.  :-) What I mean is that's not going to happen. Because there is no picture that would ever get consensus of the interested editors here. That's all I mean. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - I took a quick look at the sources to see how accurately they have been used. I choose those related to IQ,as this is likely to be challenged. I was shocked to find that the first two reliable sources do not make this claim. One simply says the Utrecht cohort had a lower IQ than the Canadian one, the next one does not seem to mention IQ and the essay, which I don't consider reliable only says that lower IQ might be a useful predictor in childhood. This is a serious error and if other sources are found not to support "facts" in the article this will be quickly spotted. Many readers do check sources and this is the most important aspect of an article to get right. Graham Colm Talk 11:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thankyou for pointing out that the IQ information is not provided plainly and freely in the doccuments that were linked directly to it. I think I was at my univ when I added that info and did not realize that I probaly got to see the article's body because I was using the UNIV's subscription. I have added a reference that was alreayd in the article which has the same information and affirms what is in the references that are alreayd there. The bonus is that this one is free to download. Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance Journal of Psychiatry research. 2005 page 7 colum 2 section 3.8 says."The homosexual group’s mean IQ score (111.2; SD = 16.9; n = 82) was lower ( P b 0.001) than that of the nonhomosexual group (mean = 122.3, S.D. = 17.3, n = 61). There were no differences in IQ scores between the sexes (81 MFs, 62 FMs). Mean scores for the different transsexual subgroups were 107.3 (S.D. = 14.3) for the MF homosexuals (n = 39), 121.7 (S.D. = 17.2) for the MF nonhomosexuals (n = 42), 114.8 (S.D. = 18.4) for the FM homosexuals (n = 43), and 123.7 (S.D. = 17.8) for the FM nonhomosexuals(n = 19)." Thakyou again.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the reference have to be right. The problem is that the information referenced is not always in the abstract. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Rhapsody[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 want to make it an FA and I would like some feedback on it before nominating. Is there anything seriously wrong? Are thee enough refs? Thanks, TopGearFreak 14:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a and ask someone to copyedit it before going to FA. As I wrote some of this, the prose will be far from perfect, and some people love displaying their perceived superiority by pointing that out in aggressive terms. The JPStalk to me 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting sources, but looks better in order of peak position rather than alphabetical order. And I didn't see anything anout alphabetical order. TopGearFreak 14:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 78[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a GA that I would like to take to FAC. Its ACR is currently dormant, and I would like to get some feedback before I take it to FAC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article reads very well. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • In the infobox, the level of precision for the total length of the highway invites doubt. The source document lists segments to the third place to the right of the decimal, but it's hard to imagine that realignment or something has never thrown this off a little here or there. If the total is accurate to within five feet (about 0.001 mile), no problem.
  •  Done I had to switch it back to the 2 decimal number anyway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the routes such as State Route 78 (SR 78) are given with their full names and abbreviations on first reference, while others such as Route 86 are not. It would be good to be consistent throughout. You might look at other highway articles at WP:FA#Transport to see how other editors have handled this.
  • U.S. 99 is linked three times in the short "Early history" section. Once would be enough.
  • Time-related terms like "today" and "recent" are ambiguous. The money conversions such as "(about $27 million today" would be more clear if "today" were changed to "as of 2008". The subhead "Recent events" might become "1999–" or "Since 1999" or something similar.
  • The last sentence of the "Construction" section is an orphan that could be merged with the paragraph above it. It's not clear why Jacob Dekema, whoever he might be, is mentioned. Perhaps the paragraph could be recast as follows: "In 1969, plans to extend the freeway portion of SR 78 east from the Broadway interchange through Escondido were abandoned for lack of funding." This sentence could then fit chronologically into the paragraph above it.
  • In the "Future" section, you might link park and ride and culvert.
  • In the "Construction" section, it would be good to explain or link "grade-separated" and "at grade".
  • It would liven up the prose a bit to replace some of the "there is" and "there are" constructions with something more forceful. For example, "As late as 1919, there was no road connecting Brawley with Glamis along the route of SR 78; one had to travel north through Calipatria to reach Blythe" could become "As late as 1919, no road connected Brawley... ".
  • "One" in the sentence above is a Manual of Style no-no. Perhaps this would do: "As late as 1919, no road connected Brawley with Glamis along the route of SR 78. Before that it was necessary to travel...".
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, Citation 36 is missing its publication date even though the date, April 2005, appears on the first page of the source document. It would be good to add isbns for the maps if you have them or can find them. Just add |isbn = to the template, filling in the isbn after the equals sign.
  •  Done except for ISBN - {{citemap}} doesn't support them, and FAC doesn't seem to think them important. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the explanatory note for the "Major intersections" table could say what the prefix letters R, T, and N stand for.
    • Already explained in the Postmile article; there's a table that defines the prefixes. --Mgillfr (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, preferably one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for the review. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Slough[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 prepare it for FAC. This is the fourth article in a series of six about small streams important to Portland, Oregon. Three of these articles are FA, and I've taken this one about as far as I can. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kayastha[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 has the potential to be a good article, but needs a lot of input before it can become a good article. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Thanks, NoVomit (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bruce (author)[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 has undergone significant revisions of late and I would like feedback on how to improve it.

Thanks, NoVomit (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The most important thing you need to do to improve this article is to rewrite it in a neutral style. Part of this means ensuring that every significant claim or statement made in the article is cited to a reliable neutral source. To illustrate my meaning I have inserted citation tags at various points in the text where one would normally expect to see a citation. I also note that a "who" tag ("who claimed this?") from November has not been answered.

There are other areas requiring attention. Since the article is entitled "Robert Bruce (author)", one would expect to see minimal biographical information and some background context – how he became a New Age author, whether he ever did anything else, etc. Also, the article has very much the feel and appearance of an incomplete draft - the "Research and theories" section consists of a single short sentence. I wonder, too, the extent to which you have familarised yourself with the Wikipedia manual of style (WP:MOS).

I doubt you will get a detailed review unless the above points are addressed. The subject of this article is serious and interesting, and it will be a pity if it loses out because it is not prepared or presented in appropriate encyclopedic style.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Sigma Theta[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 there have been significant edits, citations, and development of the history, purpose, and programs of the sorority. I believe the edits should qualify this page for a higher rating than a C-Class. Any feedback on what would be necessary to get it to a Featured Article level would also be appreciated.

Thanks, Divainred (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Divainred[reply]

  • I have been copyediting this article. The article looks B-level at best. For FA status, I think you should take a look at Delta Sigma Theta, a FA article. You need to rid the "Expansion" section, per WP:DIRECTORY, and the section looks listy. Model the history structure, like AKA's, highlighting what the organization did each decade. Find out what controversies the sorority has been in, per having a balanced point of view.
  • Images: I don't think you need File:Summit1.jpg. Per WP:FAIR, minimize the fair use images in the article. I am working on the map (it's fair use) and cleaning up one of the logos. I am working to make File:Deltagemslogo.jpg from .jpg to .svg without the shadows. I am still copyediting this article from "Expansion Programs" to the end. miranda 20:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a better image for the Delta Woman .svg. I have also replaced the fair use map with a free image of the regions, since that map is obsolete. I noticed that some dates are linked. I think, per DATE, you should not link these. miranda 21:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this sentence in the May Week section, The slogan "Invest in Education" was adopted and a week is set aside in May for programs highlighting academic and professional achievement. miranda 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first traveling library was based in Franklin County, North Carolina, where 25 book baskets, with 35 books were circulated. - I don't understand this sentence, either. miranda 21:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35 books each for one basket? miranda 21:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Membership section needs citations. You don't need a space between words and the citation. miranda 22:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, North and South Carolina left the Southern Region to become part of the new South Atlantic Region. - in the Regions section. miranda 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations 11-12, 14, 37, and 63 need to be properly formatted. miranda 07:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: I have listed some images on the talk page which you could ask people to donate to Wikipedia if they would agree to change their license to a free license (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) if you have a Flickr account. I can help you with this. This is not urgent. I just want to reduce the number of fair use images in this article.
  • Some sections need expansion.
  • A sorority pin would be nice, although I heard that it was "illegal for the sorority" to have the pin on the internet due to copyright reasons.
  • Delta Sigma Theta conventions. miranda 05:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Dunst[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 have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature article status. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My Review

Upon review of your article and consultation of the criteria at WP:FA? IMO your article meets most of those. It was in my opinon at least as good as the published biographies which it's information was gleaned from, and far more complete. Therefore I have no reservations about upgrading this article to A level status. I will not nominate this for Featured Article status. I leave that up to you. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

  • I agree this looks pretty good, but think it needs a copyedit for minor polish.
  • For example Dunst began her career as a child fashion model at the age of three in television commercials.[3][6] might read better as Dunst began her career at the age of three as a child fashion model in television commercials.[3][6]
    • Done.
  • Or there seems to be a missing word in The film received generally unfavorable reviews,[12] but every critic had praise Dunst's [for?] performance; ...
    • I think I got it.
  • Or here, surely by now we know not only the opening weekend box office, but also the total: The film earned $114,844,116 during its opening weekend.[20]?
    • Fixed.
  • My only oither comment would be to add some more on critical reviews of her work to the lead

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ink Runner comments

  • Like Ruhrfisch said, the article looks pretty good; there doesn't appear to be anything that would break it at FAC. That being said, there are some minor comments:
  • In the "Years Active" section of the infobox, you use a hyphen. I'm pretty sure it should be an en dash (–).
    • Has been added.
  • "The film received generally good reviews" (This is a very, very nitpicky comment, but) some might construe this to mean that the reviews were of good quality, not that the reviewers found the movie to be good. Change to "favorable reviews" perhaps?
    • Done.
  • In the section about Jumanji do "jungle" and "dice" have to be wikilinked? Arguably, they should be familiar to most readers of the article, and they're not directly relevant to an article about Kirsten Dunst, methinks.
    • Removed; I "copied" the info. from the movie's article, thus having the wikilinks.
  • "who plays a hotshot on his way back down, during the Wimbledon Championships." "Hotshot" is slang, so is there another way to describe Bettany's character?
    • I've had a hard time trying to write this out. Do you think you can help?
      • I'm not acquainted with the movie, so maybe "hotshot" is the best way to describe Bettany's character. The best solution I can think of is to put "hotshot" in quotation marks—but this would only work if a reliable source (like one of the reviews for the movie) used that word (since all quotes have to be sourced). If no reliable source uses that word, then you might have to find a non-slang replacement in a thesaurus or something.
        • How 'bout that he was once a great tennis player, but now is fading as an athlete. IDK, something like that. Because the premise of the movie is that she's a rising star and he's going down as one.
          • I think that would work well, too.
            • Alright, I'll try to write that out.
              • I added this ---> "In 2004, she appeared in the romantic comedy Wimbledon (2004), a film which stars Dunst as a rising tennis player opposite Paul Bettany, who plays as a fading tennis athlete, during the Wimbledon Championships", don't know if it helps.
                • That sounds good, but I have just a suggestion: "...Wimbledon (2004), a film in which she plays a rising tennis player in the Wimbledon Championships opposite Paul Bettany, who plays a fading former tennis star."
                  • Your suggestion is better than mine.
  • You write that Elizabethtown was "panned with mixed reviews". According to Dictionary.com, "panned" means "criticized severely", but doesn't "mixed reviews" mean that the movie earned favorable ones too? Perhaps change to "garnered mixed reviews"?
    • Done.
  • "Dunst's next film role was in the 2006 biographical film Marie Antoinette. The film is adapted from Antonia Fraser’s book Marie Antoinette: The Journey. In the film, her second with director Sofia Coppola, Dunst plays the title character." -> "Dunst's next film role was the title character in the 2006 biographical film Marie Antoinette. The film, adapted from Antonia Fraser's book Marie Antoinette: The Journey was Dunst's second with director Sofia Coppola". IMO, that just seems to flow better. But it's a matter of opinion, I guess.
    • Done.
  • "but every film critic complimented Dunst's performance" Without a reference, this might be challenged, especially since there aren't any qualifiers attached to it. Maybe use Rottentomatoes or some movie-review aggregate site as a ref?
    • Well, that movie wasn't one of her "biggest" films. So, would it be a good idea to remove the sentence?
      • I think it's all right to include the reviews, but just don't say that "every" film critic complimented the performance, because FAC reviewers might point out that the only way to verify that claim is to link to every single review of the film. So change it to "many critics" or "most critics complimented ..." Again, Rottentomatoes or some aggregate review site might serve as a ref here.
        • Rotten Tomatoes doesn't provide any critical review, just how critics rated the movie.
          • Rottentomatoes has links to the reviews though, right? I mean that would be easier than citing each review individually.
            • Actually, I have the Metacritic source for the reviews and stuff.
              • Okay then.
  • "the San Francisco Chronicle in review of the film, noted: "Dunst beautifully balances innocence and wantonness."" -> "San Francisco Chronicle critic Peter Stack noted in his review that Dunst "beautifully ..."
    • Done.
  • "On her father's side, Dunst is of German descent[4] and on her mother's side, is of Swedish descent.[5]" The MoS prefers that footnotes be put after punctuation, so move footnote [4] to the end of the sentence.
    • Done.

Brianboulton comments: There are numerous (mainly minor) prose, punctuation and structure issues to be resolved before the article goes to FAC. So far I have only got as far as the "Early work" subsection:

  • In the lead
    • Any reason why the pronunciation is in a footnote? This doesn't appear to be the normal practice; also, is this really necessary, given that the pronunciation seems quite straightforward?
      • When I started working on the article the pronunciation was there and I left it alone. But, since it has been brought up, I've removed it.
    • In the first paragraph you mention the 1994 role that "brought her widespread recognition". In the next paragraph you say she "became well-known" after being cast in the Spider-man films, which didn't happen until 2002. I'd say she was pretty well-known before 2002, and the later text of your article bears this out. It might be more appropriate to say that the Spider-man role "brought her international recognition" or something like that, rather than just making her well-known.
      • Done.
    • "She will next star in the 2009 films..." This time-specific sentence will soon be out of date. It should be possible to rephrase it so it won't have to be changed in the next few months, e.g.: "She has accepted leading roles in the 2009 films All Good Things and Sweet Relief.
      • Done.
    • Clumsy sentence: "In 2008, Dunst admitted that she was suffering from depression and checked herself into rehab, and discharged herself in March 2008." The punctuation and the repetition make awkward reading, and "rehab" is colloquial. Suggested rephrase: "Early in 2008 Dunst admitted that she was suffering from depression. She checked into a treatment centre, discharging herself in March and resuming her career."
      • Done.
  • Early life
    • Why discuss her parents in the past tense? Assuming both are living and haven't taken up new vocations, "was" can become "is" on each occasion.
      • Well, the fact that they are no longer working the jobs that are mentioned, thus "was" being mentioned.
    • Avoid the repetition of "descent" in the second sentence of the first paragraph. It could be rephrased: "Dunst is of German descent on her father's side, and Swedish on her mother's."
      • Done.
    • There are too many commas in the first sentence of the second paragraph. At least lose the one after "younger brother"
      • I think I got it.
    • "...to continue in her acting career" – "in" is redundant
      • Has been removed.
  • Early work
    • Lose comma after "age of eight"
      • Done.
    • "anthology film" – "film" is redundant
      • Removed.
    • A comma is required after (1990)
      • Has been added.
    • You need to have a clearer idea about what constitutes her "early work". From what you have said in the article, 1994 seems a reasonable cut-off point for the early part of her career, before her "widespread recognition". But in this Early work section you also mention her 1997 role in Kiki's Delivery Service, and some undated ER appearances which I guess were some time after 1994. I notice that the next section, "Critical success", begins with 1994; if you are extending her early work to, say, 1997, then some of this Critical success material belongs in Early work.
      • No, that was my bad, I totally forgot to fix that part; I added the films to the correct section.

I will try and continue this prose review, as time allows. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have been a while, but I'm back now

  • Critical success
    • It's not a good idea to start a new section with "She..." I realise that both the previous sections have begun with "Dunst...", so we have to be a bit creative. How about: "The breakthrough role in Dunst's career came..."?
      • Done.
    • Sorry, but what does "Brad had cooties" mean? Is there a Brit-Eng equivalent that we poor islanders might understand?
      • See here; It means that back when she was 10 she was asked how if "felt" being kissed by Pitt and she telling the media that he had a "fictitious disease or condition", a term used by children.
        • I have wikilinked the term, for the benefit of non-North American readers
          • Alright, cool.
    • A comma is required after "Torrance Shipman", but not after "2000". Thus the sentence begins: "In 2008 she played Torrance Shipman, ..." etc
      • Done.
    • Delete the "while" at the beginning of the Jessica Winter section. It wrecks the grammar.
      • Removed.
  • Spider-Man and after
    • To avoid repetition, in the 4th paragraph I suggest that the second "reviews" is changed to "reception"
      • Done.
    • "...her highest grossing film to date" – it's that time-specific thing again; when is "to date"? It would be better to say something like "to the end of 2008"
      • Done.
    • Lose the comma after "she would do it"
      • Done.
    • "five-year struggle" needs a hyphen
      • Has been added.
    • "and later revealing" - no "and" necessary
      • Removed.
    • In the lead, you referred to All Good Things as a future project for 2009. Here, it seems she has already completed the film and is awaiting its release. The two accounts need to be consistent with each other.
      • Filming ended in July 2008 and its expected to be released in 2009. Also, I added this ---> "She has accepted a supporting role in All Good Things", don't know if it helps out or not.
        • It doesn't really - in fact, it contradicts the lead statement, which describes her role in All Good Things as "leading". My suggestion is to say "She played a leading role in All Good Things, to be released in 2009,..." etc
          • Done.
  • Personal life: two successive sentences in second paragraph start with "However". see if you can lose one of them.
    • I did; "They ended their relationship later that year".

My reading has been a bit hurried because of pressure of things, but this looks potentially a decent article. I'd quite like to read it again, in a few days time when you've made the necessary changes and when things have slowed down for me – assuming the PR is still open by then. Good luck anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Internet Security[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 did some extensive cleanup, clarification, and added content. I am interested in how it reads.

Thanks, TechOutsider (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Comments by Uncia (talk · contribs)

What's the purpose of the article, and who is the intended reader? This is not very clear as it stands, as the article is something of a hodge-podge. It consists of a brief history, some techie stuff about how it works, a lot of brief excerpts from lab tests, and finally some screenshots shown with no explanation of their significance.

I suggest that the focus of the article should be changed so it would be useful to someone who has heard about viruses and other dangers of the Internet, wonders what it is all about, and wants to know how NIS fits into the picture. It should not be a product review; that's a job for the computer magazines, and Wikipedia cannot do product reviews because that would be WP:OR. Take a look at some of the Good Articles and Featured Articles in computing and see how that are pitched; for example Mozilla Firefox which is a much more comprehensive article but has a good organization and flow.

Some specific comments:

  • The article has a lot of jargon terms that will be unfamiliar to many readers, and these need to be wikilinked (or explained if there's no article); for example: malware, zero-day software, SHA256, firewall, phishing, parental controls, privacy controls, pop-up blocking, ad blocking, "allow/deny" pop-ups, NTFS file system, database, LiveUpdate, honeypot, IP addresses
  • It would be useful to mention the other major players in this field, maybe with some comments about market share, or at least wikilinks to their articles if they have one. Since there are free products available, what is Symantec's secret to get people to pay for NIS?
  • The "Independent assessments" section is too long - select 3 or 4 of the most useful of these and highlight them in a Critical reception section. You need to give a specific citation for each one you reference.
  • The screen shots are not low-resolution as claimed; because they are copyrighted and used under fair-use, they need to be shrunk to just the size needed for the article.
  • For references 1 & 2, and the hyperlinks in "Version 2006 and previous", "Version 2008 (15.0)", "Criticisms" please use a full template such as Template:Cite news or Template:Cite web and not just the URL; this is important so that in case the URL changes there will be title and description info to help us find it again.

Ozzie Smith[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 feel this article needs one more full peer review before it is submitted to FAC again. I've nitpicked this article for the past year, and I'd like a fresh set of eyes to point out suggestions to style/formatting, neutral point of view compliance, and grammar/sentence structure.

Thanks, Monowi (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a couple more comments on things I noticed. It does look much better than the last time. Sorry if it seems a little more boring, but NPOV has to be a little more boring than sports copy I guess. One thing is can you add just a little more explaining the semi pro playing in the summer of 76? For one, how did that not affect his NCAA eligibility? Was that less strict back then? For another, can you check and clarify the timing of his college years? If he started in 74-75 then 75-76 would be his sophomore year, but it seems to imply he came back for his senior year after that summer. Second thing is can you add just a bit to the first paragraph in Post-playing career just to make the prose flow together better. Perhaps some more context on the show or how he did. Not much, just enough to help it read more smoothly. - Taxman Talk 08:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the time you took to look over the article; you've raised some interesting points and questions. I'll research his college years more over the coming the weeks to see if I can come up with some answers, and try to address other areas of the article as part of clean up edits I plan on making soon too. Thanks again, Monowi (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A big thanks to User:PRRfan, who did a great copyedit/cleanup job while this peer review was still open! Monowi (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments Just saw I never followed up on my promise to make some comments here - my apologies. I think this looks very close to FA. Here are a few comments:

  • Refs in the lead are usually not needed, as the lead is a summary of the article (which should have the refs). Extraordinary claims and direct quotes in the lead should have refs, so if you do want refs in the lead, I would add one for the end of the first paragraph (13 Gold Gloves etc.)
  • Language is generally very good, but "childhood leisure activities" in Developing quick reflexes via childhood leisure activities in both the lead and text sounds a bit stilted. Perhaps "childhood athletic activities" would read better?
I like that idea; change made. Monowi (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE block quotes are supposed to be at least four lines long, but on my screen none of the block quotes are longer than a line and a half. I realize this is monitor dependent, but wanted to let you know someone might raise this at FAC.
Thanks for pointing this out. I worked on the article to address this issue. Monowi (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interest of parallel constuction, I would add "future MLB player" to Smith was a teammate of future NBA player Marques Johnson on the basketball team, and a teammate of Eddie Murray on the baseball side.[11]
There's been a lot of back and forth concerning this sentence, with other editors trying to help by re-phrasing the sentence. The sentence used to have "future MLB player" in it, but got changed somewhere along the line. I have added it back in. Monowi (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would clarify this Smith finished his career with many distinctions, such as the accumulation of more than 27.5 million votes from fans in All-Star balloting, and holds the record for the most at-bats without hitting a grand slam.[6][104] Is the at bats without a grand slam record for all of MLB or just the Cardinals?
Great suggestion; I actually took the extra step of re-phrasing the sentence to improve prose while incorporating this change.Monowi (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, and sorry again about forgetting to comment before. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ra (channeled entity)[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 page has undergone extensive revisions and any comments would be helpful.

Thanks, NoVomit (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz comments':

  • Expand lead
  • "Ra is an alleged extraterrestrial group of entities" is a [[WP:POV|point of a view". Put it something like "According to ...... (fill in the blanks), Ra is an extraterrestrial group of entities"
  • Reference needed: "The questions asked were about very diverse subjects and events;"
  • I am sorry to say I agree with the confused tag on the article, I really could not understand what exactly Ra is/ are? I think all those notes should be put in the main text itself to clarify new concepts "octave of densities","seventh density" etc.
  • Expand the whole article itself to clarify what Ra exactly is. It's nature, appearance etc. Something more about the entity is needed to clarify

--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logos5557 responds to comments':

  • Expand lead: can be done by adding some extra words/sentences, however there are plenty of articles which have very short leads like [6]
  • I believe the word "alleged" does provide NPOV. Putting "According to.." before would only make the sentence unnecessarily longer.
  • That sentence can be reformed in a way not to need references.
  • I really do not know what that user could not understand in the article and put the confused tag. Each user might have not understood different points. Therefore, the related wikipedia guideline reads that normally before putting that confused tag, the user should discuss the confusing point in the talk page. Putting all those notes into the main text would make reading difficult, therefore as per [7] explanatory notes are given separately below the main text.
  • Clarifying what Ra exactly is not an easy task as their nature can only be explained by the avaliable material from law of one books, which is not much in quantity. Logos5557 (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emotional_quotient is NOT the best article to refer to for guidance. Read WP:LEAD. I should have given the link before. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhu Bhairavi[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 is awaiting a GA review for a long time. I have taken this article from a stub to B-class and want to see it as a GA. But the problem is the scope of improvement for this article. This article has all the information available on the net. But I am afraid of it being turned down as a GA as it lacks production and reception information. I need someone to help me pass this article as a GA

Thanks, Bharathprime (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The prose is a major problem in the article and it needs attention throughout. Here are some of many examples of poor writing:

  • How the situation gets relaxed and the singer comes around forms the climax of the film. Does this mean. "The solution to the singer's problems forms the climax of the film."
The climax of the film is the status of the relationship between JKB, Sindhu and Bhairavi. I guess the phrase needs to be changed. Current version: (A Carnatic singer (JKB) at the peak of his career looses his credibility as he gets addicted to alcohol due to the loss of an intimate companion (Sindhu). Bhairavi (JKB's wife) ties to help him get rid of the addiction and fails. As a last resort she requests Sindhu's help and succeeds. The status of relationship between the three after his makeover is the climax of the film). Bharathprime (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Carnatic Music genius, JKB (Sivakumar) is married to Bhairavi (Sulakshana), a loyal and loving wife, but one who is not able to satisfy or challenge him intellectually and is grieved due to her inability to beget an offspring. - Try "JKB (Sivakumar) is a gifted carnatic musician but his wife Bhairavi (Sulakshana), despite her love and loyalty, fails to satisfy or challenge him. For JKB, this, and her inabilty to have children, is a problem."
Done, Thanks. Bharathprime (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • a Tambura musician who is penchant of speaking lies. try "compulsive liar".
Done, Thanks. Bharathprime (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Thanks. Bharathprime (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plutonium[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article is FA now but there are some remaining comments leftover from the FAC that I'd like to address. To start this PR off, I have copied those remaining comments below. mav (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Headbomb
Physical
  • Question, are allotropes and phases the same thing here?Headbomb {ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think so, but it may be better to use "form" instead of "phase" when talking about different allotropes, so I implemented that. I also added "...following phase transitions from one allotropic form to another." to hopefully make it more clear. That particular fact comes from this sentence on page 294 of the cited ref: 3. The densities of the allotropes vary significantly, resulting in dramatic volume changes accompanying phase transitions. Although, "phase" in fact is commonly used in this context, it can be confusing for those who associate it solely with the classic solid-liquid-gas-plasma phases. --mav (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medical experimentation
  • Details on the animal experiments would add a lot to this section
  • Good point - but I couldn't find anything specific from a reliable source. Most of the animal stuff available refers to animals in context to the human experiments. Two more sentences added about the animal part: "Animal studies found that a few milligrams of plutonium per kilogram of tissue is a lethal dose." and "This was reduced to one microgram in July 1945 after animal studies found that the way plutonium distributed itself in bones was more dangerous than radium." --mav (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Power source
  • Tone down to "Is is still used to hear scuba suits?
  • After looking closer, it appears that it was studied for use in scuba suits and a prototype was made and used, but I can't find any info on actual use beyond those studies. Sentence changed to: "Pu-238 was studied as way to provide supplemental heat to scuba diving suits." --mav (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General remark
  • Sometimes notes are placed before refs, other times they are after. I would consider place them all before.
  • Article now is standardised on [1][note 1] format b/c the cite refers to the sentence it immediately follows while the note is for supplementary info (which should have its own ref inside the note). [note 1][1] may be interpreted as saying that the cite [1] also covers the note. Therefore, I think that the way the article now has it is better. --mav (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say I'd essentially support it as an FA, but I would like some clarification about phases and allotropes being the same thing or not. Maybe it's been addressed in the article already. The expanding on the animal experiments would be nice, but is not a deal-breaker IMO. Headbomb {ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I think I've addressed your concerns. Please take a look. --mav (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Nihiltres
  • "These and other properties make the handling of plutonium dangerous and have led to a number of criticality accidents." This sentence needs to be revised: logical analysis reveals that the sentence could be construed as saying that "other properties […] have led to a number of criticality accidents", which is not exactly true. Specifying that it is the radioactivity that leads to criticality accidents would be better.
  • Criticality accident mention moved from that sentence to the human radiation experiment sentence in lede. --mav (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fuel grade plutonium contains from 7 to less than 19% percent, and power reactor grade contains from 19% and greater Pu-240" Percent is doubled.
  • "During World War II the U.S. government set-up the Manhattan Project, which was tasked with developing an atomic bomb." The phrase "set-up" up-sets me. :) Surely there's a more descriptive word that can be used here. It's also inconsistent with the nearby "Later, large 200 MW reactors were set up at the Hanford Site […]"…
  • Changed to "established" and second sentence no longer exists. --mav (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mox fuel is used in […]" and "MOX fuel has been in use since […]": please make the capitalization consistent.
  • Standardised on "MOX". --mav (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last three sentences in the Flammability subsection of the Precautions section feel very choppy: in particular, the mention of the Rocky Flats fire seems to stick out. Rearranging this section for better flow would be advisable.
  • Yikes - you are correct. Rocky Flats part moved to end and placed in ref note. I think it flows much better now. --mav (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the writing is overall pretty decent: let's fix up these little stumbles. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all these issues have now—that is, in this PR, as copied from the FAC—been fixed. Thanks. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Axl

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "When exposed to moist air, it expands up to 70% in volume and forms a powder that can spontaneously ignite." [Emphasis mine.] Is this really the elemental plutonium? Or is there a chemical reaction involved? From the "Flammability" section, it looks like this represents oxidation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are correct. The sentence now reads: "When exposed to moist air, it forms oxides that expand the sample up to 70% in volume; which in turn flake off as a powder that can spontaneously ignite." --mav (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "Characteristics", "Nuclear": "Plutonium is a radioactive actinide metal that, with uranium, is one of the few elements with one or more fissile isotopes." Why is uranium singled out as one of the few similar elements? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't "Characteristics", "Nuclear" section describe the alpha decay of Pu-238? I added a brief comment right at the end of the section. From "Applications", "Power source", this property looks quite important. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The point of that subsection is to introduce concepts related to the nuclear power and weapons industry. But a short mention of Pu-238 won't hurt - what you added seems sufficient. To avoid confusion I renamed that subsection to ===Nuclear fission===. Also, any atom that is hit with energetic enough particles will fission. So I added "easily" to the Pu-238 part. --mav (talk)
    I still think that this alpha decay process would benefit from a paragraph because the process is (or has been) used in a number of applications. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence the space given to that isotope in the applications section. --mav (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we disagree on this point. In my opinion, the alpha decay of Pu-238 is an important characteristic of plutonium, and deserves a place in the section entitled "Characteristics". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "Characteristics", "Isotopes and synthesis", paragraph 1: "Because of its comparatively large half-life, minute amounts of Pu-244 can be found in nature." I think I know what the author means, but the sentence appears counter-intuitive. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm. Seems fine to me, but to make it even more clear I changed it to: "Minute amounts of Pu-244 can be found in nature because it is has a comparatively long half-life and is formed as a decay product in uranium ores." --mav (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You've missed the point. "Minute" means "tiny". If the half-life is long, why is only a tiny amount present? With a long half-life, there should be a lot more. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see - "minor" added to the uranium decay product part. --mav (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It still doesn't seem quite right. How about "Trace amounts of Pu-244 occur naturally because it is formed as a minor decay product in uranium ores and it has a comparatively long half-life. Other isotopes do not occur naturally." ? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is better. But I think that a more fundamental problem is that sentence should be in the ===Occurrence=== subsection. I moved your wording (slightly modified) to there and tried to refactor that paragraph. I'm still not completely happy with the sentence & paragraph though but can't think of a better formulation right now... --mav (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After a few more copyedits, I'm now happy with the new paragraph. --mav (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "Characteristics", "Isotopes and synthesis", paragraph 1: "The primary decay modes before the most stable isotope, Pu-244, are spontaneous fission and α emission; the primary mode after is β emission. The primary decay products before Pu-244 are uranium and neptunium isotopes (neglecting the wide range of daughter nuclei created by fission processes), and the primary products after are americium isotopes." Does this mean that uranium and neptunium undergo spontaneous fission and alpha emission to form Pu-244? Pu-244 undergoes beta emission to form americium? This section could be clearer. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. I reorganised to group by before or after 244 instead of by decay product and mode. Text now reads: "The primary decay modes before the most stable isotope, Pu-244, are spontaneous fission and α emission; mostly forming uranium (92 protons) and neptunium (93 protons) isotopes as decay products (neglecting the wide range of daughter nuclei created by fission processes). The primary decay mode after Pu-244 is β emission; mostly forming americium (95 protons) isotopes as decay products." Proton numbers of decay products added to give the reader a better idea of what is going on. --mav (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not clear what the meaning of "before" and "after" are in this context. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I thought that the preceding sentence, "The isotopes of plutonium range in mass number from 228 to 247", would be enough. Either way, "before" and "after" replaced by "of isotopes with mass numbers lower than" and "for isotopes with mass numbers higher than," respectively. --mav (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that wasn't clear to me before. Thanks for fixing it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "Characteristics", "Isotopes and synthesis", this equation does not appear to be correctly formatted:-

238U(d,2n)238Np → 238Pu + β−

Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference rechecked and its explanation. Both check out. That is apparently how one notes intermediate decay products in a chemical equation.... Exactly what is happening is already explained in the prose. --mav (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better equation format found in German version. The article now gives:

Gota love the Germans. :) --mav (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, that's clear now. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Production during the Manhattan Project", paragraph 4: "B, D and F were the initial reactors built at Hanford". I'm surprised that A, B and C weren't the initial reactors built. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oddly enough, the references I consulted did not mention those other reactors. But I don't think it is correct to assume they strictly followed an alphabetic progression; esp in regards to the specific task of producing plutonium. Besides, this article is about the element, not the Hanford Site, so I don't want to get bogged down with peripheral details like this. --mav (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed today's main page featured article, "Hanford Site", describes the reactors in more detail. B, D & F is correct. {Although the naming of the reactors seems rather random.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Cold War use and waste": "The U.S. reactors at Hanford and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina produced 103,000 kg, and an estimated 170,000 kg of military-grade plutonium was produced in Russia. Each year about 20,000 kg of the element is still produced as a by-product of the nuclear power industry. As much as 1000 tonnes of plutonium may be in storage with more than 200 tonnes of that either inside or extracted from nuclear weapons." Why not use "tonnes" consistently throughout? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Cold War use and waste": "The glass consists of borosilicates mixed with as cadmium and gadolinium". The grammar is incorrect and I don't know what it should be. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm far from an expert in grammar so I don't know what is wrong with the sentence... Is this better?: "The glass is made of borosilicates mixed with the powerful neutron absorbers cadmium and gadolinium." But then doesn't 'powerful neutron absorbers' scream for some hyphens? --mav (talk)
    Ah, I see now. The offending word in the original sentence is "as". Without that, the sentence makes sense. I'll change the article text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Cold War use and waste", is there a reference for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture caption in "Applications", "Power source" reads "A pellet of plutonium-238, glowing due to blackbody radiation." However the article indicates that plutonium is silvery-white in colour. Is the pellet of Pu-238 really a black body? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah hell - no way that can be correct. Changed to "alpha decay". --mav (talk)
    Are you sure that it's not due to pyrophoricity? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost certainly due to alpha decay b/c the pellet is thermally isolated. But to be careful, I changed the caption to "A glowing pellet of 238PuO2". --mav (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. I see that you've changed the caption to indicate plutonium oxide rather than plutonium. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "Precautions", "Toxicity": "The U.S. Department of Energy estimates the increase in lifetime cancer risk for inhaled plutonium as 3 × 10−8 pCi−1.[48]" Unfortunately I can't seem to view the Argonne National Laboratory's fact sheet. Can someone confirm that the fact sheet is still available? Wouldn't "sieverts" be more helpful than "curies"? I would like to review the validity of the cancer risk information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a PDF - I don't have any problem downloading it... I found better info in the cite and added that instead. The article now reads: "The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the lifetime cancer risk for inhaling 5,000 plutonium particles, each about 3 microns wide, to be 1% over the background U.S. average." --mav (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I'll try looking for some more information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "Precautions", "Criticality potential": "Plutonium in solution is more likely to form a critical mass than the solid form due to moderation by the hydrogen in water." [Emphasis mine.] Is "moderation" a technical term? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now linked to neutron moderator. --mav (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other reviews

Something to fix:

  • "Partial exceptions include the refractory metals chromium, molybdenum, niobium, tantalum and tungsten, which, while soluble in liquid plutonium and insoluble or only slightly so in solid plutonium."

I'm not sure what this intends to say, but it's not a complete sentence. Please rewrite for clarity. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like the writer(s) meant to say "are" instead of "and" on the second instance of the latter. Correcting that would make the sentence more clear, but the "or only slightly so" seems to be saying more "slightly soluble" than "slightly insoluble": this still needs work. If someone can confirm the facts (please), a suggestion for correction, based on my assumptions, would be "Partial exceptions include the refractory metals chromium, molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, and tungsten, which, while soluble in liquid plutonium, are insoluble or only slightly soluble in solid plutonium." {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 23:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somebody else changed that to: "Partial exceptions include the refractory metals chromium, molybdenum, niobium, tantalum and tungsten, which are soluble in liquid plutonium, but insoluble or only slightly soluble in solid plutonium." --mav (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of its comparatively large half-life, minute amounts of Pu-244 can be found in nature. Is this true, given the age of the earth? Isn't it more likely that Pu-244 is formed from U-238, and its long half-life allows detectable amounts to build up? jimfbleak (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Text now reads: "Minute amounts of Pu-244 can be found in nature because it is has a comparatively long half-life and is formed as a decay product in uranium ores." Hope that helps. --mav (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks excellent. < and > take a space after. Tony (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks - fixed. --mav (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic producer[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 was once deleted for being a PR. I want it to sound less of a PR and more of an encyclopedic entry.

Thanks, Talentshout (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed much of the self-serving prose, took out unnecessary <br /> tags, and made some of the lists into prose. I noticed some reference links, which is a good start, but there's still more work needed.
Consider finding some of the actual magazines they mention, or other third-party books and websites not affiliated with the group, to ensure that the article has reliable sources. Make sure that claims in the text are verifiable, and look for both positive and negative opinions of the group in those sources to keep a neutral point of view. As Gogo Dodo mentioned on your talk page, try reading other articles—featured or good ones, if possible—about similar groups, and model it after them. Thanks, --an odd name 01:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Romania[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 again because I want to eliminate all possible mistakes in it, in order to apply for featured article status. The article seems to me to be well written and referenced (I wrote the Romanian version and Biruitorul translated it entirely in English). Also, I've taken into account the suggestions of the previous peer review. We could use again a fresh, neutral perspective.

I'm concerned about:

  • the hardest criteria to match (1-a) for FAs: "the article must be well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".
  • possible omissions of references where needed.
  • possible use of peacock terms.

Thanks, Alex:D (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The prose is poor and the article would quickly fail to achieve FA without a lot of further work. It's too big a job for me to take on but here are some pointers: check for "also", "only" and "as well as". Do not be tempted to over-dress the prose in an attempt to make the article sound encyclopedic (it has the opposite effect). Keep the sentences simple. Don't use "related" when you mean "similar". And, please do not quote the legislation (law numbers) in the body of the article; confine them to the footnotes. Some parts are poorly referenced, it's best to go a little over the top with referencing in my experience. Graham Colm Talk 10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was afraid the prose wouldn't be briliant, because I am not a native English speaker. User:Biruitorul used "related to" not as "similar to" but as "influenced by". I'll move the law numbers inside the article to footnotes. For the last observation, some of the paragraphs are referenced by only one work, at their end. Should I repeat the reference where necessary? --Alex:D (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is difficult to comment on your last point. Any facts in sentences that might be challenged should have a citation. If this means having to repeat the same reference, then do so. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 19:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Hobart[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 have expanded it greatly recently. I think maybe it still has a bit of tidying to do, but having spent a lot of time writing, I think it would be useful to get someone else's opinion to get impartial advice as to what needs to be done to get the article to GA or Featured status. Thanks, Robert Fleming (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by saying, wow! You've done a massive amount of work on this article, and it already compares favorably to articles such as History of London and History of Paris. Because you've done so much work to it, I'll have to spend more time studying it, but there are a few things that jump out at me after a cursory glance: 1.) Though there are a good number of sources, given the length of the article there needs to be quite a bit more. The "Late 20th century" section, for instance, is almost completely unsourced. 2.) The lead is incredibly long; it definitely needs to be shortened. 3.) In fact, the article may necessitate the creation of subpages; again, I haven't given the article a thorough read, but it is over 100k. 4.) The sections themselves are very long, and subsections would increase organization and make the article much more readable. 5.) Some minor copy editing is needed (20th century -> twentieth century, unlink unnecessarily linked dates, that sort of thing). I'll do some minor work on the article myself over the next couple of days and report back here if I find anything major that needs to be addressed. Cheers, faithless (speak) 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher[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, recently passed as a GA, I'm looking to get it up to FA sometime in the near future. I would appreciate any constructive comments or criticism to improve the article! My best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is very much improved since having it's FA status withdrawn. Thatcher is still such a controversial person and there will some who will contests some facts, although, not me. My only concern at the moment is that all the references have actually been used, i.e. are cited in the body of the article. I couldn't find the Richards or Letwin citations. Please check that all references are shown to have been used as references. If not I would delete them, although this is no big deal. The article seems close to FA in my humble opinion, but the FAC will certainly be a long one. I hope the nominators have the stamina to see it through. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 19:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Port of Albany-Rensselaer[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 comments on improving towards GA status and help on any grammar or style or content issues. I think the article is good enough for GA status but I believe I'm biased as I've been working on it so long. Thanks, Camelbinky (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments per talk page request: First, editing disclaimer #852: Review points listed are in no particular order and may range from major flaw to incredibly nit-picky. I may or may not add more points later that I deliberately or inadvertently skipped over. I promise my feelings won't be hurt if the author(s) disagree with and decline to address a review point, provided that the author(s) in turn promise not to have their feelings hurt from me posting the point in the first place.

  • The TOCnestright formatting has got to go. The TOC stacks next to the infobox and leaves just a short column of content for the length of the TOC, here even if I use a maximized window on a wide-screen monitor. If I reduce the browser window to a smaller but still-reasonable size, all text content squirts below the TOC, leaving an ugly blank area on the left.
DoneCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the Climate subsection, there is only the sentence "The Port of Albany has year-round operations." That is not a description of a climate; that is a schedule of operations. The schedule may be a consequence of the climate, but more needs to go here, or else the section header needs to change.
Removed Climate subsectionCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA/FA reviewers will likely complain about one-sentence sections. One-sentence paragraphs are also a common complaint. Although occasionally acceptable (you may have a problem convincing reviewers of that fact), here the many one- or two-sentence sections make the article content look sparse and in need of expansion.
Expanded or combined one-sentence sections and paragraphs. Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-1932 and Post-1932 history sections. Strictly speaking, that means that 1932 isn't listed, only the years before 1932 and after 1932. Regardless of that nit, the current titles do not make clear to readers why the year 1932 divides the sections. You may want to make the two section headers more descriptive to act as a better overview. For example, change them to something like "Albany Basin" and "Westerlo Island", or "Original port" and "Modern port", as a general idea, though preferably with better titles than my own not particularly inspired ones.
Removed subsection titles altogether, combining into one history section.Camelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The end sentence of the Pre-1932 section "The grain elevator at the port... was the largest in the world and as of 2008 was still considered by its current owner Cargill to be the largest in the United States east of the Mississippi River". This sounds vaguely sinister. Is there a controversy, such that other entities disagree with this "largest" assertion in 2008?
reworded to make less sinister and wishywashyCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Post-1932 section begins with a discussion of an event in 2002. That is quite a leap in time. Did nothing noteworthy happen for 70 years, then three noteworthy things happened in six years?
  • Cite the 2008 theft.
Done Camelbinky (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Camelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Facilities section, the list entry "Wharf length on the Albany side of the river is 4,200 feet with four berths and on the Rensselaer side the length is 1,100 feet with one berth" is problematic. The port doesn't include "Wharf length... is 4,200 feet...". The entry needs to be reworded such that it makes grammatical sense tied with the leading "The Port of Albany includes:".
Done Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the Cargo section listing commodities, is "Heavy lift" a commodity, or are heavy lift items a commodity? I don't know. Also, consider making "Commodities included-" end with a colon rather than a dash. Further, do the "grain" and "petroleum distillates" only include what is listed in parentheses, or are those items just a subset? If a subset, you should add "including" or "for example" so that items in parentheses do not read as a comprehensive list.
Heavy lift problem fixed, colon added, subset problem fixed.Camelbinky (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "The USS Slater (DE-766) is the only destroyer escort still afloat in the United States, it is a museum open from April to November to the public at the Snow Dock." This is a comma splice. At a minimum you should use a semi-colon rather than a comma, although reworking the wording to avoid the need might be a better solution.
Done Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "The Snow Dock at the Port of Albany is also home to Dutch Apple Cruises, a private company, which gives day cruises on the Hudson River and Erie Canal." Drop the "also". It's too far for the "also" to reach back across other subsections to the initial mention of "Snow Dock".
Done Camelbinky (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has references listed both before and after punctuation. Be consistent. The Manual of Style states a preference of placing references after punctuation, so unless you have a burning need to put references before punction and are willing to debate the point with reviewers, place them after commas, periods, colons, and all other punctuation.
DoneCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "port" is wikilinked in the lead sentence. Do not place a link to "port" in the "See also" section, unless you have a good reason to do so, per WP:SEEALSO. I don't see a good reason to do so here.
Removed link in "See also"Camelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are one or two extra whitespace lines that don't appear to be needed.
RemovedCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a few other other minor wording and grammar issues. Additional low-level copyediting would be a good idea, if you can wrangle a decent copyeditor. They seem scarce nowadays; perhaps they are hiding until the new year, then will pop out en masse and surprise us all. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid C.F.[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 want it to be a featured article as it deserves (in my opinion).

Thanks, Hadrianos1990 18:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

Firstly I'd like to say this article is not up to FA standard, I think you should spend some time reading the criteria, and adjust the article accordingly, instead of prematurely nominating the article for featured status when it is miles off.

Lead
  • football should be changed to association football so non European based readers can differentiate between americn football and association football.
  • Why is Spain not linked in the lead?
  • change "most effective" to "most successful" also change "it holds the record as" to "They are the"
  • No need for references in the lead if they are referenced later on
  • The second paragraph doesn't fit together too well, probably because the sentences start with "In ..." try and make this part more interesting, there is also a lot of POV in there
  • Third and fourth paragraphs are a little bare, maybe add it more
History
  • "This club split in 1900 into two different clubs:" change to "It split into two clubs in 1900:
  • "Only three years after its foundation" - only is redundant
  • "Madrid FC won its first official title in the history of the club after defeating Athletic Bilbao..." change to "Madrid FC won its first title after defeating Athletic Bilbao..."
  • "The team won the first of four consecutive Copa del Rey titles (at that time the only statewide competition)." this seems to have just been added an does not fit in, try and work it in better
  • You use the same reference three or four times in this par, just leave the last instance and remove the first three
  • "After moving among some minor grounds, in 1912, the team settled at the ground that came to be called "Campo de O'Donnell". change to "After moving between grounds the team moved to the "Campo de O'Donnell" in 1912."
  • "Real Madrid had leading the first edition until the last match of the season, but a loss to Athletic Bilbao at San Mamés kept Madrid from winning the title. They had to settle for runner-up, just one point behind Barcelona." change to "Real Madrid lead the first edition until the last match, a loss to Athletic Bilbao meant they finished runners-up to Barcelona."

This is just the first two paragraphs and yet I have found numerous mistakes so I will refrain from reviewing the rest, one comment though is that you use to many first party refs, I would be tempted to use more refs from third parties and books

Crest
  • "The first crest of Real Madrid had a simple design. It consisted of a decorative interlacing of the three initials of the club, "MCF" for Madrid Club de Fútbol, in dark blue on a white shirt." merge into one sentence
  • I would merge the colours and crest into one paragraph and remove the able of sponsors it is not needed.

This is just a few pointers I might give the article a copyedit at some point, until then good luck. NapHit (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of English monarchs[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 want to try and get it elevated to FL status and want see what sort of things are needed to improve it. Cheers.

Thanks, Sotakeit (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber[edit]

  • Would be great to get this Featured - some more on who decided the kings should start at Egbert (when did this become convention) and is there any dissent from this. also might be worth adding why the Saxon Edwards are not counted in the I-IIX numbering of Edwards..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Review[edit]

Overall the writing of the article is pretty good. The items in the tables of the list have citations and cosmetically everything is in order. However it is accepted practice on WP to make sure that every detail has a cited source to back it up. Not necessarily a citation on each sentence. However sources to back up what is in any given paragraph should be cited in that paragraph. For example I could write.

So and so such and such about X. X Bla blah blah.[2][3]

Just so long as the citations are nearby that's good enough for me.

There are some paragraphs in between the tables which write about each house of England which have no inline citations. Now from having read many of the articles I know that is in those paragraphs is true. All that needs to be done is the citations moved copied to the proper locations within the article. Once this is done I could rate this article as class A. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • There should be a single place with the start and end dates of a reign. For example under Henry VIII it says "21 April 1509–1547". I'd rather it say "21 April

1509–28 January 1547", which is more complete.

Comment: I'm a bit concerned by the use of anachronistic images, though unfortunately those are often our only choices. In some cases there are better alternatives though, like this one on Stephen. It's probably a bit too small to go as the main pic in the article, but it should be ok here. Lampman (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nachman of Breslov[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 think it is comprehensive, well-written and encyclopedic. It has also not been significantly edited over the past few years, leading me to believe that it is ready to be nominated for Featured Article status. I welcome any comments and suggestions. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has a few problems in its current form. For instance, it would be much better if footnotes were used rather than general article references. Tikkun HaKlali has inline citations. The external links are a linkfarm and need serious pruning. There are significant stylistic and content issues: for this uneducated yekke, the Shpoler Zeide (or Shpola Zeider?) needs an introduction. There are possibly some NPOV issues (e.g. apologetics vis a vis the secular sources). There is no consistency in names (Reb Nosson vs Reb Nusn). In other words, a significant task but with some TLC this could be a high-quality article. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your suggestions. I have started to clean up the article along these lines. However, the subject of "apologetics" is a bit thorny, because the secular academic view really does not carry the same weight as the traditional Jewish point of view. Each point made in this article by the secular point of view can be easily refuted. I tried to re-arrange the information, but I'm not sure how to deal with this section. Yoninah (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah,

  • One of the requirements of featured articles is that they use inline citations (see wp:cite)
  • There are contradictory lists of Rav Nachman works. IMHO all the books by reb Noson that have the word Moharan in the title should be listed under Rav Nachman.
  • Rav Nachman had a great influence on contemporary literature. Kafka took Metamorphis from the Maasiot. Sartre and most of the existentialists based their philosophy on the gesher tsar m'od. You can take this suggestion or leave it as you please.
  • go carefully through the suggestions on the talk page.
  • I agree completely with Jfdwolff's last line
  • Hatslacha Rabah and Chanuka Sameach (remember that simcha is one of the Rav's hallmarks.) Phil_burnstein (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you, everyone, for your comments and edits to the article. This was my first request for peer review, and it taught me a lot. Now I am closing the discussion and going back to clean up the article according to these suggestions. Yoninah (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937[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, Foofighter20x (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Editing Notes Pre-FA[edit]

I'm just listing stuff here for discussion prior to taking this to FA. Eusebeus (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Opponents of the measure viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court leading to the name "Court-packing Plan."[1]

I feel this prevaricates unnecessarily. It was a court stacking attempt. Also, it might be nice to push the New Deal stuff in to the very first paragraph.
I left that sentence in there because I think it was an indirect attempt by previous editors to explain why a search for "Court-packing plan" or "Court-packing bill" redirected to this article. Foofighter20x (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

2. Was this the first piece of legislation proposed by Roosevelt after he won reelection?

No. In January of 1937, Roosevelt had submitted a bill to vastly overhaul and restructure the executive branch. Foofighter20x (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but acc. to McKenna (246) it was his principal focus after his victory. Also, sorry about the wikilink stuff. I tend to do the prose and then go back and do things like wiklink fixes, but I am glad to have you correct my feeble efforts! Eusebeus (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

3. Can we move the picture of Roosevelt from its current spot near the top of the article? I find it aesthetically a bit unsettling.

I got no prob with that. Foofighter20x (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

4. Cite #3... I'm not seeing what you are saying there... Enlighten me? Foofighter20x (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, let me confirm the ref. I may have put it in the wrong place while I was shifting text around. Eusebeus (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

5. The last sentence of the lede's last paragraph: The entire episode garnered several negative consequences for Roosevelt that lasted through the rest of his administration: the President's pyrrhic victory had provided a rallying point for his opponents, divided his own party, cost him dearly in public opinion, subverted bipartisan support for the New Deal, and sapped his influence over Congress. This should be nuanced, I think, or else we should quote the source directly for such a trenchantly drawn conclusion. Does this sentiment reflect overwhelming scholarly consensus? I see this is basically Leuchtenburg's conclusions at 157 ff. I'll look a bit deeper and see if there's any reaction in the literature. Eusebeus (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McKenna said a mostly the same thing, but she took a whole chapter ("Aftermath") and an epilogue instead of just a few pages like Leuchtenburg. Foofighter20x (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair enough. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

6. Is there any way to avoid at all cost labels such as "liberal," "conservative," "progressive," or "reactionary" when describing the court? G. Edward White was very thorough in showing how all the justices were applying the jurisprudence of their day; only individually did they have different emphasis on priority and weight due each principle and precedent, but they still generally adjudicated in alignment with the going theory of the role of judges. Any characterization with the four labels above are anachronistic. The biggest difference among them was the extent they defered to the legislature and what emphasis they put on the need for procedural safeguards for the individual. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that generally we use the language of the prevailing scholarship. What terms do Leuchtenburg, White, etc... use? You are right that such labels can be misleading, but summary shorthand like this is useful for readability and flow. More in-depth probing of the jurisprudential viewpoints of the individual justices could perhaps be treated at the bio pages, as well as the articles on the Four horsemen, etc.... However, some explication of the labels may be salutary. Eusebeus (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the point White was making though. It's also why Cushman and McKenna wrote their works. Prevailing scholarship is predicated upon a particular, biased perspective. I'm sure you're just like me in not judging historical figures by today's standards, as it's hardly fair to those figures, who were people of their time, and not ours. This same principle applies to the conventional and comtempory narrative concerning this whole article. Using such labels both oversimiplifies what took place and, as White thoroughly showed, sticks modern labels on those figures which just don't fit. If we are going to keep this article in line with WP:NPOV, then we must be careful not to fall prey to the POV inherent in the conventional account through the use of those labels. Foofighter20x (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. We could use terms like (un)friendly or (un)sympathetic to the "New Deal" in lieu of liberal/conservative which, you are right, could be subjected to a modern political prism. Eusebeus (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Foofighter20x (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, here's Leuchtenburg (2004) on this specific point, which we might put in there somewhere:

Some scholars disapprove of the terms "conservative" and "liberal," or "right, center, and left," when applied to judges because it may suggest that they are no different from legislators; but the private correspondence of members of the Court makes clear that they thought of themselves as ideological warriors. In the fall of 1929, Taft had written one of the Four Horsemen, Justice Butler, that his most fervent hope was for " 'continued life of enough of the present membership ... to prevent disastrous reversals of our present attitude. With Van [Devanter] and Mac [McReynolds] and Sutherland and you and Sanford, there will be five to steady the boat ...." Six counting Taft. (North Carolina Law Review, 2004, 83: 1187)

So even if we avoid the terms liberal and conservative, I think it's important to retain the idea of an judicio-ideological split on the court. This is probably worth some back and forth so we get it right, as it is an important point. (Perhaps we might consult a wider literature.) Eusebeus (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I have to admit I think Leuchtenburg failed to support the point of his opinion. "Our present attitude" is pretty vague to be used as he foundation of an assertion saying those members of the court were conservatives. Both McReynolds and Butler were Democrats, even though appointed to the court by Republicans. See p441 of the Epstein cite in the article. For all Taft could have been saying, "our present attitude" could be a reference to the present body of case law and jurisprudence; without further context from that letter, it's honestly impossible to tell. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – worked a reasonable explanation into the paragraph about Jurisprudential differences

7. The para about the Justice department after 1933 was a bit confused so I have reordered it in a way that I hope makes it a bit clearer along thematic/chronological lines. I think it would be good if we could find an additional source to complement McKenna for this section. Any ideas? Did White address the J.D. issue? Eusebeus (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McKenna's text speacks of the opinion of Senator Joseph O'Mahoney, stating DoJ didn't do its homework, but she doesn't cite anything. In her footnote on Hughes's opinion, she cites William Swindler, Court and Constitution in the Twentieth Century: The new Legality, 1932-1968, Vol. 2, pp. 72-73. White's focus was primarily on shattering the conservative/liberal dichotomy of the conventional narrative, and thus focused on lines of jurisprudential thought. He didn't mention the Justice Department at all. Don't have too many other ideas on where to look. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, McKenna is in part Schlesinger rehash, so I'll add in AMS directly and see if I can find other stuff to round it out. Eusebeus (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found a related cite... Who killed Lochner?. Check it out when you can. It's sort of a review analysis of White's book, and may have a few good items in it. Foofighter20x (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. I'm thinking the back half of the last intro paragraph would be better placed at the end of the article under the "Consequences" heading. I can see keeping a mention of the episode costing Roosevelt much political capital there, but everything else should probably be used to flesh out the other section. What do you think? Foofighter20x (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. We could replace it with a summary line noting simply that the struggle proved politically costly to Roosevelt. Eusebeus (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. I'll let you handle it so there's no edit conflict. :) Foofighter20x (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

9. Some of this is redundant to the above, but I think it useful to centralise our discussion of the bias/perspectives of the principal sources. I'll throw my comments in and I hope others will do the same. As a general point, I would suggest that where possible no section be single-sourced, given the various biases that exist in the literature (as noted by FF above). Eusebeus (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • McKenna

I checked the literature and her book is suspiciously light on reviews (I found 2 - google scholar gives up the goods -, compared to a dozen + for Leuchtenburg, who is admittedly a Big Deal in the field). At any event, that doesn't mean the book is not valuable as a source, especially since both reviews (AHR 2003 & JAH 2003) are favourable. However, I think the following criticism of McKenna is entirely valid and we should be mindful of it in using her as a source:

"In her book on the Court-packing plan, McKenna argues that most analyses of the Supreme Court's devastation of the New Deal and Roosevelt's subsequent battle with the Court have misplaced blame and praise. But if past studies erred in excoriating the Court and exonerating the president, this book errs in the opposite direction. For instance, often the author uses personal papers, biographies and autobiographies to reveal decision and tactics, and she is quick to dismiss Roosevelt's and his allies' justifications as disingenuous while accepting the stated motivations of the president's opponents.

... despite its problems, this is an important study that makes a definitive contribution. But it should be read in conjunction with one of the many studies that takes a more favorable view of Roosevelt as a means of achieving some balance."

-RICHARD L. PACELLE, JR., AHR 103:2003, 866-7

So I see an issue with using McKenna as an exclusive source for material in the article as we will end up following her bias. I have already amended the Reaction section to include the National Committee (an elision noted by Best, JAH, 2003). This is not to diminish McKenna, but simply to agree with Pacelle's point.

Thus, a phrase like The public, having seen through Roosevelt's subterfuge, refused to rally behind the President sourced from McKenna will prove hardly credible in its current form once this goes up to FAC (=reflects her POV). Either we refer back to her sources to provide much more direct evidence for such a claim, or else I think we need to moderate this kind of language and get wider input from other material. Eusebeus (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think McKenna could attack the administration's stance due to the prolific amounts of documents, journals, news articles, and statements made by all the people on the administration's side: altogether, you can see through the pretenses... On the other hand, claiming she's defended the justices is sort of unfounded as there's not a whole lot of stuff on them other than their case decisions and what little they wrote or said about the incident. You've got boatloads of people versus nine men. Judges, let alone Supreme Court justices, keep pretty mum, so you have to keep the criticism in perspective. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but what I am saying is more procedural really. At FAC we are likely to get objections if we follow too closely only one author's line, especially where other major figures in the field disagree (as noted in the AHR review). So to get through FA, I think we need either to moderate or else contextualise these kind of claims. However, there's still a lot of work to do before we have to worry about this. Eusebeus (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another point you might not get without reading McKenna in full:
  1. McKenna had Schlesinger review her book before publication (at least, she says as much in the intro to the book).
  2. She relied on additional documents that weren't previously avaiable to scholars, namely Homer Cummings secret diary, which would explain why her narrative differs in certain areas from established scholarship.
-- 03:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


  • Leuchtenburg

More extensively and favourably reviewed than McKenna, this book is of course a compendium of previously published essays. Reviews at:

I generally don't see an issue with using Leuchtenburg as either a factual or interpretative source (but again, as above, balanced out). Eusebeus (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • White

10. Jurisprudential Debate

With the date range, I was summarizing White. The problem with citing that sentence was that it took up a whole chapter in his book. Foofighter20x (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can well sympathise with the difficulty in trying to summarise a dense and weighty issue like this. It took me quite a while to get my head around this, though, and as it stands we could get a lot of grief at FAC for this section, so we almost certainly need to make this clearer. It would be helpful if we could cite some specific examples of how this competition between judicial outlooks shaped various rulings. (Although this is discussed further on in the build-up section). Still, I am concerned about lay reader concerns for FA. I have tried to flesh it out a bit already and may try to expand it a bit further to make these issues a little clearer.
Also, this struck me as the right place to tackle head on the "right" v "left" stuff we raised above. I hope you agree. Eusebeus (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I thought I'd explain this one paragraph for you, since you but that HTML comment in before it

During the period 1900-1920 the formalist and realist camps clashed over the nature and legitimacy of judicial authority in common law, given the lack of a central, governing authority in those legal fields other than the precedent established by case law - i.e. the aggregate of earlier judicial decisions. This debate spilled over into the realm of constitutional law, raising the issue of the so-called Living Constitution, a judicial and ideological disagreement which persists to the present day.

Common law is, as you put it in the article, the aggregate of the case law. The raging debate was where and by what authority had all those judges of the past based their decisions. It was that debate which originated the American Law Institute's restatement project, which tried to give the common law a central source. It's only been in the last 60 or so years that the common law has begun to become codified. Hope this helps. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have now finished the rewrite for this section. The only thing that I would add would be specific caselaw areas to illustrate the three examples of the "older" view. I can think of the minimum wage cases (e.g. 1905) as an example of #3, but there are probably better instances. Anyway, if you can think of any, I would say add them in. I am going to mark this now as resolved. Eusebeus (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

11. Can you explain this sentence for me? Roosevelt was wary of the Supreme Court early in his first term, and his administration was slow to bring constitutional challenges of New Deal legislation before the court. I thought the Supreme Court controlled its own docket, so a bit more explanation here would be fruitful. How did the administration manage the delay? Eusebeus (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Roosevelt was saavy enough to presage his coming conflict with the court. However, many people doubted the constitutionality of his programs. As such, he attempted to squeeze out some time before they would face a USSC hearin on their consitutionality by not appealing adverse decisions. Typically the USSC will hear a case if the Solicitor General brings it forth, but if or when the SG brings it forth is still subject to administration control, as the SG is the chief lawyer for the administration (which used to be the AG's job, until he sort of became the chief law enforcement officer). Foofighter20x (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ill try to amplify to make that point a bit clearer. Eusebeus (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. It is often noted that Black Monday's NRA decision was the most important strike against the New Deal and what really got Roosevelt's blood up; I wonder if it should be mentioned in the lede. Eusebeus (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply followed the Leuchtenburg and McKenna narratives, which told the story chronologically. The order of the cases in the article is same in which the court announced them that day... Foofighter20x (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments[edit]

The edit you did on the New Deal section: me likey. Foofighter20x (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. this is really good stuff you have done and I hope my copy editing can build a little on your solid work. Eusebeus (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing formats: nobody is judging here. :p Just make sure you go back and format it later... :) Foofighter20x (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I edit conflicted you there. I'll citeref it properly when I have the thing rewritten. Promise. Eusebeus (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award[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 make it a featured list. Over the last several days, I've performed extensive work on the page, and I now want to get an outside opinion before sending it to FLC. Prose comments are most welcome, but any constructive criticism would be helpful.

Thanks, Giants2008 (17-14) 01:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Apterygial

If prose comments are welcome, here I am. I like to give back.

  • "The Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award, or Super Bowl MVP". "Super Bowl MVP" could probably be in bold as well.
    • Done.
  • Do the media make their votes during the game or after? If the latter is true, it would make more sense to mention after the fans' choice.
    • They do vote after the game; at least I think they do. I did swap the order, although I don't know if the fan vote, which counts for just one-fifth of the total, should be emphasized.
  • At least a couple of non-breaking spaces need adding (after percentages, for example). Se WP:NBSP for one of the most confusing parts of the MOS.
    • I added them for the two percentages that I saw. I remember Sandy saying somewhere that dates should have a non-breaking space between the month and day, so I added them as well.
  • Any link for "wireless devices"? That could (at a stretch) be anything.
    • I think that is high-tech slang for cell phone, so I just changed it to say cellular phones.
  • "Fans" is a bit of an iffy word. I'm not keen on it, and ultimately it is up your discretion, but I prefer "audience" or "viewers".
    • The one issue I see is that those words seem strongly connected to television. Theoretically, someone could just follow the game online and vote there. I saw four instances of fan in that paragraph, and changed two: one to "viewers" and one to "viewing audience".
  • "From 1967 to 1989, the Super Bowl MVP was presented by Sport magazine;[3] Bart Starr was the MVP of the first two Super Bowls." This can be split into two sentences at the semi-colon, as the two elements are not completely connected.
    • Done. I might move the second sentence later, though.
      • On second thought, I'm leaving it where it is. That part describes the early days of the award, and I feel that is the best place to mention the first winner. FLC reviewers like that in award lists, if I'm not mistaken. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Super Bowl XXV, the league first awarded the Pete Rozelle Trophy, named after the former NFL commissioner, to the Super Bowl MVP;[4] Ottis Anderson was the first player to win the trophy.[5]" Again here. There is no real reason to link the sentences.
    • Done.
  • "The most recent Super Bowl MVP was Eli Manning, who was named the most valuable player of Super Bowl XLII, held in February 2008." I saw that match! I found it very confusing.
  • On a more serious note, the precise date would probably be more useful here.
    • Done.
  • "The MVP has come from the winning team every year except 1971, when Chuck Howley won the award after the Dallas Cowboys lost Super Bowl V to the Baltimore Colts." While strongly implied, it might be a good idea to explicitly state Howley played for the Cowboys.
    • Changed it to "when Dallas Cowboys linebacker Chuck Howley won the award despite the Cowboys' loss in Super Bowl V to the Baltimore Colts. Will look at the rest later, but I have a game to watch right now. Thanks for the detailed review! Giants2008 (17-14) 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering about the lack of sourcing in the third paragraph of the lead, after you've sourced the first two. This is my first review of a list, so I'm not completely sure what I should be expecting here.
    • Added two sources in the lead. Usually, sources aren't needed if facts are covered in the list, but a couple sources won't hurt anything.
  • Bradshaw and Brady's image captions are fragments.
    • Removed full stops from both. I never can tell which captions need them and which don't.
  • Is this something I should be concerned about?
    • That's a known flaw in the link checker. It always does that with CNN websites, including Sports Illustrated.
  • Dabs: (as Sandy would say). Randy White.
    • Got it.
  • Incoherent, no context, background etc (which means 1a). I'm not impressed by the level of detail. Writing things in sequential order and adding many details does not = FL; it does not even = coherence (though it lends a surface air of coherence). ;)

I had to look really hard to find those, and some could just be my opinion and you are in no means bound to make those changes. As I said, my first list, so I didn't evaluate the list itself. I can answer any further questions you may have, although my experience with American football is alarmingly limited. Apterygial 12:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • The winner is chosen by a panel of media members at the game, and by a fan vote during the game. - "panel of media members" isn't really helping to explain who they are. Is there a link to this term, or can an elaboration be given as to what it means?
    • I'll have to ask the NFL project. I wanted to include a breakdown of how many voters there are, but the articles I've found online seem outdated.
      • After finding an NFL source from last year, I changed it to "a panel of 16 American football writers and broadcasters". The one problem is that the source doesn't explicitly state who the media people are. It just says "on-site media members". If that is an OR concern, I can just change it back. The NBA All-Star Game and Finals MVP FLs say "media members" anyway. At least I found out how many voters there are. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 1967 to 1989, the Super Bowl MVP was presented by Sport magazine; - well the name of the magazine is Sport Magazine, so why isn't it linked that way here?
    • Actually, it was SPORT, it all caps. I remember because I was receiving it monthly when it went under in 2000. I don't think the magazine was part of the title, at least not when I was getting it.
  • The Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award, or Super Bowl MVP, is an award presented annually to the most valuable player of the Super Bowl, the National Football League's (NFL) championship game. - I don't know, but something is telling me that you should place (MVP) after the word "Player" in the title -->"Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award". Also, in this same sentence it states that the award is for the MVP of the Super Bowl, yet Eli Manning has not played in the Super Bowl yet, so maybe something can be stated that the award doesn't always goes to a team playing in the Super Bowl--Truco 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • He did win it—last year. I don't think he'll be doing the same this year, sadly. :-((( MVP is now defined where you suggested. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well maybe we can win it for you :D, but that aside, is there are way to state that the award doesn't always go to a player in the Super Bowl game, seeing how it happened to Eli this year.--Truco 22:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
        • But it does, by definition. Why would you think otherwise? Giants2008 (17-14) 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because that's what the intro sentence says "The award is given to the MVP of the NFL's Championship game."--Truco 00:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Are you trying to say that I should drop that? Giants2008 (17-14) 03:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I'm saying it should be stated also that the award is not always given to a player who played in the NFL Championship Game (Super Bowl).--Truco 03:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Are you under the impression that coaches can win the award? Otherwise, I still don't understand what the problem is. It does always go to the MVP (player) of the NFL Championship Game (Super Bowl). Can you tell me exactly how should I be phrasing this? Maybe that would make it clearer to me. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I got the dates mixed up. I though Eli had won the award for this year's season already without playing at the SuperBowl, so forget about my suggestion, it was my fault :)--Truco 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You don't need to have MVP in parentheses followed by MVP, otherwise it is an excellent list. Reywas92Talk 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be because MVP is used throughout and is a secondary name, so it should be in acronym form to help the reader understand.--Truco 01:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Reywas92 here. The acronym is given in the second bold section, so there is really no point mentioning it in the first bold section. Apterygial 02:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed per majority view here. If this is a problem, there are other ways that I can make it work. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks[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. It has allready been worked to GA status and I wish to bring it to FA at some point. I have allready gone through the suggestions of an informal peer review by an admin and wish some further input.

Thanks, Xenovatis (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lisa the Vegetarian[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 recently got it to GA status, and now I'm aiming for FA.

Thanks, TheLeftorium 10:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple copyedits to the article. I'm no expert, but the article looks very good to me. It is sufficiently sourced and well-written. Good luck at FAC. Reywas92Talk 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, thanks for the copyedit! :) TheLeftorium 10:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of my favorite episodes, and this really is a good article. The only issue I had was the sentence "Giving up meat turns out to be a controversial decision, since everyone around her, especially Homer, seems to support the eating of flesh." is nearly word for word from the Simpsons.com episode guide. That may not technically be a copyright problem since it's short (but then again it may I don't know) but in an academic paper that may be considered plagiarism since it's not cited as a source for a quote. My biggest concern is that there are more like that in the article and that is the only one I happened to open and see. No you don't generally cite things in the lead, so it's better just to reword that probably. But make sure to check anywhere else in the article in case you or someone else used your sources wording accidentally without citing it directly. Even when cited you can't use their wording unless in a quote. Also it's a shame the humor of the episode can't be shown more clearly in the article, but I'm not sure how you'd do that and stay in NPOV. You really have to watch it or go to the Wikiquote entry to see the quotes online. I'm not sure how that page isn't a copyright problem either but I'm no attorney. - Taxman Talk 01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. I reworded that sentence a bit, and I think that's the only problem like that in the article. The humor is kind of described in the reception section (and yeah, the Wikiquote page has been flagged for a review of its copyright status). —TheLeftorium 12:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yolanda Saldívar[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 think that the article is in need of suggestions of improvements and contributions with a Image and more information an updates of the text for the article of Yolanda Saldivar. I think their is a chance of getting this article to "Featured article" standard if we all help. Thanks, MarkusBJoke (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DiverseMentality
  • The main problem I see here is that the article reads as the murder of Selena and Saldívar's trial and imprisonment. There isn't any background information about her; where she was born, wher she grew up, her personal life, her career before her work with Selena and her work with Selena. Simply put, it doesn't read like a biography, but more like the events during and after the murder.
  • Under 'After the conviction', the second paragraph is completely unsourced.
  • Under the same section, there are two paragraphs that are a sentence long. As for the film information, that can be expanded a little, I suppose. Pointing out that she isn't related to Efren Saldivar seems trivial; just because someone shares a last name doesn't necessarily mean they're related.
    All in all, this article needs a lot of work to each featured article status: a lot of expansion is needed, and there will be a lot of work ahead of you. Best of luck. DiverseMentality 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hellingly Hospital 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 despite being short, I think this article meets the primary criterion all Wikipedia articles should aim for, of saying everything about the topic that a general reader would want to know, whilst not going into unnecessary detail that would only be of interest to a true specialist (it does contain appropriate links for anyone who does want to know more!). I'm aware that it has some stylistic issues – IMO the short sections are due to the fact that there's not much to be said on some of the sections, but the separate sections exist because there's no obvious way to merge them (in particular, I'm aware that the lead is quite short – however, I don't see an obvious reason to expand it). The article's been through the GA process already, as well as a stint as featured article at Portal:Trains (not the same thing as FA), and been extensively cleaned up and slimmed down along the way; I'd be interested to see what suggestions uninvolved editors would have for it.

Thanks,  – iridescent 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Realist2[edit]

BTW, I add points in stages. So I might add more in time.

  • Reference formatting issue in relation to publishing dates and retrieved dates. Some read "Retrieved on 29 May 2008" and others read "Retrieved on 2008-06-06". Pick one format and run with it. ;) — Realist2 21:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an artifact of {{cite journal}} and I'm not aware of any way to disable its "automatic translation" of dates (someone else may be able to). I thought date delinking was supposed to put a stop to this kind of thing, but obviously not. – iridescent 21:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did something similar myself today, I'll have a fiddle with the article if you like, see if it can be done, if not, no worry. — Realist2 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ideally, I'd like a way to fix this one ref that's causing the problem, instead of changing every other ref to match. Leave it as it is for the moment – it's not doing any active harm, and someone might know a quick-fix solution. – iridescent 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lamberhurst[edit]

I thought I would comment as I personally know this line and have walked some of its course. As you mention above, the article has (imho) too many subsections with little content; in particular, the "history", "steam operation" and "electrification" seem to cover the same area, although don't follow a chronological order. It needs tightening up and a better organisation of the different areas: (1) Inception and construction, (2) Opening and operations (goods and passengers), (3) Decline and closure, (4) Motive power and (5) Route. Better images (and recent images) would also be useful: Geograph may be able to help out with a photograph of the hospital, and there is a PD image of Hellingly station with its wooden platform. Instead of the small route map, would a standard route diagram template not be clearer? In terms of beefing up the content, have you looked at A.C. Elliott's book on the Cuckoo Line, I believe it might have something. Finally, you may wish to wikify your references to the Cuckoo Trail and Hailsham. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the route map, I did consider a standard route diagram, but for a route like this it would basically just be a letter T and effectively useless; the "MS Paint doodle" map may be totally non-standard, but shows the way the track curved and looped so sharply on its approach to the hospital, and also makes it easier for anyone trying to trace the route on a current map or aerial photo. The drawings of the platform layout I think is useful as it illustrates a rather complicated explanation of how trains needed to reverse in and out of the mainline station due to the eccentric way the track branches north, south of the station.
If you can find undisputed PD photos of the railway in operation, or of the wooden platform, please do point me towards them or add them! I found lots of "probably PD" photos, but they all seem to be undated, and given how early the line opened and that it used the same engine throughout, it's hard to be date photos just by looking at them. (The one I used appeared in a 1906 magazine, so can be dated.) Likewise, if you can find any photos of the hospital – particularly showing the doors to the rail station – please let me know! I couldn't find any, haven't had the chance to go myself, but because the building is still standing couldn't really justify fair-use.
Many thanks for commenting. I agree about merging into a single "operations" section, unless someone else is able to expand the history – although I think I've pretty much covered all that needs to be covered in that particular area. I've wikilinked Cuckoo Trail and the first appearance of Hailsham in the lead and body text respectively; I think any more would be overlinking given how short the article is. – iridescent 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image I was thinking of is featured in the Vobes documentary. I'll see if I can find a date for it. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Postally used in 1915. Now uploaded to the Commons. [8] Lamberhurst (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I'm not ignoring you – I haven't had time to do anything with this – but I think all your suggestions are good ones and will rework the article as you suggest when I get the chance. – iridescent 16:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All ✓ Done. I've used a slightly different section order to that you've suggested, as I think it makes for a clearer opening → operating → closing narrative structure. I'm still having trouble finding definitely PD images of the line itself in operation (there are lots of images about, but very few are dated, and because the rolling stock didn't change it's vary hard to date them from context). However, since the same locomotive was used throughout, a single photo should suffice. – iridescent 18:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a substantial improvement, and much easier on the eye. In terms of images, it seems from the material I have on the line that most photos were taken in the 1950s and are not PD. One you might however be able to use is the image of the electric passenger car on p. 7 of Harding which is said to be "soon after opening". Lamberhurst (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that on the balance of probabilities it's almost certainly PD, it's hard to say for sure. Copyright runs from the date of publication and not the date of the photograph, and there's a fairly good chance Harding was the first publication of the photo. Going by the "pre 1923 means out of copyright" rule it's quite easy to find pre-1923 photos (because the platform was remodelled in 1922, anything showing the station can be dated to before then) but publication dates are more problematic. It would almost certainly be possible to make a fair-use rationale for pictures of the railway in operation, but I'm trying to avoid fair-use; while restructuring it, it occurred to me that in a couple of months we have the 50th anniversary of the line's closure, and if it can be got through FA by then would make a good TFA (we haven't had a railway article for over six months, so combined with the anniversary it would get a very respectable 7 points at TFAR; although it's short I think it has a reasonable chance of passing FAC as it comprehensively covers the topic without going into excessive detail). – iridescent 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was that it had been published in the article in the 1905 Railway Magazine, although I can't be 100% sure of this. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mjroots[edit]

No mention is made in the article of the voltage that the line was electrified at. I've mentioned this on the article talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ansbaradigeidfran[edit]

Having encountered the article through a peer review link from WP:UKT, I knew nothing about the location of this railway when I read the article. I'd have found a location map to be very helpful, perhaps something like this (if I may be so bold as to give some of my own work as an example). Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might do if I can think of a workable way to do it. The problem is that because it's such a short line any map would need to be at a small scale; however, because it ran from the edge of Hellingly through open countryside, any map would basically be a wiggly line against a featureless green background (basically the existing route map – see right – with a grey blob immediately to the west of the mainline station for the village). See this Google Earth image showing the former Hellingly station; the curving line of trees branching north from the mainline trackbed immediately south of the station and heading northeast alongside "Park Road" and "The Drive" more or less follows the course of the trackbed from the village to the hospital. Zoom out, and you'll see there really isn't much surrounding geography to give any kind of broader context, and at a scale showing Eastbourne and Hailsham – the only significant nearby towns – the line would be lost completely. – iridescent 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of 500cc/MotoGP Motorcycle World Champions[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after working hard on the list over the pat few weeks I feel it is close to meeting all featured list criteria, hopefully any kinks can be ironed out here. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments By Crazywazy

Overall I thought the article was alright, there were a few things I would clean up.

  • I thought there were a few sentences where you could have added a bit more information.
  • I also think you could rename your categories for example instead of Winners, Champions, or instead of By Rider, Total Amount of Championships per rider.

Crazywazy (talk · contribs)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would explain somewhere or at least link the terms in the top row of the list - not every reader will know what Poles or Podiums are, or how the Points or Margin are determined.
  • The article could provide moe details in some places - for example the first sentence could be something like Grand Prix motorcycle racing is the premier championship of motorcycle road racing, which has been divided into three classes since YEAR; 125cc, 250cc and MotoGP. or give the year when the name changed to MotoGP. It is generally better to avoid words like now or current and use the actual year.
  • I would add the years of the seven consecutive titles for Agostini to provide context for the reqader - see WP:PCR
  • Language could be polished a bit, perhaps something like this Italian riders have won the most titles, with 19 titles between six drivers. Great Britain is second; six riders have won a total of 17 championships. The United States is third with 15 titles won by seven drivers.[5]
  • Be consistent about spelling out numbers and hyphens. The MOS says to spell numbers ten and less, so maximum of 4 cylinders should be maximum of four cylinders. The next part is of whether the engine was a two-stroke or four-stroke.[2] In 2002, rule changes were introduced to facilitate the phasing out of two strokes engines.[3] I think the second sentence should be "two-stroke engines" (hyphenated, not plural as an adjective) to be consistent with the prior usage.
  • The title has no spaces between cc and the slash and MotoGP "List of 500cc/MotoGP Motorcycle World Champions", the general ref has spaces "List of 500cc / MotoGP Motorcycle World Champions" - which is it?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States congressional delegations from Indiana[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 list is not big on prose, and you can't source everything on it, but I believe that with some work I can bring this to FL status. All fifty states have a list like this one, but this is the first anyone's taken notice of (that I know). So far I've expanded the lead with more facts and a couple refs and I added some external links, but I'd like to know what else I should reference and add more prose to to possibly make this a featued list.

Thanks, Reywas92Talk 03:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks pretty good, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Avoid words like current, currently, or now, for example in the map caption Current Indiana Delegation to the United States House of Representatives I think this would be better as 2008 Indiana Delegation ... or perhaps Indiana Delegation in the 111th Congress ...
  • I would add footnotes on Senators and Representatives whose terms ended earlier than expected - for example Robert Hanna or James Whitcomb in the Senate.
  • Could you add some photos of some of the more prominent congressmen and women - Lugar and Hamilton for example? There is room beside the Senator table for this.
  • I would try to make some of the things in the table clearer - for example, the varying number of representatives based on the census distribution of Representatives is something many readers might not understand or even know about.
  • Not sure if it would make sense to add more details on some of the senators and representatives who went on to other things (President? Supreme Court?)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I will work on them as soon as I can. I can do points 1, 3, and 4 easily, but 2 and 5 are much more complicated. For them, Senators' other offices and ending reasons are listed at List of United States Senators from Indiana, though there isn't an article for the House (there's about 300 of them). Reywas92Talk 03:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be interesting to find out how many senators and congressmen were appointed to serve partial terms.
    • Well, the Senators are are on List of United States Senators from Indiana, and congressmen aren't appointed, though that is good info. I just need to figure out what should go on this large list and what goes on the subarticle, especially if there isn't one for the House yet.
  • Adding a section describing the growth of populations and the censuses that led to increases in representation and decreases as well as what is projected for the next census.
    • I'm not sure what exactly you mean; a population table? And the projection is that we'll stay the same.
  • Indiana had the fifth or fourth largest delegation for a number of years, that would be worth including.
  • A comparison to where the state ranks in the size of its delegation compared to other states.
    • Can do. I'll look at the numbers.
  • Making up a table to count delegates from different parties might also be useful.
    • Like what was on the governors list that Golbez didn't like? Though there's a lot more of these.
  • A history section could also be added to explain changes in power, like the breakup of the Whig party, the rise of the republicans. Various other changes. That would be a lot of work though.
    • Since this is just a list of delegations rather than a political history I don't think that's relevant, but surely a paragraph could be added on that.

Just some thoughts. I would like to work on the article some myself if I get some time. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Thanks for the comments. Reywas92Talk 03:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Whale[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to FA status and need some guidance about where best to focus my energy on improvements. I already know it needs more references and I'm continuing to work on adding those in.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments. A well-written and comprehensive article. Its chief fault at the moments lies in inadequate citation to sources.

  • Lead
    • First paragraph: I suggest a full stop after "Show Boat", then a new sentence: "He became..."
    • Second paragraph:
      • "born into a large family", rather than "to"
      • "and studied art" is a bit cryptic. I think "and studied art in the evenings" would be more informative.
      • We have, in close proximity, "...discovered his artistic talent" and "...discovered his talent for drama". Repetitions so close to each other should be avoided; the drama phrase could be reworded to "During his time as a prisoner of was he found he had a flair for drama" (only a suggestion)
      • "living with" - "living" is unnecessary
    • Third paragraph:
      • Comma required after "direct for the stage"
      • "love of" might be better as "love for"
      • Comma required after "wealthy"
  • Early years
    • Comma required after "heavy industries"
    • Comma required after "artistic talent"
    • I am intrigued by his army commission. In 1915 it was highly unusual for a working-class boy to be commissioned - is there a story here? Also, the commission needs a citation.
    • "and housed" -> "and was housed"
    • Comma required after "poker"
  • Theatre
    • "Whale initially offered the role..." If Olivier accepted it, then the "initially" is not necessary
    • The parenthetical comment about Olivier accepting a role in Beau Geste looks awkward. I suggest lose the parentheses, place a comma after "lead role"
    • The long quote beginning "managed to coalesce..." needs to be attributed in the text.

Rest of the review will follow Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming...

  • Hollywood: This section is serously under-cited. No refs at all in the first three paragraphs, thereafter pretty thin. Also:-
    • Second paragraph: "...to direct another company of Journey's End" Surely "production", not company
    • Third paragraph: Commas after Tiffany-Stahl and "Raleigh"
  • Career in decline: "he barged into..." is probably not encyclopedic
  • Post film life
    • Another section which needs many more citations
    • "25-year-old" needs two hyphens
    • Whale was 62, not 67, in 1951
    • "62-year-old" needs two hyphens
  • Sexuality
    • Ernest Thesiger should be linked
    • "...especially a camp sensibility, especially embodied..." is clumsy wording
    • "he discusses..." Who is "he"?
    • Comma required after ("friend")
    • The quotes beginning "He gas no innate understanding..." and "No mistake" need to be attributed in the text.
  • Legacy
    • "...engraved into the cels" - what are "cels" (jargon or mis-spelling?)
    • "cannister": I've never seen it spelt this way, it's usually one "n". Is this accepted Am-Eng spelling?

I hope you find these comments helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review. Definitely helpful suggestions and I will address them in the article, particularly the sourcing issue. Everything in it is sourceable to the Curtis biography but I've been trying to find the same information in other sources so as to reduce over-reliance on a single source. To answer a couple of questions, a cel is a square of film, although since our article seems to restrict its meaning to animation I will change it to "frame". "Cannister" is an accepted variant spelling. Honestly I don't remember if I even wrote that particular bit; it was one of the few somewhat developed sections in the article when I found it. Otto4711 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and about the commas...I tend not to use them if there is a conjunction immediately following and per WP:COMMA either is acceptable as long as the usage is consistent throughout the article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dysart, Fife[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 have done some work on the article since the last time it was nominated. I wonder if my work has been enough to achieve B status? I don't think i'm there yet.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jolly Janner[edit]

Lead
  • The first sentence refers to it as a district, but the second sentence jumps in with "The town...". It would be better to call it a "district and town" in the first sentence.
  • "to the east of Kirkcaldy" how far east (in miles and kilometres)?
  • I often see articles about settlements refering to the geography in the first paragrph of the lead. I think a mention that it is on the coast wouldn't go a miss.
  • "Following the death of the town's harbour" do harbours die? I think words like "closure" or "decline" are more appropriate.
  • "saw large parts of the antique town" I think "historical" would be a better word than "antique" and again in the next sentence, unless that's what it's called localy.
  • "Nowadays, the town retains an individual character" I think "today" would be a better word than "nowadays", but how does it retain an individual character?

I'll try and do the rest later. Jolly Ω Janner 01:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In landmarks, what is a "stone ogile roof"? Specifically the word ogile.

Florida Marlins seasons[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm looking to get this list upgraded to Featured List status. I've followed the basic structure of the Philadelphia Phillies seasons, which is a FL as well, so I'm hoping this would be promoted as well.

Thanks, EaglesFanInTampa 18:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I just reviewed Washington Nationals Seasons, so some of the suggestions are the same.

  • The list itself seems fine, but the lead needs to be expanded. For example, the fact that they only have 5 winning seasons (over 500), but won the World Series twice seems noteworthy. I also wonder if they are one of the fastest expansion teams to win the World Series (I seem to recall that when they won the first time).
  • The lead is a summary of the rest of the article, but basic statements in the lead (will) need refs (as they are not in the rest of the article. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Would it make sense to summarize the players awards in the lead - "Players for the team have won two Rookie of the Year awards, ..."
  • Make sure all of the refs meet WP:RS - what makes [9] a reliable source? I also note this ref says nothing about the Marlins on a search. The MLB strike was so big, there are much better refs than this (go to a library and look up old Sports Illustrated issues, for example).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewellery Quarter[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 aiming to get the article to at least Good Article status and then Featured Article status but would like to know of any changes that could be made beforehand that would give it a greater chance of receiving such a status. I have compared the article with the criteria for a Good Article and it seems to me that it has met all of the points, however, there is always a chance that my bias has come into play considering I have put so much work into it recently.

In short, suggestions for Good Article status will be good. Suggestions for Featured Article status will be great!

Thanks, Erebus555 (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing: I will be pleased to review this article. When I think an article has FA potential I tend to review with that aim in mind, on the grounds that if you work for FA, then GA is almost guaranteed. As this is rather a long article I will probably review in instalments, the first of which should follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This part of the review deals only with the lead and Origins section.

  • Lead: does not conform with FA lead requirements, which say that it should be a complete summary of the article, not just a brief introductory outline. Also, some specific points:-
    • "It is covered by the Ladywood district." What does this mean - that it is within the Kadywood district? If so, say so clearly.
    • In UK it is normal to give acreages followed by metric equivalents rather than the other way round. Thus "...in an area of 264 acres (1.07 km²)."
    • "It is synonymous..." needs to be "The area is synonymous..."
    • "...has declined much throughout the 20th century" is rather quaint phrasing. I suggest delete "has" and say "declined significantly during the 20th century." – ending here with a full stop.
    • Start a new sentence: "Efforts have subsequently been made to transform the quarter into an urban village, a hub for creative businesses, while retaining its urban fabric."
    • What is an Anchor Point in the sense used here?
  • Origins: This section is far too detailed, and goes way beyond what is required – a concise history of the origins of Birmingham's jewellery quarter, showing why the quarter came to be established in this particular location. What you have here is a mass of material concerned with Birmingham's growth and development as an urban manufacturing centre, with odd snippets relating to the development of jewellery businesses. It is very hard to follow. If I have understood the position correctly, the salient facts are:-
    • The growth of Birmingham as an industrial and manufacturing centre during and after the Industrial revolution
    • The release by the Colmore family of part of their lands, to be used for housing the increasing town population
    • The infiltration of manufacturing businesses into this residential area and consequent changes to its character
    • After the establishment of the Assay office nearby, a tendency for businesses concerned with jewellery and goldsmithing to establish themselves in this area, thus creating a "jewellery quarter".

It is possible that I have misunderstood the story you were trying to tell. However, if my summary, above, is broadly correct, the "origins" story can be told in four short paragraphs. Try to maintain a clear chronology so that each paragraph leads naturally to the next. Even if I've got things wrong, the true story will be better told if you can lose much of the non-essential padding.

I will leave the review here for the moment, and see what you have to say before resuming. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, sorry for my delayed reply - I didn't notice it on my Watchlist! And secondly, thanks for putting your time into producing this feedback.
I was always sure that the lead was not going to conform to FA criteria - and writing a good lead is not one of my strong points, I admit. I will try to encourage other editors to help edit the lead. Although, the bulletpoints you have posted are easy enough for me to sort out. The inclusion of the Anchor Point reference was connected to the first half of the sentence mentioning its historical importance. I have had trouble trying to place it in a reasonable context elsewhere in the article, so I ended up using the lead as 'a dumping ground' for it.
As for the Origins section, this is supposed to give information on the development of the area from rural land to an urban area and how the expansion of Birmingham and its industry played a part in this, as it was very much Birmingham's industrial prominence that led to the Jewellery Quarter's establishment. The story of the change to residential then to industrial is told here. However, I have had to use specific examples of such houses and factories because the references available dealt very much on the specific examples and not on the generally story of the transitional change in the area. Your summary is partially correct but it over-simplifies how the quarter came into being because it almost ignores the ways how manufacturers did infiltrate the area. Nevertheless, I acknowledge there may be some unessential material in there and I will try to deal with that, I look forward to the following installments to your review! Thanks! - Erebus555 (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While my simplified summary may not be wholly adaequate for your purposes, it is perfectly possible for you to write the story of the changes to the area in a general, summary style, citing specific examples as references; the specifics dan't have to be in the text. Otherwise you will find that over-detailng continues to affect the article.
There is also the question of maintaining a clear chronology through the various stages of your narrative. As read on I find further problems both of chronology and detail. The Growth section begins with an undated statement about the quarter's output surpassing that of Derby. In the next sentence you mention Edinburgh's jewellery trade at the end of the 19th century, but then jump back to 1850. This is confusing for the reader. I also think that, as with the Origins section, some details could be summarised or omitted.
I shall continue to read the article and to raise further points, while the review remains open. My other commitments mean that my comments may be a bit sporadic. I do have a particular interest in the article, as in the 1990s I founded a jewellery and gemmology school in London; my co-director was a product of Birmingham's Jewellery Quarter, where he trained and worked for any years.
Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Nationals seasons[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm looking to get this list upgraded to Featured List status. I've followed the basic structure of the Philadelphia Phillies seasons, which is a FL as well, so I'm hoping this would be promoted as well.

Thanks, EaglesFanInTampa 18:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The list itself seems fine, but the lead needs some work. The biggest problem I see is a lack of refs in the lead. The lead is a summary of the rest of the article, but many of the basic statements in the lead need refs (as they are not in the rest of the article, or if the are as notes, they have no refs). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Footnotes n through t need refs too. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • My guess is that this is covered by sports MOS or naming conventions, but it seems odd for an article with 35 or so seasons in Montreal and only 4 in Washington to be listed under this title. Could it be called Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals seasons? I know that the Expos seasons is a redirect here.
  • I would add some things to the lead that are now just notes or in the lists. Try to give the reader a sense of the seasons. For example, the fact that they have never been to the World Series or only made the playoffs once on 39 or so years could be mentioned. Also the lead already mentions three of four stadiums (stadia?) they have plyed in, why not the other one?
  • Would it make sense to summarize the players awards in the lead - "Players for the team have won X Cy Yong awards, ..."
  • Make sure all of the refs meet WP:RS - what makes [10] a reliable source? I also note this ref says nothing about the Expos or Montreal on a search. The MLB strike was so big, there are much better refs than this (go to a library and look up old Sports Illustrated issues, for example).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Dullat[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article about a bookseller and publisher in Elizabethan England. My goal is to get this to WP:GA or WP:FA (although I wonder if it might be too short for the latter). Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, BuddingJournalist 19:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! I can think of a few things:
  • You might want to include a statement as to why someone could get arrested for not registering as a bookseller (I know when I write articles on Renaissance composers/musicians, I always have to go back and re-read for the possibility I'm making assumptions about my readers' background knowledge). So another paragraph about the situation in the publishing field, perhaps before the third paragraph under Draper's Company, might be helpful.
  • The lead could be crafted more into a statement of general significance and influence than it is; currently it launches straight off into biographical material.
  • For the case where he was found guilty (last paragraph under Draper's Company) was that in 1598? What happened (was he imprisoned, or merely fined?)
It's going to be good. You write well; the sources are high-quality; material is cited. Nice job! Glad to see someone else interested in this period. Antandrus (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, one of the things I struggled with was weaving succinct explanations of some of the idiosyncrasies of the time, such as the printing patents and the role of the Stationers' company. I think you're right about needing additional explanatory material before the Oxford arrest.
  • I'll work on making the lead sparkle more and discuss his overall importance. :) It is rather dull at the moment.
  • Yup, that was in 1598. What actually happened is unclear to me. Johnson quotes that they were committed "to the prison of the Fleete", so I guess I could say that they were sentenced to prison. However, Johnson never actually discusses whether they served any time or for how long. Presumably any prison time was short, since works bearing Barley's name appeared in 1598 and 1599.
  • Thanks for the comments! BuddingJournalist 20:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just add what an exciting and well-written addition this article is to WP? Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Myke! BuddingJournalist 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article and a welcome addition.

  • I thought it was a little unclear about monopolies and patents/copyrights. I get the impression that to be assigned was to have a patent for particular books, but I'm not sure. Clearly Barley did not have a patent for all music publishing. Also, it is not clear to me how Barley goes on publishing under the patent if it is the same as Morley's "defunct" monopoly (Two years later, Morley died, taking with him the music printing monopoly). Monopolies are for the whole trade, whereas patents are like copyrights, no? (Morley was also using East, so Barley was not his exclusive publisher.) It might be worth spelling out the previous history of the monopoly; I know that Tallis and Byrd were granted the monopoly for 21 years. When did this elapse, and what rights did Byrd have after Tallis died? Was Barley already publishing music before Morley took up the monopoly, as implied in the lead? (Were the composers angry because he was unassigned to do so?) What is the transition or relation between the patents of East and Barley? Did Barley print instrumental music because that had a separate monopoly to vocal music? I know that James I suspended monopolies in 1603. Did that affect individual patents?
Good point. I have added a paragraph that places Barley in the greater context of Elizabethan music publishing and that discusses Tallis, Byrd, and Morley. How does it look now? As far as monopolies vs. patents, in my research, the terms seemed to be used interchangeably (for example, I've seen the Tallis and Byrd monopoly also referred to as a patent). Is this not standard? BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some publishers ignored his claim, however, and many music books printed during his later life gave him no recognition. What does recognition mean here? Did he require a fee (as with the East case)? If some publishers ignored his claim, what happened with those who did not ignore it? Barley himself published four books under his patent. From this I take it that the patent gave a right to recognition but not an exclusive right to publish, since he only published four books and others were publishing books. If he had the sole right to publishing, the courts would surely have banned or closed down other publishers. In short, what was "Barley's patent", exactly?
Unfortunately, scholars too are not sure as to what exactly "Barley's patent" entailed. It stemmed from the Morley patent, which meant that Barley and his assignees had exclusive rights to publish music (except metrical psalters), but it was clearly not very well enforced. Many of the music works published during this period do mention him on the imprint ("_publisher's name_, assigne of William Barley", which is what I meant by recognition), but many others do not. It could be that Barley was solely interested in collecting a fee and anyone who wished to print music needed to acknoledge him with "assigne of..." on the imprint. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of what happened to those who ignored his claim. Adams makes no acknowledgment of Barley, even after the court required him to. It's puzzling. BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Barley published Anthony Holborne's Pavans, Galliards, Almains (1599), the first work of music for instruments rather than voices to be printed in England." Is this certain? Does this mean the first with no vocal airs? Although the Byrd-Tallis monopoly for choral music would have crowded out non-vocal music, there had been a publishing spree before that time which I am sure included publications of transcriptions for instruments of airs and ballads, to be played without voices. I think it needs to be clearer what is meant here.
  • This is according to Grove. I assumed they meant the first work dedicated entirely to instrumental music. I'll do some more research though on this point. BuddingJournalist 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barley's role in Elizabethan music publishing is a "contentious" one. It's not clear to me whether this means Barley was contentious or that his role has proved a contentious issue for historians.
Yes, I thought it might been that Barley was contentious, which it also seems that he was.qp10qp (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded and added a sentence with some of the disparate opinions about him and his role. BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "partnering with". I've not heard this usage before, and suspect it might be AE.
  • Switched to "After becoming the assignee to". Should it be "assignee to" or "assignee for"? Yeah, the article was written in AE, as I wasn't confident enough in my British spellings; glad you've audited it for British English in your copyeditBuddingJournalist 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "assignee of". It might be worth linking to Assignment (law) at first mention. qp10qp (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Two of the first works of music that he published were of dubious quality. According to scholars, contemporaries? At this stage in the article, an unexplained value judgement is a bit jarring.

  • Both. I recast the sentence to highlight the criticism by contemporaries.
This works.qp10qp (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With Creede, Barley was involved in the publication of A Looking Glass for London and England (1594) and The True Tragedy of Richard III (1594)". This seems a little bald. What is the significance of these books?
  • Barley may have been the same William Barley who opened a branch office in Oxford. From what follows, it would seem certain that he was.
  • Do you mean that the evidence of what follows seems fairly certain, or that the way its written makes it seem so? If the former, I think I still want to keep the "may have been", as Johnson hedges as well on this point.
I don't think one can go from a "may" to a statement as if of fact, particularly with such circumstantial detail. What I do in these cases is disentangle the two views. I give the mainstream view as a fact. Then I say, either in the text or in a note, "Scholar x, however, expresses doubt that this was the same William Barley", or whatever. I think it helps the reader to put the doubt second, not first. qp10qp (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Unfortunately, Johnson is the only that discusses this, so I guess his is the mainstream view? :) He seems to think that it's quite probable that it was the same Barley, but he doesn't present it as fact. I've reworded the beginning of that paragraph so that it emphasizes that its probable rather than doubt. Is that OK? BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1595, the Stationers' Company fined Barley 40 shillings for illicitly publishing a number of works" / "That same day, the Company's court settled a lawsuit Barley had brought against East concerning the copyrights on certain music books." Could the nature of this court be explained?
  • Did Barley author any of his publications, or were they all by others?
  • What instruments were his instrumental publications for? Lute, virginals?
  • Morley's pick of Barley as an assignee (rather than experienced printers such as Thomas East or Peter Short, both of whom had previously worked with Morley) is surprising. It could be that Morley was looking for a successful commercial outlet for his publications, and Barley's shop fit perfectly. Barley may have also had access to a music fount. This reads to me as if the other publishers didn't, but they must have done. If Barley had already published music before he worked with Morley, he must have had access to a fount, or to a printer who had one.
Barley used woodbocks for his previous works of music. However, as you point out, Johnson's reasoning here does seem a bit flimsy. I did some more reading, and Smith's argument makes more sense to me. I have rewritten that paragraph. BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • His widow, Harper. Why was she still called Harper if she was married to him? Her first name would be nice here, too, I think.
  • Could we have a little more about some of the books he published (something from an introduction or two, perhaps)? Otherwise the publishing story sounds a little perfunctory, as if these works were contentless. And if he was a pioneer, I think we should hear more about just how. One thing I do know is that there was an extraordinary flowering of music at this time, and it might be worth providing a touch of general musical context for the music section.

A very intriguing article and a pleasure to read. qp10qp (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for the great copyedit and review. I'll look into your comments and queries over the next week or so. BuddingJournalist 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bride of Frankenstein[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take this to featured status and need some advice on how to get it there.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got here from a Help Desk "tip". OK, first, you'll have to take into account that I'm a very new editor here. I'm still at what you might call a "stub-class" editor. ;) ... I didn't see anything mentioning DVD, or Blu-Ray releases, or anything in the line of subsequent releases really (but I'll re-read again in case I missed that part), and wondered if that could be added to the article? Other than that - I think it is very well written, formatted, and presented. Ched (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking a look. Do you see any areas other than a video release section (not sure if I can find reliable sources for the multiple video and DVD releases)? For instance I think that the special effects section could stand some expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting, well-written article that I enjoyed reading. I have a few mostly minor suggestions for improvement.

Plot

  • Something is wrong with the last sentence of the plot summary. It reads, "With Henry and Elizabeth flee."
  • Fixed.

Production

  • This sentence has three problems: "The script passed the Hays office review but James Whale, who by then had been attached to direct, opined that it '[stank] to high heaven'." The direct quote needs a citation right after the end of the sentence in which it appears. "Attached" seems like the wrong word to me. Perhaps "hired" or "engaged" or "recruited" would be better. I'd also recommend inserting a comma between "review" and "but".
  • Quote referenced, comma inserted although I don't think it's necessary with the conjunction. "Attached" is a correct industry term to describe a performer's association with a project and honestly I find it more interesting than "hired" or what have you but if it goes to FAC and that's the sticking point I can certainly detach (heh) myself from it.
  • In several places, I see problems with apposition. When you write "love interest Elizabeth" without commas around Elizabeth, it suggests that she wasn't the only love interest. On the other hand, "love interest, Elizabeth,... " means she was the only one. The same is true of "mentor Pretorius", "assistant Karl" and "hunchback Fritz". I think probably all of these should be set off in commas.
  • Commas added everywhere. I don't find any of them necessary but I know how those FA reviewers do love their commas.  ;-)
  • Karloff is probably OK in all caps since that's how the ads displayed it, but I don't think the bolding meets Manual of Style guidelines.
  • Fixed.
  • The last paragraph needs a source or sources.
  • Karloff's single-name credit being customary at Universal is referenced but surely the film serves as reference for Lanchester's credit?

Cast

I see possibilities for expansion here. It would be interesting to know a little bit more about the cast. You've got some nice stuff in the Production section about Elsa Lanchester, and that's the kind of thing I'm thinking of. See Blade Runner and Jurassic Park to see what other editors have done to make the cast list more interesting. The interesting bit on the article's talk page about Colin Clive and the switch from Victor to Henry might fit nicely in an expanded cast section.

  • Re the Victor/Henry switch, it was the result of Peggy Webling's swapping the names of two characters in her 1927 stage adaptation, so the note on the talk page about Clive's being built into a leading man (which as near as I can tell isn't true anyway as he was rather busy drinking himself to death) has nothing to do with the name. Otto4711 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

  • When you say "Dwight Frye kills his uncle", I think you mean "Karl kills his uncle".
  • Fixed
  • DVD commentary confirms that Frye was playing a separate character and it was this character who killed his uncle. Article has been updated. Otto4711 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • You don't have to put the "US$" in front of the millions on second use.
  • Fixed.
  • You should insert another citation for the Variety quotation that ends with "same breath as the actors and director". It's probably just another ref to citation 16, but you need to make that explicit.
  • Fixed.
  • "In latter assignment she impresses quite highly" seems to be missing the word "the". I don't know whether the original was this way or if a word got lost in transcribing.
  • Article reflects the review as written. Original review is linked through note for confirmation.
  • MoS advises against starting sentences with digits. "100% of the thirty-eight reviews... " would be better as "All of the 38 reviews... ".
  • I deleted the sentence. I never cared for having it to begin with.
  • This sentence tries to do too much and would work better if re-written as two sentences: Specifically in response to the "majesty and power" reading, Harrington states "My opinion is that’s just pure bullshit. That’s a critical interpretation that has nothing to do with the original inspiration" and concluding "I think the closest you can come to a homosexual metaphor in his films is to identify that certain sort of camp humor."
  • Broke into two sentences.

I thought of two other possibilities for expansion, though I wouldn't say they were necessary. (1) I was curious to know more about the lab equipment and special effects. (2) The sentence in the Plot section about Mary Shelley and the "moral lesson" of her novel made me curious about how the film and the novel might have coincided or differed on this and other points. I wondered if any of the critics had compared the two.

I hope these comments and suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for reviewing the article. I agree with you that an expansion of the effects section would be beneficial. I haven't seen any material contrasting the "moral lesson" business from the film with Shelley's original intention; from what I gather that line was something of a sop to the Hays office (who were apparently more interested in monitoring Elsa's cleavage than her dialogue). I will also look around for some more casting information. In the meantime I've fixed up the stuff as noted above. Let me know if you have any other suggestion. Thanks again. Otto4711 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue discharge[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to GA and would like another set of eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber[edit]

I only noted the name and had absolutely no idea what it was about. Fascinating topic! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - Following intense criticism in the press and in Congress, the blue discharge was discontinued in 1947. - I'd probably say 'revoked' here. 'Discontinued' to me implies passively sorta disappearing, whereas a verb which has more of an active implication may be better.
The word 'discharge' appears alot in the lead; reducing the numbers of times it appears would be good but not sure how. have a think. Some other words, such as 'homosexual' and 'African American' are repeated, so if one can remove or reduce repetition without introducing ambiguity it is ofetn helpful for flow.
The lead is pretty short.
In the Aftermath section, the It has been suggested that the.. is weaselly, would be good to get who suggested this first here.
I agree, but I have no idea who suggested it first. It's a concept that's been around for at least 50 years. I have interviews from a number of the early homophile leaders and several of them make the point, but the interviews were conducted anywhere from the 1970s to the 1990s and there's no way to determine if this was something one or another of them discussed at the time or if it had become common knowledge by then. Any suggestions on re-wording it? Otto4711 (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, somehow I managed to miss that you had made other comments as well. I've been reworking a table for the last...good god, 12 hours on and off and I'm getting punchy.
Anyway, yeah, it has been interesting researching it. Just a tip, don't ever Google "blue discharge" without some additional search term because you will not like some of the sites it returns. Think other meanings of "discharge" if you get my drift. ::shudder::
I agree the lead is short, but do you believe there are any areas of the article that are not adequately summarized? I did expand it slightly and changed one "discharge" to "ticket" and removed another (down to five) but I'm wary of swapping it out too many times. The correct legal term is "discharge" so I can't use "separation" or "dismissal" (which have different legal meanings) and using "ticket" too many time may make the article too slangy and have an effect on the encyclopedic quality of the writing. Part of the lead expansion was to mention that two new discharge classifications replaced this one so do you think that strengthens it and makes it clear that these were affirmatively halted?
I count "African American" five times. The problem is that four of them are in the same paragraph. I could substitute "black" for one of them ("black-interest newspaper") but the others I don't know.
I count twelve "homosexual"s and they are more widely scattered. I can change a few of them to gay here and there but some of them, dealing with military regulations ("homosexual conduct" for instance) I think need to stay as is. "Gay" was not really in wide usage at the time outside the gay community; no newspaper would ever have used the word "gay" (it would likely have been either "homosexual" or "pervert" if they covered anything at all) so I was tending to use the language of the times.
Let me know what you think. Otto4711 (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, don't change to "gay". I mean try to switch sentences so one subject can be used for two clauses. I will try to find one. Accurate information always comes first, so don't lose any sleep over it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Linke Sippl[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 expanding this artcile. Thanks--Mazfired (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mazfired (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States)[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 sure there are still glitches to fix. I am looking forward to passing this to WP:FLC soon. Thank you,

Regards, Efe (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ericorbit

I've left comments with Efe a couple of times regarding this... originally I was very resistant about turning this into a table, especially since (for continuity's sake), a major change to this list means a lot of work lies ahead to reformat all number-ones lists (different charts, genres, countries, albums, singles, etc.)... so I strongly believe that a real consensus about the formatting overhaul is needed first before proceeding. That said, the table itself looks good. Thanks Efe for removing the whitespace and for left-aligning the text, that really helps and makes the info cleaner and easier to read. The references column says it all — good job. All sources are there and in a neat, separate column. In the past whenever I'd update these lists (weekly) I'd replace the prior week's source with the current week... you did a lot of work digging through the article's history to retrieve those sources, Efe!

So here is my only concern: the commentary and image at the top. I realize many people like to see a fleshed-out "intro", but as this is a list of songs, I feel that it should stay as a straightforward, simple, clean list. I fear that (although it is nicely sourced now), this type of chart analysis will open the door for editors to throw in various non-notable, fancruft-y tidbits in order to bring attention to their favorite artists. I see this on other pages, most notably the Hot 100 charts & achievements page. I also wonder, since 2008 is the example here, when can the intro be written for 2009? We're three weeks into the chart-year; do we wait til December 31? What is notable enough to place into the intro at this point? I think a lot of this kinda stuff can go into individual song articles instead of here. Same goes for the image. I can already see the edit wars starting now between someone who wants a Katy Perry picture and someone who wants a Beyoncé picture. Let's stop the headache before it even starts.

Otherwise, this looks excellent. Keep the old, simple intro sentence and the rest is just fine. Good work, Efe. - eo (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric, thanks for the comment. What usually pops up into my mind when not adding a commentary because we just open doors to editors to add non-notable stuffs is like protecting a page for 1 year because we fear that it might be again a subject of vandalism. If we don't add, then we should go for a rereview of this featured lists (which are part of the newly established wikiproject): Category:FL-Class Record Charts articles. As for the image, its not a big deal actually because as what I have observed during the respective PR of these FLs, other editors subjectively ask for at least a photo, for aesthetic purposes. But lets not stop experimenting. I have chosen Perry because its free, although free images of Flo Rida, Carey and Lewis exist, all of which are mentioned in the highlights of 2008. --Efe (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great; i think this is the week that is missing: December 6 [11] Frcm1988 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I really failed to locate this one. Thanks 1988. --Efe (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't start lists with "This is a list of..." anymore. I realize the list is complete, but it's still rather short. Reywas92Talk 20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll try to revise the intro sentence based on other FLs. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Han Dynasty[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Well, I was a bit rash and got a bit jumpy when I nominated History of the Han Dynasty as a FAC. Since June, I've been compiling a huge mountain of scholarly notes for it, and four other branch articles (society and culture, economy, government, science and technology) which I will create for the Chinese Han Dynasty. I put the finishing touches on the article in my private sandbox this week, created the actual wiki article, then submitted it as a FAC. Lo and behold, it's newness as an article apparently violates the FAC criteria for stability, since it has not had time for potential edit warring or for other Wiki editors to provide their input. I was wondering if you guys could take a look, so that even if it fails the FAC this time around, it will have been properly peer-reviewed.

Thanks, Pericles of AthensTalk 11:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK)[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, having completely re-formatted it, added images and a proper lead, etc, I'd like to know if there's anything else I might need to do before I put it up for FLC.

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by User:Darth Panda Following WP:WIAFL, as per your request.

  • Prose.
  • Check your comma usage.
  • "During the 1990s record companies began making singles available to radio stations much further in advance of their release dates and making greater use of direct marketing techniques, as a result of which the number of singles entering the charts at number 1 increased dramatically, and it became commonplace for singles to enter the charts at the top and then plummet down the listing soon afterwards." -> "During the 1990s, record companies began making singles available to radio stations much further in advance of their release dates and making greater use of direct marketing techniques. As a result, of which the number of singles entering the charts at number 1 increased dramatically, and it became commonplace for singles to enter the charts at the top and then plummet down the listing soon afterwards."
  • I didn't copyedit very thoroughly, but I doubt there are all that many more errors anyways.
  • Lead.
  • No issues.
  • Comprehensiveness.
  • Not that I would know, but it looks fine to me.
  • Structure.
  • You definitely want to enable table sort for your two right-most columns.
  • Though a table of contents is not automatically added, you might want to force it to appear.
  • Style.
  • Since you have only eight refs in your reflist, <references /> is preferred over {{reflist}}.
  • Visual Appeal.
  • Many of those images are unnecessary, but I don't really know what I'd replace it with...
  • Stability.
  • No issues.

Cheers, and best of luck! DARTH PANDAduel 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from Jameboy: I'd expect to see some kind of links to enable me to quickly jump to the equivalent lists for the 1980s and 2000s, but I can't see any. I don't know if there is a template like "this is the next/previous article in the sequence", if not then maybe link via a See also section? Jameboy (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered the Next and Previous templates, but they seem a bit clunky and don't seem to be widely used. Not sure what else is available. --Jameboy (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Lies (band)[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 was recently passed as a Good Article and I feel it can do the same with Featured Article. One of the steps on the road to GA is a peer review, so I'd like someone to have a look and see if they can give me a second opinion.

Thanks, SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sillyfolkboy
  • You should signify that "Young and Lost Club" is a label (I presume it is?). At the moment it isn't very clear.
  • Mention when they decided upon the name "Fear of Flying". It's strange that the first time you mention the name it is to say that they disbanded.
    • This one's a bit of a difficult one, I've scoured the internet and can't find any mention of why they were named this. Any ideas on what should be done? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is very brief and seems a little out of context:
    • "They cited Talking Heads as a major influence."
  • Is there anything else interesting you can add to this or can you link it up with one of the other sentences?
  • "Playing under the new name": say "Playing under their new moniker" for a bit of language variation
  • Any idea when they began sessions for their new album?
  • Has the "To Lose My Life" video been shown elsewhere? e.g. MTV etc
    • Fixed - added note about MTV Two and NME. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there an NME television station or something? It's just that if you're taking it from the website you should know they import videos direct from Youtube sometimes so it may not be notable. I know from the strange experience of finding my own live performances there. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
      • NME does have its own television station yes, i wouldn't say they made direct imports from YouTube though; they often have NME exclusive videos played, implying that it is their own content. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 02:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did White Lies sign for their record label? Their record label should also be mentioned in the lead.
    • Fixed - Mentioned in lead, still looking for exact date of signing. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Referencing: Remember that you should add publication dates and authors to the references. For a quick example:
<ref name="Ealing Times">{{cite web|title=Ealing band are critics favourite with 2009 album|url=http://www.ealingtimes.co.uk/news/localnews/3984584.White_Lies_tipped_for_success_in_2009/|publisher=''[[Ealing Times]]''|accessdaymonth=17 December|accessyear=2008}}</ref>
  • Should actually be:
<ref name="Ealing Times">{{cite web|last=Hayes|first=Alex| title=Ealing band are critics favourite with 2009 album|url=http://www.ealingtimes.co.uk/news/localnews/3984584.White_Lies_tipped_for_success_in_2009/|publisher=''[[Ealing Times]]''|date=17 December 2008|accessdaymonth=22 December|accessyear=2008}}</ref>
  • I would strongly recommend that you do not take this article to WP:Featured Article Candidates now. The reason I say this is that the band have done so little so far and in three/six months time this article will probably include twice as much information (album release/tour etc). I suggest that you hold off nominating this for FA until the first album is fully released and toured, at the very least. However, this is not a criticism of the article in anyway, merely that it will be so much more informative, in depth, and interesting when the band has done more. Even Nirvana would do little to excite a reader if the article covered just the career up to their first single. A thoroughly covered album release will help put the scope of the article in perspective. I hope you've found my comments helpful. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Discography of Final Fantasy VII[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'm bringing this article for a second PR in order to prepare it for a second run at FAC. Any comments to improve the article would be helpful!

Notes on sources used in the article
Owned by Craveonline Media, LLC, which is in turned owned by AtomicOnline, LLC, which is a smallish media conglomerate that runs several dozen sites in three distinct areas (men 18-34, women 25-54, teens) with 13 million+ unique pageviews a month across their main sites. Article talking about them.
A subdivision of Cerberus Media Group Inc., a Florida corporation formed to provide a backing company for the site. I have contacted both the head of the music reviews section as well as their marketing director, who both have said that all of their reviews, etc. are edited for accuracy, cross-checked and cited against other legitimate news sites whenever possible, and are also corrected if any error is later found.
Independent music review site (not affiliated with Square Enix itself) - about page says that they have "achieved critical acclaim from famous composers, eminent producers, and industry sites", a claim that is backed up by their interviews page, listing interviews they have done with notable people such as Yasunori Mitsuda and Thomas Boecker, producer of the Symphonic Game Music Concert series. Their submissions guidelines are here, in which they specifically say that they edit all reviews for factual accuracy.
11 year old remix hosting site recognized and contributed to by many industry professionals. Press comments.

Thanks for helping! --PresN 22:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section is too long and should be split into subsections. Fargo of Diarmuid (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reception information for each album should appear in their respective sections, like in List of Final Fantasy compilation albums. The legacy information can stay in its own section entitled "Legacy". I think it will be easier to read the article this way. Also, shouldn't the article be named "Discography of Compilation of Final Fantasy VII" or something similar considering it covers all the titles in the compilation and not only FFVII? The Prince (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FFVII is not part of the Compilation of FFVII, so the current name is okay (with FFVII taken as the series rather than only the first game). Fargo of Diarmuid (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it can be called Discography of Final Fantasy VII and Compilation of Final Fantasy VII instead, because the current title implies that it's the discography of the original game. PS: I added a free use image of Uematsu in the article; I wrote "fair use" in the edit summary by mistake. The Prince (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I'm fine with either FF7 or CoFF7, but not both together. It's hard enough to keep the term 'Final Fantasy 7' out of the article- at one point the intro had about 8 'FF7's per paragraph, as SE shoves it into every album title. I'm also not sure about moving the reception into each album- it might work, but it also would make it even more listy, and I'm trying to keep this as an article, to match the other ones. --PresN 21:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. If you were to change it, however, it would look something like this, which IMO is a lot easier to read. If you take the article to FAC, some reviewers may complain about some of the sources used, specifically RPGFan. It was just recently removed from WP:VG/S, although a discussion about its inclusion has been initiated here. Also, why aren't the full titles of the albums in the headers, and why aren't they in italics? The Prince (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The full titles got removed during the last FAC, one of the reviewers (SandyGeorgia) objected to the repetition of 'Final Fantasy 7' in the section headings, and I de-italicized them at the same time since they weren't the full album name but rather a descriptor. Hmm... I'm tempted by the layout you proposed- that is a lot less blocky. I think I'll go with it, and try to expand the legacy section out more to make up for the loss there, if I can. As far as RPGFan... there's nothing I can do. They're video game soundtrack albums. No one reviews them except for RPGFan, Square Enix Music Online, and Soundtrack Central- and they're all right on the line between legitimate review source and fansite, with SC being definitely over the line. Even the reviews of the games tend not to mention the music. If there were any other reviews I'd gleefully accept, as I'm not looking forward to another fight about it at FAC, but I work with what I've got. --PresN 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what if it were "Final Fantasy VII series"? I mean, in all intents and purposes, CoFFVII and FFVII itself are a part of their own subseries of FF. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a title I can get behind! Changed to "Discography of the Final Fantasy VII series".
Do you think that I should remove the infoboxes for all of the albums besides the first? They don't provide anything not in the text now that the album art is gone. I'm going to look and see if WP:MUSIC has any thoughts on the matter, but I think I may kill them regardless. --PresN 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have my support. This should probably be done to the other FF discography articles as well. The Prince (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow Bob[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm going to take this one to FAC, hopefully by the end of the month. All comments welcome. -- Scorpion0422 21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good to me. I made some tense and punctuation corrections, and the format and referencing look fine. My only major comment is that sometimes the charactor and reception info is repeating the appearances info, one example being the repetition of the HMS Pinafore stalling Bob to be arrested at the very end of the Analysis section, which is already in the appearances. Reywas92Talk 03:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this looks pretty close to FA standards, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • Problem sentence Sideshow Bob has been described as "Frasier [Crane] pickled in arsenic", Frasier being Grammer's character on the series of the same name. I really do not like the wikilink with the square bracket for Frasier Crane within a quote. I would try to rephrase this to avoid that if at all possible. More improtantly, when Sideshow Bob first appeared on the Simpsons in 1990, the show Frasier had not yet begun (it started in 1993), but Cheers was well established. Perhaps something like Grammer played the charater of Frasier Crane for 20 years on the series Cheers and Frasier — Sideshow Bob has been described as "Frasier pickled in arsenic". This avoids the odd link in the quote, but there is almost certainly a smoother / better way to word this.
    • I went with "Sideshow Bob has been described as "Frasier pickled in arsenic", Frasier Crane being Grammer's character on Cheers and Frasier", is that better? I'm weary of mentioning Cheers in the lead because some users will likely add that the chracter also appeared in Wings.
      • That sounds fine - I think the lead should just be for the most important things, so I have no problem with excluding WIngs (much as I enjoyed that show). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would Alongside his appearances in the series, Sideshow Bob has made several appearances in other The Simpsons media. read better as something like In addition to his recurring role in the series, Sideshow Bob has made several appearances in other The Simpsons media. "Alongside" seems awkward and this avoids two "appearances" in one sentence.
    • Done.
  • I am not sure I understand this sentence: For "Black Widower", David Silverman updated the character model to reflect the animation of Bird.[19] I would make it clearer that Silverman is the director of the epsiode (I thought Bird was again until I looked at the epsidoe article). Perhaps something like For "Black Widower", director David Silverman updated the character model to reflect Brad Bird's animation in Sideshow Bob's previous appearance.[19] would be clearer?
    • Yes, done.
  • Can A previously unaired song, "Hullaba Lula", was also included in The Simpsons: Testify.[38] be explained in more detail? Why was the song written and not aired? Was it written specifcally for the album? I realize this might not be known / in the sources, but if more is known, I think it would be interesting / helpful to include it.
    • I can probably add more about the song once the 12th season is released on DVD (likely by the end of 2009). There isn't a lot known about the song, but it was written for an episode. However, complicating things, the booklet for the CD allegedly (haven't been able to confirm this) lists it's episode as "Simpsons Tall Tales", which Sideshow Bob isn't in. One lyric of the song is "I can't wait to kill Krusty today, Bart takes the wrap while I get away", which is basically the plot of "Day of the Jackanapes". So for now, It's easier to list the song without an episode.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thanks a lot for the review. -- Scorpion0422 04:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment from the PR was not addressed. There are a few instances of repetition in the article, including listing the HMS Pinafore stalling Bob to be arrested, which is in both the appearances and analysis. Otherwise it is an excellent article! Reywas92Talk 02:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't really be avoided though. It's a major plot point, so it should be mentioned in appearances but it's also cited as an example in the book we use. You have to assume that the reader is not familiar with The Simpsons (or that they bothered to read the entire article), so in both cases a short description is provided. -- Scorpion0422 02:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Keys[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 ultimately take this to featured article status, but before that, good article status. In the fear of this failing it's first GAN, I brought it here instead to get feedback and any further assistance.

Thanks, DiverseMentality 01:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- This looks quite good. One element I'd be interested in you expanding a little is this:"Keys recorded a theme song for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. She joined Joss Stone and Jay-Z on the effort, was approached by the presidential nominee according to The Times to record a track that will serve as a theme song for his campaign.[50]" What happened to the suggestion? Ibsensgirl (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find anything further than that. DiverseMentality 18:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article! However, I think the Personal Life and Controversy sections at the end make it a bit disjointed. Can you include more personal life info before the 2006 breakdown? That might make it seem more flowing. Chickpeana (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try, though search so far isn't all that great. DiverseMentality 18:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Generally well done, but I think the language needs to be polished in some places. For example
    • In the lead the sentence Keys' debut album, Songs in A Minor, was a worldwide success, selling over 11 million copies worldwide. probably only needs one "worldwide".
    • Or can you you have a second debut? Apparently, see Keys made her first television appearance on The Cosby Show in 1985. ;-)
    • Or this Born in a Hell's Kitchen area of Manhattan, in New York City, New York, could just be Born in the Hell's Kitchen area of Manhattan, in New York City, (there is just one Hell's Kitchen and I think most people know NYC is in New York state).
  • A few things need refs - especially in light of WP:BLP - see for example "Throughout her career, Keys has been rumored to be romantically involved with Kerry Brothers, Jr.. Other times, she has been portrayed as lesbian." Attribute rumors to reputable sources or get rid of them.
  • There is at least one external link in the article (Frum tha ground up -sp?) that should be converted to a ref.
  • Any followup on the Gangsta rap controversy? Since it says allegedly, did she later deny the statements? Inquiring minds want to know
  • Glad to see you got her Backyardigans voice appearance in - BOINGA!

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House's Head[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 try for FAc again in some time, however there are a few things that need to be done, what I'm looking for is the following:

  • Published reviews of the episode to expand the critical reaction section (perhaps someone with a Nexis account).
  • A copy-editor who is willing to take a look at the article.
  • Someone who can prove this source is reliable, or find a reliable source to replace it.
  • Perhaps, not manditory, someone who can take a screenshot of the final scene of the episode (the bus reenactment), to replace the current image.

Any additional comments are welcome and very much appreciated.

Thanks very much, --Music26/11 17:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Unfortunately I am unable to help with any of the specifics requested above, except to point out a few rough spots in the prose (in lieu of a copyedit). Could you ask for help from WikiProject Television on any of these? I think this is pretty well done. Very briefly, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • Be consistent about referring to characters. Why is it "Dr. Gregory House" and "Dr. James Wilson" on first mention, but "Dr. Chase" (why not "Dr. Robert Chase") and oddest of all just "Amber Volakis" (why not "Dr. Amber Volakis")?
  • I would say more about Fred Durst's casting as the bartender - provide context for the reader (not everyone knows who he is or it is surprising that he acted well). Any reason for this "stunt casting" (is he a big fan of the show? friend of the producers)?
  • This paragraph seems roughest During the preparations for the bus crash, the whole sequence was storyboarded.[12] Greg Yaitanes described stunt-coordinator Jim Vickers as "crucial" for the filming of this sequence.[5] The bus crash scene was filmed interior using a big spinning wheel (which Anne Dudek referred to as a "gadget").[12] This gadget was mainly the back of the bus, and could be turned 360 degrees to increase the authenticity of the scene.[5] For the rest of the bus, a greenscreen was used that surrounded the complete outside of the bus.[5] The shots involving Anne Dudek, were filmed at another time, using light effects and people acting like they are in a bus crash in the otherwise motionless gadget.[12]
    • I find it distracting to refer to it as the gagdget throughout - why not call it "a set" or "the bus set"?
    • I would link storyboard
    • I am really not sure what this means The bus crash scene was filmed interior using a big spinning wheel (which Anne Dudek referred to as a "gadget").[12] Perhaps it owuld read better as The interior of the bus during the crash scene was filmed using a bus set mounted in a large wheel which could spin as needed (which Anne Dudek referred to as a "gadget").[12]
    • The next sentence could then be something like This special set was essentially the back of the bus, and could be rotated 360 degrees to authentically mimic a rolling bus crash for the scene.[5]
    • The last sentence could then be something like The shots involving Anne Dudek were filmed at another time, using light effects and people acting as if they were in a bus crash in the otherwise motionless special set.[12]
  • The awards section is also unclear to me - I am not sure what it means that various people submitted the episode on their behalf for various Emmy nominations. Is this just those "For your consideration" ads that appear in trade papers? This needs to be made clearer. Again, WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of FA Amateur Cup winners[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Following on from List of FA Trophy winners and List of FA Vase winners, I now give you the third in the triumvirate of English national non-league football cups. Please let me know if anything needs changing before I send this one to FLC too....

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The list itself is fine, in accordance with the established successful format. I have a few questions on the prose.

  • Lead, second paragraph: This doesn't read very well as it stands, I'm not sure why. I tried putting the final sentence at the front of the paragraph, and I thought it sounded better. Try it out, see what you think.
  • History. Section looks a bit thin; I wonder if it could be fleshed out a bit? For example, I see from the link to the FA Amateur Cup article that in the post-WWII years, attendances at the final reached 100,000. This seems extraordinary for a football match between basically small-time teams. I doubt that this size of crowd was maintained; could we have something about fluctuating levels of interest in this competition? Again, this is just a suggestion.
  • Finals: If the cup wasn't staged during the First World War, when was the 1915-15 tournament (won by Clapton) played?

Not much else to say, really. Neat work Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. I'll add a little to the history section, although as this is the List of Winners article as opposed to the main article on the Cup itself, I don't want to stray too far from talking specifically about the winners of the tournament..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffolk Punch[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm listing this article because I would like to get it to FA status. I would like input on any aspects that are confusing to a non-horse person, as well as any areas where other editors feel that sourcing or prose are weak. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda: Most of these relate to prose:

  • You probably don't need the reference to the early 16th century in both the paragraphs in the lead. Also, in the history section it says that the first recorded mention is in the 15th century, not the 16th.
  • Watch out for close repetitions—the last sentence of the first paragraph, and the first sentence of the next both start with the breed.
  • Good doer (easy keeper) is probably too jargon-ish for the lead. I notice it's not used elsewhere in the article either. - Done.
  • This resulted in the Suffolk Punch almost becoming extinct. This is a noun+ing phrase, which Tony doesn't like - Done.
  • The idea of horses pulling a van or a bus struck me as a bit odd, as my first thought was of the motorised versions of these vehicles. I don't know how one would make it clearer. I did find this image at the Van article. - Added "non-motorized.
  • They are always chestnut, and no other colour is considered for admission to the Stud Book. This seems logically inconsistent. If they are always ches(t)nut, how can there be other colours to be excluded from the Stud Book? Done.
  • Although often grouped with the other British heavy draught breeds—the use of the other implies the Suffolk Punch is one of them, which makes the use of although sound odd. Also, this sentence is quite long, and could possibly benefit from being split. - Split sentence. Tweaked wording - it is a British heavy draft breed, so it is an "other", but is built a bit different, which is what we're trying to point out.
  • feathering of the fetlocks jargon - Wikilinked feathering.
  • At one point in their history, the Suffolk was often criticised—not sure if something can happen often at one point? Possibly drop the 'often'. - Changed to "in the past".
  • introduction of foot classes at major shows needs more explanation - Done.
  • led to an improvement of the breed's hooves, so they are now considered to have excellent foot conformation—what has excellent foot conformation, the hooves or the breed? - Done.
  • The Suffolk Punch breed registry in England is the oldest English breed society, and the breed has the longest unbroken written pedigree of any horse breed. I'm not sure whether and appropriately expresse the connection between the two clauses. Does the Suffolk Punch have the longest pedigree because the breed registry is the oldest?
    • Reworded slightly. The pedigrees started being kept a couple of centuries before the breed registry was started. I can't seem to get the wording right without there being an "and" in between - I end up with about three "breed"s in the sentences. Everyone else please feel free to tweak.
      • We ended up tossing the pedigree part due to lack of backup sourcing and questionable material, so this becomes a moot point.
  • John Camden's Britannica, published in the 15th century—are you sure you don't mean William Camden's Britannia published in 1586, i.e. the 16th century? - Fixed (my bad).
  • Eastern Counties probably shouldn't be capitalised. - Done.
  • still recognisable in the same form today—are both 'still' and 'today' needed? - Done.
  • Another bottleneck occurred again in the late 18th century—um, Crisp's horse was foaled in 1773, which is late 18th century by my count. Did another bottleneck occur after him? Also 'another' and 'again' are not both needed.
    • Fixed another/again. Crisp's horse was actually foaled in 1768 (I checked the sources and changed it), so I think the "late 18th century" means again after that, maybe the 1790s or so? I'm not really sure, as the source doesn't elaborate.
  • In two quotations the spelling color is used. The article is written in British English; did the sources of the quotes use color rather than colour?
    • Yes, both sources were in US English and used "color", and we sifted through MOS until we found a spot telling us not to change the British/American usage in quotes, no matter which one the article was in.
  • the breed also received contributions slightly jargon-ish - Done.
    • I'm stuck on how to re-word this. Anyone else want to take a swing at it?
  • Although other breeds were introduced in an attempt to increase the size and stature of the breed 'introduced' is slightly jargon-ish here, and the second occurrence of 'breed' could possibly be replaced with 'Suffolk Punch' for clarity.
  • Is 'importations' common usage? - Reworded.
  • Why did the Suffolk Punch gain popularity in the 1930s? - Expanded.
  • the breed has experienced a revival of interest perhaps better as there has been a revival of interest in the breed, since it's not the horses' interest which has revived. - Done.
  • The last paragraph of the History section flip-flops between the British and American societies which is a little confusing, though I can see it is trying to follow the chronological order.
  • Although their population has continued to rise, the Rare Breeds Survival Trust of the U.K. considers their survival status critical—presumably it's not the population of the Trust which is increasing :) This needs rephrasing. - Done.
  • In the past, the Suffolk Punch was used mainly for draught work on farms, and were also often used to pull heavy artillery in wartime. The verb should be consistently singular or plural. - Done.
  • Oppenheimer consistently dealt with Suffolk Punches—does 'consistently dealt' mean 'specialised in selling'? - Done.
  • the Vladimir Heavy Draft, a draft breed—should this be 'a draught breed'?
  • Page ranges in the citations should use an en dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-). - Done.
  • You mention you want to take this to FA. It may be challenged due to its length, as it's on the short side, (8 kB, 1447 words), so you should be able to show that it is comprehensive. I don't know enough about the subject to say if there are any glaring omissions. About 40 shorter article have made FA though, so it's not impossible.
  • I also don't know enough to judge the quality of the sources, but are the Dorling Kindersley books adults' or children's? (I know they publish a lot of children's non-fiction).
    • Well, Elwyn Hartley Edwards is a prolific and much quoted author on horse subjects. The Horses title is from the Smithsonian Handbooks series, probably think "general adult non-fiction for the non-specialist". Here's the Amazon.com page on it, which says its from the DK Adult line. The second EHE book is here at Amazon.com, and it also lists the publisher as DK Adult, so I'd guess that it's the same sort of generalist handbook thing. I have seen the first book, not the second, but in general I trust EHE's works. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these comments help. If they do, you may like to consider reviewing an article from Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog, which is where I found this one. Dr pda (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vector space[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently passed its Good Article nomination. I think it has a reasonable state and I'd like to get broader input, especially on accessibility, balance and completeness of the article for a possible FA nomination.

Thanks for the review, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

We should mention subtraction (or negation) as operations that can be preformed by vectors. While it may be mathematically covered by scaling, it is not the intuitive use of the word. The history really could use some inline references. For example, being an analyst I like the idea that "Later enhancements of the theory are due to the widespread presence of vector spaces in mathematical analysis, mainly in the guise of function spaces." But without a reference this sounds like POV. Thenub314 (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first section on examples where we mention F and Fn, we should mention the connection is by taking n=1, and maybe mention dimension. We talk about dimension more formally later, but we already mentioned it when looking at R2. Thenub314 (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Your points, except for the reference (I'll do that soon) are now covered (I chose to put the subtraction in the first section rather than the lead, just for space considerations).Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vector spaces with additional structure - comments by Uncia (talk · contribs)
  • order: comparing the vectors componentwise - there are several ways to do this, see Ordered vector space - a little more detail would be helpful.
  • Hm. In view of the limited length of the article, and given the little importance of this to the topic, I would rather not include lexicographic order etc.
  • Normed vector spaces and inner product spaces: We never explain that〈 · | · 〉means the inner product
  • Fixed.
  • Normed vector spaces and inner product spaces: The Minkowski (or Lorentz) inner product is not an inner product in the usual sense because it is not positive definite - do you want to bring up this inner product in this discussion?
  • Good point. I'll ponder about that.
  • Banach spaces - the Lp definition is not quite correct - the elements of the space are equivalence classes of functions and not individual functions. It's probably not worth making a big deal over, just mention that "functions that agree except on a set of measure zero are considered to be the same".
  • This is in a footnote (nb 9). Do you mean it should be moved up?
  • Hilbert spaces - The given L2 inner product is the "mathematical physics" definition; the "mathematics" definition has the conjugates flipped, that is,
See Lp_space#Special_cases.
  • Right.
  • Hilbert spaces - the intro is confusing because it mixes together several different kinds of approximation. I suggest that the message be split in two parts: (1) It is handy to be able to approximate a general function by members of a set of more special (and often much nicer) functions; (2) In Hilbert space we can extend the idea of basis to approximate general vectors by members of a set of more special (and often much nicer) vectors
  • I've reworded that a bit.
Miscellaneous comments by Uncia (talk · contribs)
  • Lede - I think it would be useful to mention the Euclidean vector, which is the physics and engineering vector. Probably more readers are familiar with these vectors than with the mathematical vector, and these vectors were a historical step in developing vector spaces. You probably would also mention William Rowan Hamilton, Oliver Heaviside, and Josiah Willard Gibbs who were the developers of this theory.
  • Euclidean vectors done. With the history, I have to confess, my knowledge is terribly sparse. Do you know a bit about that? I'd appreciate if we could collaborate on that. Or perhaps you can recommend a book?
  • I would argue against over-emphasizing the vectors of Hamilton, Heaviside, and Gibbs. Modern vector spaces were developed almost entirely independently of the notions of vectors rooted in Euclidean geometry, first by Hermann Grassmann and then by Giuseppe Peano and Alfred North Whitehead. See, for instance, the historical note to Bourbaki's Algebra. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motivation and definition - The introduction seems awkward in a couple of aspects:
    • We mention (without defining) dimension - dimension actually plays a fairly small role in vector spaces (other than the distinction between the finite and infinite dimensional cases), so I'm not sure it should appear so early.
    • We seem to be hinting at the idea of a basis, without defining it and without explaining its significance. This "motivation" is unmotivated! Maybe we really want to talk about projections onto vectors in preferred directions, which is what the figure seems to be about.
  • I don't want to write about bases or dimension at that point, simply because it is to motivate what comes next. Also, to allude to what comes next. I think, the word "dimension" is reasonably common for a general reader (even if he does not know the definition at all!) to use it at that point. Does this make sense?
  • History - "The founding leg of the definition of vectors" - I don't understand the term "founding leg" - I don't think this is an expression in English. Can it be explained in other terms?
  • OK. I'm not a native speaker...
  • Applications - Fourier expansion - The Stone–Weierstrass theorem is applied incorrectly. That theorem implies that a continuous function on an interval is a uniform limit of trigonometric polynomials. However it does not guarantee that you simply add more terms or that the coefficients stay fixed as your approach the limit. The Fourier expansion comes from approximating in the L2 norm, approximates any L2 function (not just continuous ones) and does guarantee that the coefficients are fixed.
  • OK, I have reworded that.
  • Applications - Fourier expansion - the term Discrete Fourier Transform is probably better here than Fast Fourier Transform, as the latter is a technique for calculating the former. Also, fast integer multiplication is not the main application of DFT or FFT but just an interesting sideline; the wide-ranging field of Digital Signal Processing contains most of the applications of DFTs.
  • OK. Do you want to add some words about applications of DFT? Otherwise I'll try later. I would not remove the fast integer multiplication, that's pretty important from a computational point of view, AFAIK.
  • I have expanded the section a good bit (and changed its name to Fourier analysis). It may be too long now and wander away too far from vector spaces, but I think it now gives a good view of the importance of this application. --Uncia (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your review! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the recent expansion of the Fourier section. Maybe we will have to trim it down a bit, but more importantly, the statements have to be referenced. I guess that's easy for you? I think, I'll nominate the article for FA then. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references for all statements in Fourier analysis. --Uncia (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a place in there for reciproqual spaces, as a subsection of Fourrier spaces, due to their notability. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odex's actions against file-sharing[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is intended to go through Featured Article Candidate, having failed twice previously. This third Peer Review intends to allow it to undergo a very throughout review and scrutiny, to eliminate the possible concerns raised in the previous FACs, before proceeding on.

There are three outstanding issues to be discussed, and I believe that some decisions by consensus has to be made on how they are approached before they become flashpoints on the FAC itself. Some of these "repairs" would not be possible without your collaboration and expertise if it were left everything to myself alone.

  1. Copyediting. The main reason and the single biggest reason why the last two FACs failed. Is the prose sufficiently polished up to be brilliant?
  2. The structure of the article. Should the sections be re-organised? Can the content be able to fit in properly? Does certain headings require renaming?
    Hence or otherwise for (2), the lead-in might be too long. How should it be shortened/revised?
  3. Any content in the article that might be disputed?

I am able to check against all the listed sources. Please copyedit the article if you are able to, and do not hesitate to raise any point that requires new sources or to check against the existing ones. Thank you for taking the time to review the article, Mailer Diablo 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Odex's actions against file-sharing/archive3.

Yip Pin Xiu[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is about a Singaporean swimmer with muscular dystrophy, who won two medals and set two world records at the 2008 Summer Paralympics. My goal is for this article to attain GA status. Please look through the article and point out any and all issues that would prevent the article from attaining GA status. I am particularly concerned about prose and BLP issues. Note that due to systemic bias, referenced information on Singapore-related topics is scarce.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! This is a very nice article and would definitely pass GA. My only comments are that for the external links only her bio on the Team Singapore is needed, not the link to its homepage, and that, only if possible, all the references to news articles be external linked to the article. This article is complete and well-reference, and I hope you continue to do the same to other Singapore-related articles! Reywas92Talk 03:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Major broadsheets in Singapore have a archive limit for up to 7 days by paid subscription and then completely removed. In this case, the articles are obtained using professional news retrieval services by query, which is session-based (making it impossible to link to). - Mailer Diablo 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons outlined by Mailer diablo, links to references are not always available. The removal of the unnecessary external link has been done. I will certainly continue to counter systemic bias by improving Singapore-related articles and getting them to GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Model articles are useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several female athlete FAs that may be useful models includimg Susianna Kentikian and Nellie Kim
    Noted I will read those FAs for some pointers. Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should have an image in the upper right corner per the MOS
    Not done I could try uploading one, but it would quickly get deleted by the anti-fair use brigade. Thankfully the GA criteria do not require images. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would move the team image with her in it to the lead, but as you note it is not a GA requirement. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I think that image looks awful and the article would be better without an image, but Jacklee wants it to stay in the article, so... --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles are not required to have an infobox, but the model articles all do.
    Not done because the article is so short, but if she stays at the top for a few more years, an infobox probably will be added. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numbers ten and under are generally spelled out (though not times) so spell "first" (not "1st"), etc.
    Done I believe the "1st" was part of the event name, but have decided to replace it with "2005". By the way, 11 and 12 (her ages when she lost her ability to walk and started competitive swimming respectively) are greater than ten, but would spelling them out be a good idea? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever you do, I would be consistent - I think if you spell out eleven and twelve throughout it would be fine. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Spelled (or should that be spelt?) out the numbers. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance for her actual birthday and not just the year?
    Not done There was a discussion about this, with a consensus that we should exclude her birthday due to BLP concerns, especially considering that she is a minor and not a public figure. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, presumably when she turns 18 her birthday would be included in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I could ask Jacklee (who is a lawyer) at what age Singaporeans are no longer considered minors (if I remember correctly, it is 21). If she stays at the top for several more years and other reliable sources publish her birthday, we can then consider including it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some places do not give the year(s) at all and probably should, like For three consecutive years, she won the Sportsgirl of the Year Award by the Singapore Disability Sports Council.[2] and After successes in national championships, Yip participated in the 1st Asia Paralympics Swimming Championship, netting two gold medals.[2] Other places give the year information twice, only once is needed, such as The following year, she won three gold medals at the Japan Paralympic Swimming Championships 2007 and four gold medals at the World Wheelchair and Amputee Games 2007.[2] Why not just In 2007 she won three gold medals at the Japan Paralympic Swimming Championships and four gold medals at the World Wheelchair and Amputee Games.[2]?
    Done Great suggestions! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has a lot of red links - not required that they go away for GA, but it looks nicer ;-)
    Noted with suggestion I will keep the red links to Patricia Valle (she won a Paralympic gold medal) and the regional/international championships, which are probably notable (but without articles due to systemic bias). Do you think I should remove the red links to the national sports councils and Project 0812, which may not be notable? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think even a stub helps - I am not an expert on this, but if you are not sure they are notable, then I would not have red link on the topic. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Some redlinks removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would provide context and briefly explain the S catcgories in S5 to the S3 category
    Noted with suggestion How about changing "S3 category for the physically disabled" in the lead to "S3 category (disability class)"? Alternatively, I could change "S3 category for the physically disabled" in the lead, and the instance of "S3 category" you mentioned, to "S3 disability class". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unclear - I would explain here that S3 is more disabled than S5. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added brief explanation in brackets. Though not completely accurate (S11-S13 are for visually impaired athletes), I think it will suffice. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; it was very helpful! Do tell me what you think of my suggestions. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome, keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! I'll keep writing GAs. When my next GA-to-be goes on PR in about three weeks, I will know who to ping. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Here's my two cents.
  • This sparked public debate about the treatment and recognition of disabled athletes in Singapore. in the lead section should probably be tweaked, as the wording (not the act itself) may not seem neutral.
  • Noted I am thinking how I can make that sentence more neutral. Of course, explaining the potential neutrality problem or offering suggestions would really help. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Changed "sparked" to "contributed to" as her achievements were not the only factor; Laurentia Tan won two bronze medals and also played a part. I consulted other editors who found no other neutrality issues in this sentence. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have an article on the S# classes on the severity of the disability? An internal link to that classification scale would be helpful. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such article exists, I'm afraid. The second paragraph of the lead section does link to a section in the Paralympic Games article that explains the disability classes.
  • Infobox - I think it might be better to have the picture be in some kind of modified infobox like the one on Michael Phelps.
  • May consider That image looks terrible. If I were Yip and I saw that photo in that infobox, I would complain to Wikipedia (if she knew how to complain, that is). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage of the words netted and bagged seems awkward in this article
  • I would most likely prefer separating the swimmer's actual swimming career from the public debate section (although separating would bring about a very awkward subsection) since the government's reaction and public debates do not actually involve Yip. I consider this "reactions" to her success, not "she sparked public debate".
  • May consider If she stays at the top for several more years, the article may expand to the point where separating that paragraph would be viable. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does look well sourced. I would like this article translated into Chinese soon. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 08:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! I need to brush up my proficiency in both languages. And thanks for the review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • Is it possible to expand the lead? One fairly large-sized paragraph should suffice.
    Noted Thinking about what other information would belong in the lead. Suggestions are always welcome. I honestly thought four sentences was enough. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done I expanded the lead from four to six sentences. One of the new sentences mentions her early successes in other competitions. The other mentions that she was conferred a state medal - another major claim to notability that should shoo the deletionists away. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yip was born with muscular dystrophy, a genetic disorder that slowly breaks down her muscles, and a nerve condition that affects her eyesight. - Change "her" to "the".
    Done Changed "her muscles" to "the muscles". Should I also change "her eyesight" to "the eyesight"? The sources do not name or elaborate on the nerve condition. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you remove some of the redlinks? The most relevant ones should be kept, but several of them in a relatively small section are rather unsightly.
    May consider You probably mean the second paragraph of the Swimming career section. These appear to be international competitions and would presumably be notable. I wish I knew more about the competitions, so I could start articles about them! If you insist, I can remove all the redlinks for now. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the finals, she bagged the gold medal with a time of 2 minutes 08.09 seconds, bettering her own world record. - "Bettering" → "extending".
    Done though I would appreciate an explanation on why "extending" is a better (pun not intended) word. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • S$1,000,000 for an Olympic gold and S$100,000 for a Paralympic gold. - Needs USD conversions if possible.
    May consider Exchange rates change all the time. Such conversions may quickly become outdated. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We generally give the exchange rate at the time event took place. However, I see no reason why a USD conversion is needed; 1) not all our readers are American, 2) it's not an American subject, 3) I really don't want to be doing extra work on behalf of those who are incapable of working out the exchange themselves, should it interest them. Giggy (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a see also section
    May consider What links could go there? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good otherwise. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Chenzw (talk · contribs)
  • It would be good if there is a table listing the achievements.
    Not done because I know hardly anything about table formatting, a table is not needed for GA status and such a short article probably would not benefit from such a table. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This sparked public debate about the treatment and recognition of disabled athletes in Singapore." Would it be possible to have a reference for that?
    Not done That sentence is in the lead section, which is usually unreferenced. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good article otherwise. Cheers, Chenzw  Talk  06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although your review was not very helpful, thanks for the effort! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hersfold (talk · contribs)
  • The lead could use some more references; much is cited later on in the article, but it's probably best to cite up top as well.
    May consider Need to check the policy on citations in the lead section. I remember they are discouraged, but I could be wrong. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include a little more detail about why debate was started in the lead section; the last sentence appears somewhat awkward without anything to transition into it or support it.
    Noted I will think about how this can be done. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Changed "This" to "Her achievements" to make the sentence flow better. We have discussed this on IRC and Hersfold feels nothing else needs to be done. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a genetic disorder that slowly breaks down her muscles, and a nerve condition that affects her eyesight" - You should probably remove the possessive pronouns, as both would affect the same in other patients as well. I mentioned this to you in IRC, but a name for the nerve disorder would be helpful as well if you can find a source for it.
    Clarification needed I changed "her muscles" to "the muscles" as suggested above by Juliancolton, but what about "her eyesight"? Should it be changed to "the eyesight" or simply "eyesight"? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably just "eyesight." Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Thanks for the clarification! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(categories with lower numbers are for more severely disabled athletes)" - would this perhaps read better as "(lower numbers indicate more severe disabilities)"? It's a little less wordy and has a less familiar tone to it, I think.
    Done Excellent suggestion! Your wording is much more concise. Though I am not sure why we want a "less familiar tone". NPOV does not mean making articles a bore to read, does it? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Words like "took home," "netting," and "bagged" definitely need to go... consider replacing with "earned," "received," "was awarded," "merited," "obtained," etc. It's ok to repeat words, but not consecutively and no more than once.
    Done See my comments to Juliancolton regarding this issue. Unlike him, you suggested alternative words - --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who awarded her the Pingat Jasa Gemilang?
    Done Clarified that the Pingat Jasa Gemilang is a state medal. As a state medal, it is obviously awarded by the state; in this case, Singapore. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: Like, who actually handed it to her or said "she can have this?" Was it an act of Parliament/Congress/whatever, a decree of the President/Prime Minister/whoever, or does a committee decide? Sorry about that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done According to the source, state medals are conferred by the President. Added a mention of that in the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to crop & enlarge the team image to show only her? I agree that it's not a great image, but it's better than nothing, IMO.
    Not done If only she was facing the camera! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good article! Well done. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your review was very helpful. Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in spaceflight[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 some suggestions on how to improve it, and others like it. I would be particularly interested in:

  • Ideas for what to put in the lead of the article
  • Comments on the general appearance, layout and content of the article
  • Suggestions for content that could be added to the article
  • Any way that images could be added to the article

Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 in spaceflight/archive1.

List of Talyllyn Railway rolling stock[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 been working on this list, on-and-off, for some time, and I feel it is about as good as I can get it by myself. I believe it meets the criteria for WP:FL, but would welcome an independent and experienced editor to check through and make any approriate comments.

Thanks,  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one external link? Other than that, upon cursory examination, it looks great. Thank you for your diligent contribution. Out of curiosity, which academic library is nearest to you? 69.228.196.41 (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Narrow Gauge Railway Museum, though long lists of external links are undesirable (see WP:EXTERNAL). See also the parent article to this list, Talyllyn Railway, which is already a Featured Article, and only has the one external link at present (though adding NGRM to that is a goos idea now I think of it). The books don't come from a library - I own them myself. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by User:Darth Panda Following WP:WIAFL.

  • Prose.
  • I would refrain from using too many abbreviations like "loco".
  • Many of the descriptions of the locomotives and carriages are done in incomplete sentences.
  • Check your punctuation. Several sentences could use a comma or two.
  • Lead.
  • No issues.
  • Comprehensiveness.
  • Even though the Narrow Gauge Railway Museum rolling stock section links to a "main article," it should still have a blurb.
  • I have no clue what "Liveries" are... Might you want to wikilink it?
  • Structure.
  • No issues.
  • Style.
  • The book references should use {{cite book}} instead of just being open and close <ref> tags. This way, the bibliography and the references section can be combined.
  • Visual Appeal.
  • The rows without images look quite awkward... I would almost argue that there are too many photos, but someone else would need to confirm this with me as I don't know what WP:MOS policy on images in lists is.
  • Stability.
  • No issues.

Cheers, and best of luck! DARTH PANDAduel 01:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - I like the photos and would not remove them. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any tips on how to make the rows more even then? DARTH PANDAduel 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updates to Darth Panda's comments
  • I've expanded loco to locomotive throughout, and also tried to standardise on No./number (No. before a digit, number elsewhere).
  • Punctuation and expanding notes to full sentences is still work in progress - bear with me.
  • Blurb provided for Narrow Gauge Railway Museum
  • Livery is now wikilinked.
  • The book references are done the same way as the parent article, Talyllyn Railway. I'd prefer to keep these the same, as it is in keeping with Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations.
  • I've made rows without images a minimum height, to match those of most photographs.

I'll make further updates in due course, but I hope you'll accept what I've done so far. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity[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 an article of high importance. Failed its good article review and wondering what more work need to be done to get it their.

Thanks, Doc James (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you gone through the items at Talk:Obesity/GA1#Yet to fix? 69.228.196.41 (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone through much of it. Some is very difficult to address as a research base does not exist in many areas. --Doc James (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Every peer review gets a response, although you have not had the courtesy to respond to the above question or my question on your talk page. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • DoneThe GA review is very detailed and a quick spot check shows things in it still have not been addressed - just one example what does the "ob" added to the word mean in Latin?
  • DoneThe lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the article may need fewer sections / headers too. Please see WP:LEAD
  • DoneCaptions use full stops (periods} even when they are not complete sentences.
  • DoneLanguage could be cleaned up, again as one example from a caption: Some U.S. Kaiser Permanente facilities provide oversize chairs such as this one at Richmond Medical Center for obese patients. reads as if the Richmond Medical Center is (just) for obese patients, when I am pretty sure the oversize chair is meant, so perhaps change this to something like Some U.S. Kaiser Permanente facilities provide oversize chairs for obese patients, such as this one at Richmond Medical Center.
  • DoneArticle uses lots of bullet points / lists / tables that should be converted to text in most cases.
Created its own page for the table on morbidity.
  • DoneArticle has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve flow.
  • DoneArticle focuses on US a lot or does not make it clear when stats are US only, include other parts of the world / make source of stats clearer to avoid POV
  • DoneMOS says to provide both metric and English units

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks --Doc James (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome - sorry I was a bit snarky above, I was in a bit of a rush. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerously in Love[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 planning to pass it to FAC probably before the year ends. The article has been peer reviewed once, but generated only a little feedback, though it had helped a lot. More comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty good to me. I havn't done much FA stuff, but I think it should pass. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on the lead
    • "Other than Knowles' musical roots, the album explores hip hop and Arabic influences, courtesy of her record producers and featured guests." This is oddly worded. At this point, those unfamiliar with Knowles will not be helped by the phrase "Knowles' musical roots". Roots in what? "Courtesy of" is vague and not the best word choice here. Having an album "explore" is a bit odd too. Perhaps a better wording might be "The album blends Knowles' musical roots in ____ with hip hop and Arabic influences."
      • Tried to revise. --Efe (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the album polarized the reaction of critics" "polarized critics" reads more natural to me than "polarized the reaction of critics"
    • "Its lyrical contents dominantly portray love" What does "dominantly portray" mean?
    • "then-former group" Not sure what this means.
    • "the album has facilitated Knowles in becoming a viable solo star, as well as one of the most marketable singers, signing to" The scope of "the most" is unclear here. If of the band, then "its most" is clearer. Otherwise, "a viable and marketable solo star" is fine. "Signing to" is a misplaced modifier.
    • "accolades, as well as favorable criticism" Accolades == favorable criticism, no?
    • "worldwide, to date" No comma needed. "to date" will become dated. State a specific date (e.g. "As of December 2008, Dangerously in Love..."). BuddingJournalist 16:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All have been addressed. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Castle[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've done a fair bit of work on this recently. The lead is still too short, and there are a couple of fact tags, but I'm looking for any other suggestions for improvement. Many thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on:

  • History
    • has long been problematic, and disastrous under siege conditions. This implies "always disastrous under siege conditions" - is that true?
    • Andrew of Wyntoun ref has some odd template in it. I don't know what "byggyd" means.
    • " potentially making Castle Rock the longest continually occupied site in Scotland" - that's a pretty big claim that needs more than just one ref. You might wish to refer to other candidates in a footnote e.g. Dumbarton Rock, Kilmartin Glen.
    • " However, the excavations suggested that there was probably an enclosed hill fort on the rock, although only the fringes of the site were excavated" A little unclear - you may mean something like "However, the more recent excavations of Castle Rock suggest…"
    • "Given that the southern part of the Upper Ward (where Crown Square is now sited) was not amenable to being built upon" - I am the last person you might expect to complain about anthropomorphic suggestions of this kind, but I think you may mean "not suitable" rather than "not amenable"
    • "curtain wall" might link to something.
    • "The first known purchae of a gun was in 1384, and the "great bombard" Mons Meg arrived in 1457." There is a typo and the sentence reads oddly. "followed" rather than "arrived"?
    • "Mary's mother, Mary of Guise, based herself at Edinburgh Castle, acting as regent from 1554 to 1560, when she died at the Castle". Sounds like she died over a six year period… "until 1560 when she died at the Castle"?
    • The following year, Mary, Queen of Scots, returned from France to begin her reign. Possibly better as " The following year her daughter Mary returned from France to begin her reign." Avoids repetition of "Mary QoS". This sentence might also be better as the beginning of the next para.
    • "quarrels between the powerful Scottish nobility" - "amongst' rather than "between"
    • " Following the murder of Darnley" seems a bit abrupt as we only just got to know him. Something like " Following the assassination of Darnley at Kirk o' Field in 1567"?
    • "On 19 March, Viscount Dundee climbed up the Castle Rock to confer with Gordon, prior to launching his own rebellion in favour of James." Seems a little out of context, (did Gordon do anything for him?) and/or that " Gordon refused to fire upon the town" as a result. Ben MacDui 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description
    • Middle Ward runs out of citations and National War Museum of Scotland has none. Ditto Royal Palace, The Crown Room. Several sections have last sentences with no citation - some of which may be OK, but it looks odd.
    • "The north storehouse now houses" - too many houses.
    • "The origin of this name is unknown, although it may relate to the dense sea-fog, known as haar, which commonly affects Edinburgh" Citation or no this sounds like an absurd piece of speculation to me.
    • "when te present roof was built" typo
    • Mons Meg section suddenly starts using imperial / metric cf vice-versa
    • "was constructed as part of the reconstruction works" too many constructs
    • " The walls of these sections are pitted with holes, where chunks of stone removed to provide nesting places for pigeons, for consumption during the winter months." Missing word - "were"?
    • Hippolyte Blanc is linked twice
  • Present use
    • Arguably the first sentence in Tourist attraction is over-long. It lacks a comma after Government
    • "paid vistor attraction" - typo
    • "Historic Scotland maintain a number of attractions" two attractions in successive sentences
    • "There are also a number" - I suspect this should be "There is"
    • I think "pibroch" is Scottish English as well as Gaelic and doesn't need italics
    • "The gun could be easily heard" suggest "The gun could easily be heard", but not sure why.
    • 2 miles (3.2 km) - see above
    • " maps were produced" - but not any more? I'm curious to know when.
    • " exhibition about the Gun" not sure about the capital G.
    • I am currently philatelo-phobic as large numbers of edits about bogus stamps have recently appeared on some of my favourite islands. Can we say Royal Mail postage stamps? Well of course we can, but feel free to ignore.

I haven't checked the refs, notes or images. Feel free to badger me if need be on this front. Very thorough work btw, and it reads well. I probably won't watch the article for long, so give me a shout if you go for FA (and I think you should). Ben MacDui 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Dennie[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 think it may be close to GA or even FA quality, but am unfamiliar with those processes, and don't know which I should aim for. I created this article from a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies (I wasn't familiar with the subject), and I'm pleasantly surprised with how it's turned out.

Thanks, faithless (speak) 07:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

This is in general a well-written article. I have a few prose and other comments which I will list at the end of the review. My chief impression, however, is that the article is too brief, that important and interesting information has been either omitted or passed over quickly. The following are examples of areas where I would expect to see more detail:-

  • Why was he suspended from Harvard?
  • The three years 1790 to 1793 are something of a lacuna; all we have is that he "had difficulty finding suitable work".
  • "...appointed a reader for the Episcopal church..." yet we hear nothing further about this aspect of his life.
  • "...he rarely appeared in open court". Was this because he had so few clients? If so, how was he making a living - was he doing other things?
  • "His writing being enthusiastically received..." This is the first we hear of his writing - when did he start, and what was he writing about? Who was receiving it enthusiatically?
  • "...was persuaded to start a literary journal". Who persuaded him?
  • It would be interesting, also, to have an explanation/comment on the somewhat incongruous title The Farmers Weekly Museum for a literary journal (it doesn't seem to make sense even for an agricutural journal!)
  • "Once in Philadelphia..." - need to establish why he was there.
  • Do we have dates for his trial and acquittal?
  • Surely, there must be some details of his trial available, e.g. the arguments and reasoning that led to his acquittal? This would make a most interesting section for the article.
  • Another lacuna: what was Dennie doing during the last years of his life? The libel charge was 1803, the trial presumably soon afterwards. He died in 1812; that's a few years to fill.

To summarise, the writing itself is generally above GA standard, and I have seen worse at FAC. But the article is in my view too thin at the moment and needs expanding along the lines indicated. I have, too, a few general comments on the prose:-

  • Early Life & career section:
    • Third sentence needs to begin "In 1767 Dennie was admitted..." (it's not clear who is meant by "he")
  • Publishing career
    • "...to begin work on what would become The Lay Preacher, the first of which appeared in The Farmer's Weekly Museum" The phrase "what would become" is a bit confusing and could I think be dropped. I also think it should continue "the first instalment of which..."
    • "In the second paragraph: "Under Dennie's leadership..." rather than "his leadership"
    • You should identify Timothy Pickering, rather than requiring raders to use the link to find out who he was.
    • The pseudonym Oliver Oldschool should not be bolded (see WP:BOLD for uses of bolded characters)
    • (final paragraph): "It must be noted..." is editorialising, and needs to be rephrased.

I hope you find these comments helpful and that they give you some indications as to the article's future development. Brianboulton (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and words of encouragement, Brian. I actually made one of the corrections you suggested (Third sentence needs to begin "In 1767 Dennie was admitted..." (it's not clear who is meant by "he")) before your review was posted. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of material available on Dennie, so some details are a bit hazy (like many Federalists, he was largely forgotten after the collapse of the Federalist party). While the article is pretty short, he died at an early age, so there's only so much to cover. I originally thought GA might be the highest the article could get, but when I saw Elizabeth Needham on the Main Page, I thought maybe this one had a shot. I share most of your concerns, and will address those which I'm able to. Here are my point-by-point responses:
  • His suspension from Harvard is one of those hazy details - I'll do a bit more research and see if I can pin down the reason, though it seems that it wasn't any single infraction, but rather a general disrespect shown to his professors. I'll see what I can do.
  • I'm not sure what could be done to expound upon his religious life. He briefly flirted with joining the clergy, but decided against it. While he often wrote on religion, his actual career in the church was very short-lived.
  • This could probably be expanded. It seems that he didn't make many appearances in court for two reasons: it wasn't his specialty as an attorney (he wasn't a litigator) and public speaking was not something at which he excelled.
  • This could be expanded.
  • This, too, could be expanded.
  • I agree with you about the paper's name; I have rough plans to write articles for at least The Farmer's Weekly Museum and Port Folio, which would address this concern.
  • I guess I made the assumption that readers would know that Philadelphia was the capital of the country at the time - this obviously needs to be corrected.
  • I could probably expound upon the trial a bit.
  • He was at Port Folio, I believe until 1808. After that there aren't many details about what he got up to. He continued contributing pieces to various papers, no doubt, but he doesn't seem to have held any positions. From what I gather, a combination of ill health and financial independence made holding a job unnecessary for him. I hate putting in any information without a specific source, so I'll do a bit more reading and see if I can come up with some specifics.
I'll make the corrections to the prose you suggest presently. Again, thanks for your review! faithless (speak) 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oba Chandler[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 think this article is on the verge of becoming a good article and a future Featured article it just needs that last push. I would like for it get an overall review in search of improvements and I would also like those who want to,to contribute with fixing the sources and perhaps find better sources for some parts of the article. So that we soon can get this article up for featured article nomination again. Thanks, --Judo112 (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{ Comments from Brianboulton

This article needs very considerable attention. Sadly, it is not on the verge of becoming a good article, and has no chance of getting promoted unless some very basic things are done.

  • First, the article needs to be structured properly. At the moment there are far too many very short sections (some of just a single sentence). A rational restructuring would organise the main text after the lead into perhaps four sections, as follows:-
    • Background, comprising the sections presently entitled "Facts leading up to the crime", "Speculation about the crime itself" and "The discovery of the bodies".
    • Investigation, consisting of the sections presently called "Subsequent investigation", "Facts that lead (led?) to Chandler" and "Witnesses for the prosecution"
    • Trial, consisting of "Chandler's testimony" and "Verdict and sentencing"
    • Media coverage: this section will need attention, but for the moment can stand on its own.
  • The bullet-point list headed "Features and background" should disappear, with the facts it lists being absorbed into the appropriate main sections, mainly "Background" and "Investigation".
  • I have not looked at this stage at the quality of the sources, but every single in-line citation needs to be properly formatted. Go to WP:citation templates to learn the correct format; it is the "cite web" template you need. If you can't work out from that what you need to do, look at other articles and see how they do it.
  • You probably need to familiarise yourself more with the Manual of Style WP:MOS, to improve your grasp of general presentation issues.

Until the above matters are attended to, I don't see much point in commenting on the prose, but if you're prepared to tackle the above I'll be happy to look at the prose and perhaps suggests ways of improving it.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Burge[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 up the quality scale. I think I need some organizational advice.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LinguistAtLarge[edit]

I'm no expert, but here is my opinion:

  1. It is unclear to me why there are 3 infoboxes in the article with 3 different variations on the name Jon Burge
    1. Which box would you like to see in the lead (military or police). I could eliminate/merge the first one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      1. At Template talk:Infobox Person we are working on a template change which should help to merge multiple templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would like to see the lead be shorter-- maybe 1/2 to 1/3 as long as it is now.
    1. I felt comfortable chopping about 15%.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It would be nice if a GFDL-compatible photo could be procured to add to the article.
    1. There was nothing to be found from common sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'd like to see the Arrest section expanded with more details.
    1. It is fairly complete now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The photos of the Governer and Mayor seem distracting to me, but that's a personal opinion, get more input on that before removing them.
    1. In the GA review these pictures were considered better than none at all.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I would change the first sentence, since he is retired and so no longer a police commander:

Change this:

Chicago Police Commander Jon Graham Burge (born December 20, 1947) is a decorated United States Army veteran and a former Chicago Police Department detective ...

To this:

Jon Graham Burge (born December 20, 1947) is a decorated United States Army veteran and a former Chicago Police Department detective and commander ...
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 LinguistAtLarge  23:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National University of Sciences and Technology[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am working on this article to make it FA class and I will appreciate all reviews and comments to improve the article. Thanks, Marsa Lahminal (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but a long way from FA. I have several suggestions for improvement.

  • The #1 problem is the relative lack of sourcing. The existing article has cited sources in a few places, but entire sections in the existing article cite no sources. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, each direct quote, each set of statistics, and each statement that makes a claim that might reasonably be questioned. Some paragraphs might need only one source, but others might need several.
  • The 15 sources in the reference section give only an url. If possible, the citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. The cite family of templates makes the footnoting task easier by providing forms that can be copied and pasted into the text in edit mode and then filled in with the appropriate data. See WP:CITE for a general explanation and WP:CIT to see the templates.
  • It's often a good idea to look at models to imitate. Since you are thinking about FA, you might look at the FA articles about universities to see what other editors have done. You'll find them at WP:FA#Education.
  • Straight prose is generally preferable to long embedded lists in Wikipedia articles. The existing article has several lists. A short one like "Quality Networks/Associations" could easily be turned into a single prose paragraph. The long list of universities with which NUST has collaborations could probably be reduced to a sentence saying something like "... engineering schools such as the ones at Stanford University in the United States, Cranfield University in the United Kingdom... ", and a companion sentence giving examples of medical schools. The long list of courses offered might work better as a short companion article that could be linked to from the main article. If you look at Duke University, which is FA, you will see a link to Degree programs at Duke University, which gives what appears to be the complete list. This is another way to solve the list problem.
  • Image:CEME.jpg looks fine to me, but I see problems with most of the other images. The .jpg file type is the one preferred for photos, but Image:Military College of Engineering.gif is a wrong file type. If you have a .jpg of this image, it would be better to use it. Image:PNEC.jpg is licensed for release into the public domain by someone other than the original copyright holder, but the original license has restrictions on derivatives and commercial use (Noncommercial-No Derivative Works). That means it can't be placed by someone else into the public domain and can't be used on Wikipedia as a free image. The five non-free logos in the article may also cause problems; you can probably justify using one, but are the others really necessary to an understanding of the article? More images would be good, and if you lose the NC and four logos and fix the .gif, you'll be down to three images. If you can take more photos, license them yourself, upload and add them, that would be good.
 Done
  • Many small things in the article violate the recommendations in the Manual of Style. For example "1st April, 1957" should be "1 April 1957". A copyeditor familiar with Wikipedia style could no doubt find and fix most of these small problems.

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the WP:PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Igbo people[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 already been passed for Good article status, so I wanted to try and see if Featured status could be achieved. Even if it does not achieve featured status, it will be nice to get opinions from others to see how the article could be improved. Also say if all the images in the article have appropriate licensing, and indicate if any should be removed.

Thanks, Ukabia (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number-one albums of 1999 (U.S.)[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 have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature list status. Thank you

Thanks, Frcm1988 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

Not a lot to say, really, The main points about these lists are that they should be (a) accurate, which I assume this is, and (b) clearly introduced, which this more or less is. So I have just a few prose quibbles.

  • "This data is..." As "data" is a Latin plural, the correct form is: "These data are..." If you think this sounds a bit pedantic, you could change it to: "This information is..." Done
  • "Universe" in the statistical sense of a population from which a sample is taken will not be widely understood, so it might be better to use a term lke "database" Done
  • "Twenty-three" could be written as "23" Done
  • Clarify the different uses of "debut". In relation to DMX, "debuted" seems to refer to a song's first appearance in the chart. But the reference to Britney Spears' debut album seems to mean the artist's first appearance. Done
  • "...and was certified diamond" sounds a bit jargony. "Certified as diamond", with the link, should do. Done
  • "and went on to win..." could be simplified to "and won..." Done

Slim pickings, for sure, but I can't see anything else. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Efe comments

  • I suggest you write number figures 1-9 into words per MoS. --Efe (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Santana's Supernatural is 1999's longest-running album. --Efe (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Burdick[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's pretty close to GA status and I always like to get another pair of eyes on an article before nominating it.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianbouton comments:

  • General point: when refering to the episode title, rather than the character, italics should be used, as in Steve Burdick
  • Scheduling controversy
    • It would be helpful to have a date for when the decision to pull the episode was announced
    • A year should be given for the date December 2
    • Tenses are wrong: since we're talking about 1990, "which has been designated" should be "which was designated"
    • some clumsy wording in the last sentence of the section. Suggest rewording: "Early in December NBC changed Lifestories from a weekly to a monthly format, and on December 5 confirmed..." etc
  • Reception
    • Section needs an opening sentence along the lines: "Steve Burdick was broadcast on its rescheduled date of December 18" - or something similar.
    • Tenses are again inconsistent in this section. At the beginning you have "...was well received", and ths Seattle Times "described the episode". Later on you have "Moffat's performance is singled out" and "as is Richard Gollance's script". There are other lapses in the section. Tense usage must be consistent, and in this case I think the past tense should be used uniformly.
    • I found this: "...citing the episode of one of the most memorable of one of the season's most daring new series". Can you sort this out into something more coherent?

I hope these comments help. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My understanding is that titles of individual television episodes are set off in quotes rather than italicized, while television series are in italics. Thus, "Steve Burdick" is an episode of Lifestories rather than Steve Burdick is an episode of Lifestories. Re: most memorable etc., the source calls the series "one of the 1990-91 season's most daring programs" and says the episode "may well turn out to be the most memorable" episode. Do you have any suggestions for how to incorporate that into the article in a way you think is more coherent? Re: "has been" vs "was", December dontinues to be World AIDS Month and saying "was" implies that the designation was a temporary or one-time thing. Otto4711 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Matthews[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 improve the article as much as possible so that for the time being it can be listed as a good article, with the ultimate target of FA standard. All comments made will be much appreciated.

Thanks, Eddie6705 (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, refer to those articles on how the prose should look like for this article if you want to nominate it for GA. WP:PROSE explains what a prose is, which literally refers to the wording. OOU means "Out-Of-Universe," which is the view from which this article should be written. So use the above articles as suggestions on how to reword and write a quality article.--Truco 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Nikki
  • First, I'd take care of the cleanup tag at the top of the article by adding additional reliable sources. Books would be best.
  • There especially needs to be some non-WWE sources.
  • WP:JARGON: wrestling terms like "heel", "face", or "turn" need to be substituted for words a non-fan would understand like "hero" or "villain"
  • More personal information would be essential to achieve a FA.
  • There are too many headers.
  • WP:LEAD: the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not list every championship he has held.
  • I've added some fact tags where the information is a quote, stat, or possibly controversial.
    • Have added references to all fact tags. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of week-by-week detail that needs to be removed, especially in the later years.

I crossed off a few that I fixed (at least to a degree) while I was copyediting just now. Nikki♥311 01:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hershey Creamery Company[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 get feedback on any areas of weakness it may have, and on what else it might need before I send it up for a GA nomination.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think it needs some cleanup work before it is ready for GA.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, but does not make it clear this is a Pennsylvania company from the USA. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the Products and Other legal issues sections seem under-represented in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • History is not in chronological order - goes from 1920s to 1960s then back to the Great Depression.
  • The geography is a bit muddled, especially for those unclear about Pennsylvania. Reading the articke, I learn that the company started in Lancaster County in 1894, was taken over by a dairy from Bethlehem, in Lehigh and Northampton Counties, then opened a plant in Harrisburg in Dauphin County, followed by a second plant in Lower Swatara Township also in Dauphin County. Then we get Hershey Creamery has been involved in multiple lawsuits with the similarly named Hershey Company, which was founded at the same time and in the same city by Milton S. Hershey—no relation to the founding Hershey brothers.[5] But looking at Hershey Company, that company was founded in 1903 in what became Hershey - which is not a city at all, but a census-designated place in Derry Township, Dauphin County. It is not clear from this article that the dairy has any facilities in Hershey PA now.
  • Article needs a copyedit for typos and errors - the infobox says the company was founded in 1984 (not 1894) and there are many places where words are missing or sentences are unclear or links are wrong. For example As the company grew, it split its operations, with its ice cream mixed at its original Harrisburg plant, while its shipped to a second facility in Lower Swatara Township for hardening and packaging. What does "while its shipped to a second facility" mean? Would it read better as "which is then shipped to a second facility"? Plus the link to hardening is for a computer term. I would print this out and read it out loud slowly to find these kind of rough spots.
  • Article seems to contradict itself in a few places - infobox says its revenue was about $45 million in 2007, but the lead and article only mention 2001 "sales of $91.4 million" - a drop of over 50% in 6 years seems odd -can this be explained?
  • Another apparent contradiction Hershey Creamery is a family owned business ... but later Hershey Creamery Company is a publicly traded company. If most of the shares are owned by the Holder family, then this needs to be made clearer.
  • Article leaves some things incomplete, for example why not quote the disclaimer after After three years in court, the two companies again settled, with Hershey's Creamery agreeing to put a disclaimer on all of its ice cream products.[9]? Or what was the outcome of the 1944 Office of Price Administration lawsuit?
  • Any chance for some photos of their plants?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DOH on the infobox. Flipped those numbers while typing. For Hershey Creamery vs Hershey Company, the Hershey Company article also states it was founded in 1894, on February 9, 1894 actually. It didn't build its plant until 1903 in what would be Hershey, PA. I haven't found out the resolution of the 1944 suit yet. Will work on fixing the rest after work. I've been trying to find some GFDL images for the company, at least for the central location or something, but so far I haven't found any. Know anyone in PA? :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is well done and should pass GA easily once it is cleaned up a bit. I checked Flickr and found nothing. I do not get to Dauphin County very often or I would try to get a picture. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll make the other corrections today. I posted a note over at the Pennsylvania project to see if anyone there might be able to go take a picture. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I addressed the confusion issues and most everything else except tweaking the lead, doing a CE, and finding the resolution of that lawsuit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Copa Libertadores winners[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 feedback on how to improve the list. Thanks in advance for your comments, NapHit (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a small typo ("Uraguayan") in the last sentence of the second paragraph.
  • Wasn't the plain triband the flag of Argentina until 1985 and as such, for historical accuracy, be the one we should use?
  • There is an inconsistency as Estudiantes de La Plata is referred to throughout the Finals section as «Estudiantes L.P.» but only as «Estudiantes» in the Results by teams table. Also, Estádio do Maracanã is referred to as both «Estádio do Maracanã» (vide 1981) and just «Maracanã» (vide 1998 and 2008).
  • I notice an effort to avoid overlinking has been made, but still many teams and stadiums (and even cities and nations in the location column) are linked more than once. Don't know to what extent this might be deliberate or desirable.

This was what I could find to complain about, on an otherwise good article. Kaizeler (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral[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 spent quite a bit of time cleaning up this article and I'd like to get it to featured article status. I would like a few more pairs of eyes to take a look and give me opinions in specific things such as the prose, are there any glaring omissions, check the copy etc.

Thanks,  LinguistAtLarge  23:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. I've gone over the previous peer review and implemented everything mentioned there. Thanks!  LinguistAtLarge  23:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please create all red links immediately. Very distracting.
  • Why are external links not present.
  • I haven't found any relevant, external links that meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. When some are found, I have no problem with an external links section.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Lead, (Spanish: Catedral Metropolitana). Here, Spanish need not be italicized. Italics should be minimized as far as possible.
  • LEAD, 1st para, last line..Countries like Spain need not be wikilinked. They are very popular. Check throughout the article for such common word linking
  • I think it is beneficial to link the first instance of things like this, because they are very important to the article. As a reader, it's easier to click the link than type "spain" into the search box.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, I have removed the link while reworking the lead.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is situated on the northern side of Mexico City's Zócalo atop the former Aztec sacred precinct and temple to Huitzilopochtli
    • Can you provide some context for Zócalo like is it a suburb, hill, neighbourhood etc..KensplanetTC 05:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tried to give some more context to this-- the Zócalo is the central plaza in downtown Mexico City.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second Paragraph, I find a lot of Numbers. Can you reduce some and mention the most significant ones. KensplanetTC 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look into these references. The first one is Encarta, Microsoft's encyclopedia software, not just MSN. I'll have to see if there is an updated link to the article. The second one may not be a reliable source. I'll look at it. I didn't add that reference, but I do think all the info there checks out.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  23:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Mandela[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 believe it is a good candidate for FA status, it has been copy-edited several times and there is adequate sources to the article.

Thanks, EclipseSSD (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only two (very minor) things caught my attention:
    • Is it appropriate to have material on Mandela's ancestry in the "early life" section? Most of these events happened before he was born.
    • I did some copyediting on the reference tags. Many had spaces between punctuation and the tag, or between two tags, which is frowned upon in the style guidelines.
  • As I say, these are the minorest of quibbles. It's a very fine article. Reyk YO! 06:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this article now ready to FA status?--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a few comments about 2 years ago (see Talk:Nelson Mandela/Archive 4#More_areas_for_improvement). I think they still apply:

  • There is too little information about Mandela's political activities up to his arrest, e.g. his role in the ANC Youth League and his rise within the ANC.
  • The description of 1952-1959 seems to be aiming to make a point from a PAC / Africanist perpective about how irrelevant the ANC was becoming and how it was led by whites. Even if this is neutrally presented, it needs to show some relevance to Mandela's life, as this article is not a history of the ANC.
  • The section on his autobiography is patchy. Far too much about James Gregory.
  • The Blood Diamonds discussion is out of proportion.
  • Under "Acclaim", perhaps too much emphasis on Canada.

Zaian (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ring (mathematics)[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 have put a lot of effort into improving it for the past 4 days or so (some 500 edits!). My main motivation was that ring (mathematics) is such an important concept in mathematics and should be as good as group (mathematics) (I compared the two articles and tried to get one to the standard of the other). I firmly believe that this article can become a good article once enough citations are added and some sections (particularly the section on the history of ring theory) is improved. I would greatly appreciate comments (and more importantly input) in the following areas:

  • First and foremost, the last section of the talk page of the article, gives some areas for improvements. I would appreciate if people could improve the article along those lines.
  • I would also appreciate it if people could add some citations to the article. Since I don't have access to a library in the near future, I would appreciate it if people could find some good texts on the subject and cite facts in the article using those texts. Citations are probably the most important at this point in time.
  • The history section needs to be completely re-written and well cited. I am not an expert on history so I would greatly appreciate it if people who are experts could improve this section.
  • A nice visual image at the top of the article would be greatly appreciated. The current image can then be moved to the bottom.
  • Any comments regarding how this article can get to GA would also be appreciated. I have read the policy regarding "Wikipedia is not a textbook" and have corrected the "we"'s (I am used to writing "we" but I will try not to on Wikipedia). I know that some sections may need contracting so if you could mention any such sections I would be grateful.

Thanks, Point-set topologist (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of Mumbai[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
If you are willing to review this article and want a review of your article, then please inform me. I'll surely review it.

I've listed this article for peer review because this article has recently been listed as a GA. Efforts in improving prose and content will be appreciated. References are all reliable.

Thanks, KensplanetTC 09:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Em dashes (—) should not have spaces around them.
  • Proofreading the whole article again would be good, to avoid things like "Geologists believe that the coast of western India came into being". ("the" is missing). "on July 1669" (should be "in July 1669").
  • Consider making all thumbnails smaller, and making them the same size. Allow all horizontal thumbnails to be the default size (don't specify a width), and for all vertical thumbnails, add the "upright" parameter to the image tag, and they will be narrower than the horizontal ones. After doing that, I might see if the caption text can be shortened so as to not overwhelm the thumbnails.
  • The "21st Centurty" heading is offset by the presence of a left-aligned thumbnail directly above it. I would avoid that if possible.
    • The "21st Centurty" heading has been removed. KensplanetTC 06:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the title of the article "History of Mumbai" is descriptive and not a proper noun, I would change the first sentence of the article to remove boldface History of Mumbai in it. See MOS:BEGIN I'd start by defining Mumbai, just like the beginning of the Mumbai article. Some thing like: (For comparison, look up a bunch of other "History of ___" articles, such as History of the United States, History of New York, History of London, History of Berlin, History of education, History of tennis)

(Current version)
The History of Mumbai recounts the growth of Mumbai from a collection of seven islands on the western coast of India becoming the commercial capital of the nation and one of the most populous cities in the world. Although human habitation existed during...

(My version)
Mumbai is the financial capital of India and one of the most populous cities in the world, and consists of seven islands on the western coast of India. Although human habitation existed during...

  • Excellent suggestion. I have implemented it. KensplanetTC 06:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a mixture of date formats (19 June 1966 and February 17, 1803). Choose one or the other and stay consistent within the article.
    • We are following the dd mm yy format and not mm dd, yy. We'll fix it soon. KensplanetTC 06:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sections of the article are "Post-independence and modern period (1948 - 2000)" and "21st century". I do not see the need to separate these into two sections, and I find the division at the year 2000 to be artificial. I would join these into one section called either "Modern period" or "Post-independence period".
    • Merged into a single section Modern period (1948+). Any suggestions on the Title. KensplanetTC 06:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might alphabetize the see also section.

 LinguistAtLarge  22:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a quick point - seems to be overlinked at bit. I realise that in a history overview there will be quite a lot of wikilinks, but many of the place names (for instance) are repeatedly linked throughout the article (sometimes twice in the same paragraph). Cutting back links will improve readability and appearance. sassf (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for checking. We'll fix it. You are right that there are a lot of wikilinks. Want me to review anything. Tell me. KensplanetTC

I'm unwilling to get my hands dirty as the markup is intimidating with all the cite. I'll review section by section, first scanning for fallacies. I'll leave the lead for the last. This is my initial review.

  1. Bombay Castle and the fort walls are not the same. Bombay Castle was never expanded.
    Sorry, didn't get it.
  2. Mecca is not a port
    Changed Port to cities.
  3. Bombay Courier needs to be in italics
    Done
  4. Link Bhor Ghat, Mendham's Point, Town Hall (Asiatic Society)
    As far as red links are concerned, I have finished creating relevant articles till Portuguese Period section. British period and the rest will be done soon. Linked Town Hall with Asiatic Society of Bombay
  5. The Cotton Exchange was established in Cotton Green, --> the Cotton Green was at Colaba at that time. No need to link to the present location
    Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Citations are creating a problem while editing, you can try User:Kensplanet/History of Mumbai which has only text. You can copy it in your sandbox. Make all the changes. Tell me when it's done. We'll make the changes in the main article then. KensplanetTC 16:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the "Portuguese period" section is now being pushed to the right due to a left-aligned image right above it. If this could be avoided, that would be a good thing. Perhaps the preceeding section can be expanded a bit, or the picture moved up or made smaller.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We'll surely tackle that later. Now we must more concentrate on Prose and context KensplanetTC 14:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dineshkannambadi
  • Lead 1st para (see how this reads) and make any necessary changes:

Mumbai (formerly Bombay) consists of seven islands on the western coast of India. It is the financial capital of India and one of the most populous cities in the world. Although human habitation existed during the Stone Age, the Kolis, a fishing community, are the earliest known settlers on the islands. The Maurya Empire gained control of the region during the third century BCE and transformed it into a centre of Hinduism and Buddhism. Later, between the 2nd century BCE and 9th century CE, the islands came under the control of successive dynasties: Satavahanas, Abhiras, Vakatakas, Kalachuris, Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas and the Silhara dynasty (810–1260). Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestions. The Modified Prose. Mumbai (formerly Bombay) originally consisted of seven islands on the western coast of India. It is the financial capital of India and one of the most populous cities in the world. Although human habitation existed during the Stone Age, the Kolis, a fishing community, were the earliest known settlers of the islands. The Maurya Empire gained control of the islands during the third century BCE, and transformed it into a centre for Hindu and Buddhist culture and religion. Later, between the 2nd century BCE and 9th century CE, the islands came under the control of successive dynasties: Satavahanas, Abhiras, Vakatakas, Kalachuris, Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas, before being ruled by the Silhara dynasty from 810 to 1260.

  • :Ancient period: This is inaccurate.The Kalachuris of Central India ruled the islands during the fifth century, which were then acquired by the Mauryas in the sixth and early part of the seventh century.[7] The Mauryas were feudatories of Kalachuris,[7]. The entire Maharashtra came under Pulakeshi II by 634 CE (from the famous Aihole inscription of 634 CE and the writings of Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsiang—Chopra 2003, p. 74 part 1; Ramesh (1984), pp. 79–80, pp. 86–87; Kamath 2001, p. 59; Sastri (1955), p. 135–136. The Kalachuris became vassals of the Chalukyas of Badami thereafter.

[File:Aihole inscription of Ravi Kirti.jpg] Oh!, I think you mean Konkan Mauryas. That may be accurate because the Konkan Maurays became vassals of Chalukyas from about early 7th c. CE.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are the Konkan Mauryas. The Greater Bombay District Gazetteer supports it. You can also ckeck Maharashtra State Gazetteers‎. It says As stated before, north Konkan was ruled by the Mauryas, who were probably feudatories of the Kalachuris. KensplanetTC 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a one line info on the Koli community just sitting there with no further information on it. If you want it in that section, you should find more information on them from that period.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give atleast one line info on King Bhimdev. After describing many dynasties, suddently discussing a king without any dynastic affiliation throw the reader off.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undue statement, unless you can elaborate what they did upon arrival-A group of Konkani Muslims called Naitias or Navayats from Bhatkal in Karnataka first appeared in these islands during their rule.[22]Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Migration details are not undue for a city like Bombay. Migration has shaped the city's diverse demographics, and is an integral part of history. But I understand what you are trying to say. I'll check my sources to see what I can find. I am sure they may have come and constructed many mosques. :) KensplanetTC 14:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Montana Prison[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 know if this topic is viable and whether my writing style falls sufficiently under the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia.

Thanks, tanankyo (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by NVO

I am not a native speaker of English, so these comments on style should be taken with a grin. My basic concern is that an article is unnecessarily long; it can be safely halved in size without sacrificing relevant information.

  • The prose reads more appropriate for fiction rather than encyclopedia: too colourful, too many words that are not necessary. Often, these words mask a statement/opinion that needs citation. Quote: "Possibly the most important, or at least longest lasting, contribution Warden Conley made to the Montana State Prison are the plethora of buildings he left in his wake. He believed that idleness bred insurrection, so he set about using prison labor to build the prison." Too many words! Italicized statements/opinions, probably, need citations and beliefs of a deceased person are too ephemeral to be proven anyway. Take it all away and it's down to "Buildings erected by inmates remain Conley's main contribution to the prison".
  • The 1959 riot text, probably, should be taken to a separate article and replaces with a concise summary.
  • "over a half million tons of state coal for his private residence" - this had to be a damn good residence! Again, I would trim the list down to just one or two lines of plain text with most important claims. NVO (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Ann Peak[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 just attained GA status in mid November, and I want to know what else it needs to have to hopefully become a Featured Article. The GA reviewer, Backslash Forwardslash, has already stated that it needs better prose, and a larger history section. I'm looking for more detailed information on how it could be improved.

Thanks, LittleMountain5 17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: These are my comments on the lead, the History and the Prescott Park sections

  • Lead: To meet FA criteria, the lead will have to be developed from this brief introduction into a full summary of the article in accordance with WP:LEAD. Also, re over-linking, "radio tower" and "summit" are everyday terms and don't require linking.
  • History
    • There needs to be some link between the ancient history and more modern times. For example, the fourth setence could be amended to: "In more recent times, residents of Rogue Valley have claimed that Roxy Anne Peak was once known as..." etc
      Done.
    • "They owned the land for nearly seventy years". Are we talking about two very long-lived couples here, or do you mean that their families owned the land for nearly 70 years?
      Done.
    • References in the section to "residents of Rogue Valley" and "residents of Medford" are a little confusing. When you expand the lead you should make a point of clarifying what Rogue Valley is. Having linked Rogue Valley in the lead, you don't need to link it again here.
      Unlinked, will clarify in lead later.
      Clarified.
  • Prescott Park
    • For what purpose did the Lions donate the Land to Medford?
      I'm not sure, and will try to find the information somewhere...
      Found a little more info...
    • Instad of "A year after that..." you could say: "In 1931..." etc**
      Done.
    • You need some more text after "...Federal Land for Parks Act", to explain that the donated land and the additional purchase were used to create a park. Say how much of the mountain is within the park, and also the range of uses the park caters for. This sort of detail will make the jump to the late 1990s litter problems, etc., seem a little less sudden.
      Added some.
    • "...which ceated even more of a strain..." Even more than what? - what is the comparator here?
      I think I fixed it, although the sentence still sounds a bit strange.
    • Since the summit of a mountain is a particular point, "covers much of the summit" doesn't really make sense. You should reword, and absorb into the more detailed description of the park suggested above.
      Reworded.

Perhaps you would respond to these points. I'll continue with the review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review! All of those suggestions sound good, I'll do it. Again, thanks for your time :) LittleMountain5 01:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just noticed something that maybe you can answer. All of the refs have the parameters accessmonthday and accessyear, but about 8 in the reflist at the bottom don't show 'Retrieved on' etc. I can't figure out why some work, and some don't. LittleMountain5 01:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed your retrieval dates. All I did was to change Ref 2 from "cite web" to "cite news". I'm not sure why this worked, but it seems to have done. You might want to try a bit of experimentation to see why some "retrieveds" are lower case and some upper. Strange is the world of citation templates! Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Katr67 and I fixed them. LittleMountain5 22:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review:-

  • Geology
    • It is not clear why the peak's appearance is described as "unique"
      Done.
    • What does "the difference in elevation" mean? Does it simply mean "height"?
      Done.
    • "...has plagued construction workers since the 1970s". Did it not plague them before? Or did construction on the slopes only begin in the 1970s? Needs clarification.
      Done.
    • I don't think the final three sentences of the section have much to do with geology.
      Split to new section.

Reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geography: the section is hardly about geography; it is rather a miscellany of facts. I have hived off the property development stuff into a second paragraph. Perhaps the section needs a different title.
    Any suggestions for a name? I've split the section.

Overall, I think the all parts of the article could do with some expansion. At 800+ words the text is rather slight to describe a landmark geographical feature. Perhaps more could be said about the nature of Prescott Park, its facilities etc; about the population demographics of the area; about any local industries beyond the winery you have mentioned. Does the peak attract visitors? Are there nature trails, etc? These are only suggestions for enlargement; there may be better ideas. The images are good, and there is no particular problem with the prose, but I would like to learn a little more. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your the comments, I'll try to carry them out. LittleMountain5 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 1992 Atlantic hurricane season[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 receive a broad outlook on how to improve the article to featured list standard, I'm not much of a hurricane fan, but began work on this article. So fire away! Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RockManQ:

The 1992 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average Atlantic hurricane season that produced six named tropical cyclones.
Redundancy; you use Atlantic hurricane season twice. Also, what defines a average season. Having read that, I have no idea. Done - Removed redundancy, and defined 10 storms as average.
The season officially started on June 1, 2007, and finished on November 30, although Subtropical Storm One formed outside the official timescale, on April 21.
It's kind of choppy; I suggest you break it up or find a better way to transition from one part to the next. Done - Removed a few commas, and added a semi colon, helps break it up a bit better.
Subtropical Storm One was the first recorded subtropical cyclone to form in April since tracking began in 1968.
I don't like the word tracking here, it doesn't really give us any understanding. Basically, since who began tracking what? Done - Changed.
Of the four hurricanes, Hurricane Andrew was the most intense, reaching Category 5 status.
Link Category 5 to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane scale Done - Linked.
Overall, it's very short. The lead should be at least 3 paragraphs if possible. Did anymore storms make landfall during the 1992 season? If so it would be a good idea to mention them.

This was all I found with it. You have a good start, it just needs to be expanded some more. VX!~~~ 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart in Italy[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would appreciate comments on all aspects of this article, especially prose and images. Is there anything important missing? Is there anything unimportant which is overcooked? This is a companion-piece to Mozart family Grand Tour, which was promoted last year, and should be an interesting addition to Wikipedia's Mozartiana.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits in the article itself but also have the following comments:
  • Para 2 of Lead: "the fons et origio of modern music and its terminology." - the "and its terminology" seems an awkward phrase.
  • I've altered it to "...and of much of its terminology". Does that sound better?
  • Photo of his birthplace - might be useful to put a bracketed note in the caption to explain "Mozarts Geburtshaus" means Mozart's birthplace.
  • Agreed, and done.
  • Background - importunate and "pushy". Isn't this basically a tautology?
  • Well, they mean slightly different things. "Importunate" - pestering, harrassing; "pushy" - self-assertive. Leopold was both. "Pushy" is the word Sadie uses (hence the quotes"). I'd prefer to keep both, unless there is a serious objection.
  • "Italy was considered the Mecca for all musicians ..." would this term have been used in the 1760s? Perhaps use "focal point" instead.
  • I doubt if Mecca was used in this way in the 18th century, but does that disqualify its use in a 21st century account of the journey? Again, the source (Sadie) uses the term, so I'm in good company. I'll consider your suggested rewording, however.
I'll copyedit the rest and more comments may follow. --DavidCane (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these suggestions and for the useful copyedits. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some more comments:
  • Milan revisted, October 1771 – February 1772 - My tallying of the dates makes this October 1770 to February 1771 and I have changed the section heading.
My mistake, thanks for the correction
  • Name of the Archbishop who died in 1771 - The article on the Archbishopric of Salzburg gives his name as Sigismund von Schrattenbach rather than Siegmund Christoph von Schrattenburg. The difference in the first name could be due to latinisation or alternate spellings (the Archbishop that followed was known as both Jerome and Hieronymus), but that would not explain the difference in the ending of the family name.
Again, my careless mistake - Schrattenbach is of course correct.
  • Salzburgians - I think the correct collective name is Salzburgers.
You are right - altered
  • References, Sadie - There are two Sadie sources. It looks like all the references with his name are from his 2006 book. At first glance the Grove references don't appear to have a source as they are listed with Sadie's name first as well. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd edition (2001) is available online as part of Oxfordmusiconline.com and the Mozart Article there is credited to Cliff Eisen, et al (the et al including Stanley Sadie and four others). It might be worth adding Eisen to the reference to differentiate them.
All the "Sadie" references are to his 2006 book, and I have now added (2006)in each case, to make this clear. The two "Grove" references are both from the 1980 "New Grove", not from the revised 2001 edition. The 1980 New Grove was edited by Sadie, and the Mozart article written by him - it was published separately as such. Cliff Eisen may have refashioned the article for the 2001 edition. The Grove references could be rewritten as "Sadie (1980)", but would that clarify?
  • References, Order of the Golden Spur - The article on the order states that it is a single class order (i.e. everyone appointed to it is of the same rank - Knight). In this case seniority would be based on order of appointment in the order. The Grove Online articles for Gluck and Dittersdorf state that Gluck was appointed to the order in 1856 and Dittersdorf in early 1770, which would seem to put Mozart between the two in seniority.
I believes there must have been degrees of knighthood within the Order, since Gutman makes the same point about Wolfgang's ranking higher than Gluck's. I have added the Gutman reference, and slightly altered the wording of the footnote.
An interesting read. --DavidCane (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful comments, on which I have acted as I believe necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Jappalang

All issues resolved

Lede

  • Suggestion (trying to get rid of two "Italy"s): "Mozart in Italy describes three journeys to Italy the Italian Peninsula made by ..."
    • I believe we can just get rid of "to Italy" – the destination is explicit by the article title. Therefore, "Mozart in Italy describes three journeys made by the..." etc. Will that work? Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the youthful young Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ..."
I do not think "youthful" is correct here. He was just young, not full of young energy, or glowing with the vigor of a child (he was one then).
Agreed, "young" it is. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... command performances ..."
I have heard of this phrase before but never explored its meaning. What is it? "Command performance" redirects to "Royal Variety Performance", which is not of direct help. I assume "command performance" is a performance for royalties, am I right?
A "command performance" is a performance requested by a (usually) royal personage. In the case of Mozart's tour, I think on balance that "private" is a better word, since he had both royal and non-royal patrons, so it has become "public concerts and private performances". Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second and third journeys were shorter visits to Milan, for the fulfilment of opera commissions which Wolfgang had acquired during the first visit."
I think I understand why you used "for the fulfilment" instead of "to fulfill" (to avoid repetition of "to"), but it seems wordy (most likely I am wrong). Regardless, I think "his first visit" might be more personal for the subject.
I've altered this to: "...Milan, fulfilling opera commissions..." etc. I've also made it "his" first visit, as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... to the furtherance of the ..."
Is "to furthering the" gramatically correct? Would it be better?
It is grammatically correct, and better. I've changed it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* "The children were exhibited as prodigies, and made a considerable mark. By 1769, Nannerl had reached adulthood, but Leopold was anxious to continue 13-year-old Wolfgang's education in Italy, the fons et origio of modern music and of much of its terminology."

The first sentence (and the first clause of the second) made it seem the children were products, marketed by Leopold. Inevitably there are criticisms on that, but should the article present his treatment of his children as such? On another note (a personal choice), the phrase "fons et origio" infuses an old-feel artistic theme, but replacing it with "source" or "origin" could be more accessible to the general reader. Is "of" in "and of much" redundant?
Leopold certainly did exploit his children's talents, but you are right; the debatable question of Leopold's treatment of his children is beyond the scope of this article. So I have softened it: "During these journeys the children's performances made a considerable mark". On the question of "fons et origio", since the term is used by the source, and has a certain elegance, I'd like to keep it if possible, nless you feel strongly it should go. The redundant "of" has been removed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion on change: "During these journeys the children's performances had made a considerable mark on European society."
The "had" is likely redundant. Furthermore, perhaps a clarification of who the "mark" (impression) was on? Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though I've made it "across European society". Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "Wolfgang's performances had beenwere well-received ..."
Agreed and altered Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... his talents recognised by honours, including a papal knighthood, and by commissions."
Suggestion: "... his talents recognised by commissions and honours, including a papal knighthood, bestowed on him."
I've altered this, to avoid confusion between "honours" (knighthood, memberships of philharmonic societies) and "commissions" (contracts to write musical works). The commissions come up in the next sentence.Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Embellishment: "... great musical theorist ..."
Would "leading" be OK? He was certainly that. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can go with that. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "Leopold had harboured ..."
Agreed and done Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This aspect increased in importance as Leopold's ..."
Clarify: "This aspect of the journey increased in importance to Leopold as his ..."
I don't really want to repeat "of the journey", and I'm not convinced that "aspect" is the right word. I've altered this to "objective", and think it reads all right now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Embellishment: "... the extraordinary, God-given musical talents of his children ..."
These should have been quotes, but from the grand tour article, it is Nannerl who spoke this of Wolfgang; hence, unless someone said the same of both Nannerl and her brother, these powerful adjectives should not be used to describe their talents.
Similar words were used by others, but I think it best to remove the embellishment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and the Mozarts also discovered that they were no longer young enough ..."
Did Nannerl and Wolfgang feel this as well? I would have thought it would be the adults (Leopold and Anna Maria) who might have taken pride in having child prodigies and were disappointed.
The source says "they" rather than "the Mozarts" . I've reworded: "...it became apparent that they were no longer young enough to cause a sensation". That's pretty close to the source. I've also deleted "as child prodogies". Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy: "... Leopold managed to offended the distinguished and influential court composer Christoph Willibald Gluck."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An unwise petition to Emperor Joseph II may have the effect of harming the Mozart name ..."
Unwise to who? What was the petition about? I understand it was a petition to ask the Emperor to reconsider the previous rejections of Wolfgang's request for an appointment, and that it was unwise to ask after two or three rejections. This concept is however, summed in two words. Reading later, Leopold had no knowledge of earlier rejections, and so the "unwise" aspect might be debatable.
This peteition was not about appointments, but about the refusal of the court theatre to mount Wolfgang's opera. I've done some rewording to clarify this, and also removed the description "unwise", which smacks of POV. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "... and Leopold had developed a reputation for ..."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had wanted to include an Italian leg in the grand tour, in the autumn of 1766, but had reluctantly abandoned the idea rather than extending his absence from Salzburg."
Aside from the probably unnecessary second "had", how about ...
Suggestion: "He had wanted to spend the autumn of 1766 in Italy as part of the grand tour, but reluctantly abandoned the idea to minimise his absence from Salzburg."
I wasn't very happy with this paragraph, so I've refashioned it, using some of your wording, and merged it into the next. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nannerl, by 1769 nearly 18 years old, could no longer be exhibited as a child wonder, ..."
Here is one thing that caught my attention during a speed read-through. Earlier, it was said that the children were no longer young enough to be regarded as child prodigies. Now it seems, Nannerl is the only one, or are "child prodigies" different from "child wonders"?
This part has largely disappeared in the rewriting referred to above. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: "... Wolfgang needed to hear and absorb the music of Venice, Naples and Rome firsthand, ..."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion (to help to clearly link the last clause to the houses): "... opera houses, which are described by biographer Stanley Sadie ..."
Agreed, with slightly different wording. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "... for Leopold, or Wolfgang, or both."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: "... which helped fostering a positive attitude ..."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... together with a gift of ..., with a promise of ..."
Similar structure in the same sentence. Any way to reword it? A breakup might do...
Looking at the source again, I see that "promise" is too strong a word. There was an indication that a salary might be paid. I have reworded to reflect this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The change is good, just one more question that concerns this statement. Is "Konzertmeister" "Master of Concerts"? Should the literal translation be inserted in parantheses here just like some of the previous foreign terms? Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Konzertmester", literally "concert-master", meant a court musician. I've added a paranthetical note. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to Milan

  • "His support would prove vital to the success of the entire Italian undertaking."
The words "would prove vital" seem to be a foretelling here. Would "would be vital" (implying a conditional) not do?
Yes, agreed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... partly because of ..., partly because the midwinter weather made travelling difficult and unpleasant."
A bit repetitive and seems to be missing a conjunction.
Suggestion: ""... partly because of ..., and partly due to the midwinter weather, which made travelling difficult and unpleasant."
I've reworded, generally along the lines suggested. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early concert takings were evidently modest, while, according to Leopold, costs were running at around 50 florins a week."
What is with the "evidently" (embellishment), "while" (curious choice of a conjunction, is it as a explanatory clause)?
Suggestion: "Early concert takings were modest; according to Leopold, costs were running at around 50 florins a week."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leopold's attitude to money was always circumspect, tending to emphasis his expenses and minimise his takings, and typically writing: ..."
This sentence as it is, seems more relevant to Leopold's article (his personality).
Suggestion: "Leopold was prudent with regard to the tours' finances, tending to emphasize expenses and minimise takings, and typically writing: ..."
I've rewritten along the suggested lines, but used the word "cautious" (which appears in the source) rather than "prudent". Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... by the local press. They attended a performance of Guglielmi's Ruggiero, which, from Wolfgang's description in a letter to Nannerl, did not impress him."
Pronoun issues. "They" could be confused with the press, although it could be the Mozart father and son. Amidst the identities thrown about, who would "him" be (father or son)?
Suggestion: "... by the local press. Leopold and his son attended a performance of Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi's Ruggiero, which did not impress Wolfgang, according to the boy's letter to Nannerl."
Agreed, more or less, and rewritten accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... describes him as leaving ..."
Would it not be more accurate to say it was young Mozart's performance that left them dumbstruck, and not perhaps his physical appearance?
Suggestion: "... describes the young boy's achievements as leaving ..."
Yes, except I've used "exhibition" rather than "achievements". Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... they saw watched Nicola Piccini's opera Cesare in Egitto."
I think "watched" would be better, "saw" might connotate a passing glance. "Watching a movie" (with attention paid) seems more proper than "seeing a movie".
You don't really talk about "watching" an opera (or any theatrical performance, for that matter - you wouldn't say "We went to watch Death of s Salesman). I think "saw" is probably OK, but I've made it "attended" - going to the opera was partly a social occasion, after all. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explicitness: "... including the Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand, a possible future patron for the young composer."
Agreed and added. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion (restrictive vs. non-restrictive clause, and pronoun clarity): "... an honour for which that Leopold had been hoping for since their the Mozarts' arrival in the city."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restate subjects for clarity: "They The Mozarts left Milan on 15 March, ..."
Ageed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy: "... Wolfgang appears to have done little by way of composition."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milan to Naples

  • Reassertion: "After a few days in Parma, they the Mozarts moved on to Bologna, ..."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion (pronouns and restrictive/non-restrictive clause): "They He and his son left on 29 March carrying letters from Pallavicini which it was that he hoped would enable Wolfgang to meet Pope Clement XIV when they reached Rome."
Agreed and done
  • "The boys were destined not to meet again;"
I am not certain talking about fates and destiny is encyclopaedic.
Suggestion: "The boys never met again;"
Yes, much better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the Count's kinsman, Cardinal Pallavicini, Prince San Angelo of Naples, and to Charles Edward Stuart, otherwise "Bonnie Prince Charlie", Pretender to the throne of England."
Are Cardinal Pallavicini and Prince San Angelo of Naples the same person, and are they the Count's kinsman?
I hope I've sorted this out by better punctuation and the odd extra preposition. Brianboulton (talk)
  • Reassertion: "They The Mozarts visited the Sistine Chapel ..."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: "... a feat that came to reached the ears of the Pope."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Amid all this activity, Wolfgang was composing busily—the contradanse K.123/73g, an aria Se ardire, e speranza, the G major symphony begun earlier, and possibly other symphonies, the provenance and authorship of which remain uncertain."
The "all" is likely redundant, but I feel this sentence is incorrectly constructed. "Wolfgang was busy composing. This, this, this started earlier, others are unknown." It does not feel right to me.
Suggestion: "Amid these activities, Wolfgang was busily composing his works; he continued working on the contradanse K.123/73g, an aria Se ardire, e speranza, and the G major symphony, which he had begun earlier, and likely other symphonies, whose author could have been he."
I agree the part needs improving. With regard to your suggestion, I think "his works" is probably redundant: as I understand it, he composed the contradanse and the aria, and finished the G major symphony started earlier. It is thought he may have composed or worked on other symphonies, but this can't be confirmed. I've refashioned the text to say broadly what I've just said here; I hope it is clear enough now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They gave a concert on 28 May, ..."
Did Leopold perform as well?
Source doesn't say; he was an accomplished violinist, so he probably did. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When it became clear that a hoped-for summons to play at the royal court ..."
I think "hoped-for" is redundant.
Agreed and removed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Return from Naples

  • "The party made a rapid return to Rome, completing the journey in 27 hours, although the benefit of this speed was reduced when Leopold sustained a leg injury that troubled him for several months."
What was the benefit of returning in speed?
Suggestion: "The party made a rapid return to Rome, completing the journey in 27 hours; however, Leopold sustained a leg injury that troubled him for several months."
The benefit would, I suppose, have been more time in Rome (to make contacts, give concerts, etc), but that's conjecture. Your simple factual version is better, and I've adopted it> Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wolfgang passed the time by composing a short Minuet, ..."
Would a "by" there be correct?
Each I think is correct. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 9 October he was examined for membership of Bologna's Accademia Filharmonica, offering as his test piece ..."
The structure does not seem correct (Passive main clause, active dependent clause). For example: "He was under attack, offering no defense."
Suggestion: "On 9 October he underwent examination for membership of Bologna's Accademia Filharmonica, offering as his test piece ..."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milan revisted, October 1770 – February 1771

  • Reassertion: "They Leopold and his son arrived on 18 October, ..."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion (tenses): "Wolfgang was complaining complained about his aching fingers, but could not begin work on the arias until the singers were present,; it being was the prevalent practice that operas were composed in collaboration with the principal performers."
Yes, and I've also added why his fingers were aching. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the singers assembled, opportunities for mischief arose."
Does it not sound sort of dramatic?
Suggestion: "However, the Mozarts faced other problems as the singers assembled."
Yes, I've toned it, down per your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: "Quirino Gasparini, composer of an earlier setting of Mitridate, tried to persuade the prima donna, Antonia Bernasconi, to use his settings of for her arias, was rebuffed but met with failure;"
Aside from the missing conjunction, the last clause rendered an improper verb usage with Microsoft word (I guess the passive voice clashed with the active tone of the first clause). I think it is "settings for her arias" rather than "settings of her arias", correct?
Yes, correct. I've also reworded slightly, to remove a repetition of "setting". Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and sang one of Gaspari's settings in Act 3"
Is that supposed to be "Gasparini's settings"?
Yes, typo, well spotted. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy: "Leopold was able to write wrote home:"
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: "... at the Teatro Regio Ducal (La Scala's predecessor as Milan's great opera house before the La Scala was built),"
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: "... at the conclusion there were cries from the audience of cried, "Evviva il maestro!" (Long live the master!), and demands demanded for encores."
Agreed, (but no "for" after "demanded") Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: "The opera had a run of ran for 22 performances during the season."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: "The Mozarts were now free to relax. Having fulfilled his major obligations for this trip, Wolfgang gave a concert at Firmian's palace on 4 January 1771; a few days later they the Mozarts heard that ..."
The original first sentence does not seem encyclopaedic, and if deleted, they (Mozarts) would have to be restated at the earliest opportunity.
Your suggested version is better, so has been incorporated. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journey home

  • Reassertion: "Leaving Venice on 12 March, they the Mozarts journeyed to Padua, ..."
Agreed and dne. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This would emerge as La Betulia Liberata ("The Liberation of Bethulia"), a work for which the subsequent performance history is obscure"
Not entirely sure what this is to mean, "emerge" means to come into existence over a long period of time or come out of something. Is the sentence trying to say that this work was discovered or analyzed much later to be La Betulia Liberata?
No, merely that the subsequent history of this work is obscure. Nobody knows for certain when it was written, or first performed. I've got rid of "emerged", and hope the sense is clearer now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... for which the whose subsequent performance history is obscure ..."
I think "whose" would be better, "of which the" can also be used. Jappalang (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One word better than three, so "whose" it is. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete sentence: "In Verona a few days later, more commissions awaited; for Wolfgang was to compose a serenata (or minor opera), to which would be performed in Milan in the autumn for the wedding of the Archduke Ferdinand and his bride Princess Beatrice of Modena."
Agreed your suggestions, reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: "At the same time, came the young composer received a separate commission for another Milan carnival opera, ..."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This latter created a clash of ..."
"This latter"?
Deleted Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reassertion: "Thereafter they father and son sped northward towards home"
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetitive: "The pair had also ... and had moved ... Wolfgang had been honoured ... and had won ... He had been admitted ... had studied with ... and had written"
I've slightly reworded this paragraph, to deal with the "had" repetition problem. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Wolfgang had been honoured by the Pope, gained admittance to the academies of Bologna and Verona, and had studied with Padre Martini."
Microsoft Word registers a verb conflict in this sentence.
Suggestion: "Aside from being honoured by the Pope, Wolfgang was admitted to the academies of Bologna and Verona, and studied with Padre Martini." Jappalang (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, except I think it has to be "had been admitted"; it doesn't read right otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second journey, August–December 1771

  • "They shared their lodgings with violinists, a singing-master and an oboist: "...delightful for composing, it gives you plenty of ideas," Wolfgang wrote to Nannerl)"
This is missing an opening bracket, and a punctuation. Furthermore, the relationship seems to be oblique between the lodgers and Wolfgang's idea.
Suggestion 1: "They shared their lodgings with violinists, a singing-master and an oboist, whose companionship Wolfgang described as "delightful for composing, it [gave] plenty of ideas"."
Suggestion 2: "They shared their lodgings with violinists, a singing-master and an oboist. The mixing of these musicians in a living space produced an atmosphere that Wolfgang found to be "delightful for composing," inspiring "plenty of ideas"."
It is obvious from the sources that Wolfgang's remarks to Nannerl were intended ironically, and I have altered the text to make this clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the grander piece was to be Hasse's opera Ruggiero, which was to be performed on 16 October, the day after the wedding, with Ascanio to follow on the next day."
Repetition of "was to be".
Suggestion: " ... originally, the grander piece was expected to be Hasse's opera Ruggiero, which would be performed on 16 October, the day after the wedding, and Ascanio would follow on the next day.
Reworded generally in accordance with above. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leopold's glee was obvious:"
Possibly dramatic.
Suggestion: "Leopold expressed glee at this turn of events:"
Yes, I think "glee" itself is a bit of a problem (POV?) so I've replaced it with "delight". Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hasse himself was gracious about his eclipse,"
Not certain, but I think "himself" is redundant here.
You're right - removed. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perhaps Leopold's pushiness in Vienna over La finta semplice still rankled there, perhaps word of his crowing over Hasse's failure had reached the Empress."
I hazard to say this is too eloquent. It is a form of speech that proposes, not stating information.
I've removed the "perhapses", but the suppositions are from the sources, they are not my interpetations. This being so, I think "Whatever the reason..." follows naturally, although I've rephrased it to "For whatever reason...", which means the same as "regardless", but is my slight preference. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whatever the reason, Maria Theresa's ..."
Same with the above, "Regardless" could replace the "Whatever the reason", depending on what is done with the previous issue.
See above.

Upheaval in Slazburg

  • Suggestion: "... which had been promised by Schrattenbach on Wolfgang's return from the first Italian journey, but not had not yet been granted."
As mentioned earlier, this wasn't a "promise" as such. I have reworded accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Salzburg Kappellmeister post"
What is a Kappellmeister in English?
The literal translation ("chapel-master") is pretty meaningless, which is why I rely in this article, as in the grand tour article, on a link at first mention. I suppose "music director" is a rough equivalent, but not entirely right.Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter then. Jappalang (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the appointment would now be made by the new archbishop, an unknown quantity."
I believe "an unknown quantity" is used in the literal sense in encyclopaedias.
Suggestion: "However, the appointment would now be made by the new archbishop, whose policies and affiliations were unclear."
Agreed, but I've used "attitudes" rather than "affiliations". Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... elected to the archbishopric, as a compromise candidate acceptable ..."
Should the comma be there?
Deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion (the original is okay, this is just a variant if desired): "... to be to in the Mozarts' advantage favour;"
I've left it for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But on the matter of the new Kappellmeister, Colloredo began to look for someone outside the Salzburg court, eventually settling on the Italian composer Domenico Fischietti. Fischietti was several years younger than Leopold, who now realised that his own chances of promotion had probably gone for ever. It became evident that Leopold's hopes for a comfortable old age now rested with Wolfgang, and the quest for a suitable position for the boy became the main focus of the third Italian journey, which began at the end of October 1772."
I saw the "... Fischietti. Fischietti ..." and found that my attempt to resolve the repetition resulted in changes to the entire chunk of sentences.
Suggestion: "However, Colloredo looked for someone outside the Salzburg court to be his new Kappellmeister. Eventually, he chose the Italian composer Domenico Fischietti, who was several years younger than Leopold. Realising that his chances of promotion were probably gone forever, Leopold turned his hopes for a comfortable old age towards Wolfgang. The quest for a suitable position for the boy became the main focus of the third Italian journey, which began at the end of October 1772."
I too worried about "Fischietti...Fischietti", but couldn't find a way round it. Your suggestion is admirable, and has been adopted wholesale. Many thanks! Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third journey, October 1772 – March 1773

  • Redundancy: "Wolfgang soon found himself ..."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk)
  • Suggestion (not too sure, but might be informal): "... that Wolfgang was composing his arias at breakneck speed with great speed,"
The source has Leopold reporting Wolfgang "working at breakneck speed", so I assume L. used the German colloquial equivalent. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not really matter that much, anyway. Jappalang (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the running time was extended by the insertion of ballets so ..."
Why were ballets inserted?
It was a custom of the time, and I've added a note to that effect. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion (redundancy and phrasing): "... second opera, Paisiello's Sismano nel Mogul, was being postponed to allow Wolfgang's piece a longer run. which It received 26 performances in all."
I have rephrased, not quite as you suggest. Leopold was reporting that Paisiello's opera had been postponed, so I think that tense has to stay. Otherwise I've tidied up as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such success for the new work may have been fleeting; during the next few years the libretto was re-set by several different composers,"
I am not entirely clear over this sentence. Would re-setting the libretto to the score mean the work was not successful? Furthermore, if different composers re-set the libretto, then it is the fault of the text, and not Mozart's score, right?
Er, no: Re-setting a libretto means setting new music for it. This was quite common for the time; many of Mozart's operas are settings of previously-used libretti. It isn't necessarily a criticism of him that new settings for Lucio Silla were quickly sought, but it rather indicates that his music wasn't thought to be of lasting value. Perhaps "may have been fleeting" is too tentative? "was fleeting", or "was ephemeral" may be better, perhaps?
Hmm... Sadie states that no press criticism or praise came for this work; that could back up the fleetingness (no reporter cared to speak of it). An affirmative tone ("was fleeting") should be better, but how about "The new work did not endure in perpetuity despite such success; during the next few years ..."? Jappalang (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re last suggestion: It wouldn't be right to talk about the work not enduring in perpetuity. Its popularity was fleeting in 18th century Italy, but the later superstar status accorded Mozart as a composer ensures that everything he wrote endures in perpetuity. So I think the alteration to "was fleeting" gives the necessary affirmative tone, and is accurate. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "... had pursued his quest for ..."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion (for clarity): "During the long wait which followed While waiting for the reply, Wolfgang composed a series of string quartets ..."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: "Leopold had to resorted to deception to explain his remaining extended stay in Milan when he had no further duties there,"
Let us not say he was forced to do it; he could be willing to do so for all we know.
Yes, your version is neater and better. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His cyphered letters to his wife Anna Maria ..."
Out of curiosity, was Leopold paranoid, or was this the norm for personal correspondences in those days?
Leopold's letters were part-public documents, for circulation around Salzburg. If he wanted to convey a private message he used a private code which only Anna Maria could interpret. I am adding a footnote to explain this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reassertion: "They The Mozarts had no choice now ..."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Affirmation: "Neither father nor son were to visited Italy again."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation

  • "Maynard Solomon summarises the Italian journeys as representing Leopold's greatest triumphs, but also as incorporating a great failure."
I think those verbs were unnecessary.
Agreed and removed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: "... the Italians had in the main mostly responded to them with enthusiasm."
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wolfgang had been received by and honoured by the Pope;"
Is the first "by" necessary?
No, deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... completing three commissions resulting that resulted in acclaimed performances."
Could be a fused participle issue, I think...
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... all emanated from the Italian experience."
The "including ... minor works" is just a descriptive, take it away and "Other compositions all emanated from the Italian experience."; thus, "all" is unnecessary.
Rephrased> Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion (personal preference): "The failure was Leopold's inability, despite much his efforts and persistence,"
I agree your preference. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: "In ignorance Ignorant of the truth, Leopold could nevertheless perceive an invisible a barrier to his Italian hopes, and eventually he recognised that he could not overcome the forces lined up against him."
Yes, this is neater. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation: "proved short-lived, for; despite the critical"
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please rebut if my opinions are wrong or misguided. Working off written notes and to be continued. Jappalang (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this meticulous review. I look forward to receiving more. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. Here are some more, with a few further queries on previous changes. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Entire article reviewed to the best of my ability. Do not fret over the images. I have gone through them and those that are deficient, I have corrected. There should be little if any opposition to them in an FAC. I would suggest including some public domain clips, if any exist, of the operas Mozart has composed during these trip. Jappalang (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, may I thank you for the depth of this review, which has covered just about every aspect of the article and has, I think, helped greatly to improve it. One more thing: another editor, in good faith, has altered the first line of the article. What do you think of it? Should I revert to the former version? On the question of sound clips, my efforts to get them for the grand tour article got me lots of false promises and no action. I'll consider trying again, if I can find another helper. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality's edits seem to be in line with WP:LEAD#First sentence, in which if the article's subject is of a descriptive nature, then it might be not be necessary for the article's title to be stated word for word. The change from "fifteen" to 15 conforms to the general rule in WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. However, I think he might be overlinking to concerts and Italy (the last can remain in bold though), although nobility should be fine (since there may be readers who might not know of the distinct differences in Western caste at that time). His intention is acceptable, and I think the language is fine, but it does seem that the first sentence has lost a feel of "this article describes the three journeys Mozart made to Italy." Jappalang (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree; this version, though acceptable, loses some force. I have changed back to the original opening, but kept the link on nobility. Brianboulton (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I've only read the beginning, but what I've seen is promising; a fascinating read! Looking forward to seeing this at FAC sometime soon.
    • Should archbishop (by itself) be capitalized or lowercase? It's presented in both forms in the article.
Either form is acceptable providing a consistent rule is applied. The rule I use is to capitalize when the full title, e.g. Archbishop of Salzburg, is used, but to user lower-case for general references to "the archbishop". I have corrected one inconsistency. Brianboulton (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "abandoned the idea to minimise his absence from Salzburg." I think a short clause might be helpful to explain why he wanted to minimise his absence. Was he under pressure from Salzburg to do so at this time?
Yes, I've altered "minimise his absence from" to "hasten his return to", and mentioned Leopold's concern about his reception after such a long absence. Brianboulton (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "from the archbishop towards the forthcoming trip" It's probably best to introduce his name here, rather than later.
OK I've done this.Brianboulton (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Solomon (p. 69) quotes from a letter Leopold wrote in October 1767 that "the trip to Naples is now definitely set for early next year". Do we know what this might be referring to and what happened to these plans?
Solomon doesn't say who this letter was written to. I think the letter merely confirms what we know - that Leopold was determined on an Italian trip as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Leopold was cautious about revealing too much of the tour's finances..." What do you think about adding (perhaps in the notes) a bit about why he was not forthright in his letters home about his finances (his misstep in reveling in his success in the early years of the Grand Tour)? BuddingJournalist 09:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point I have added a footnote per your suggestion, based on the information in Solomon, p. 58. Thank you for your interest in the article and I hope it will be at FAC soon. Brianboulton (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Tonghai earthquake[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 was pretty much a collaborative work between User:Editorofthewiki and I, he did the expansion, but I created it and copy edited it. I want to bring it to FA status.

Thanks, ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 14:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • The earthquake, on the other hand, had a magnitude of 7.7 and killed at least 15,000 people. - No need for "on the other hand".
  • done. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 15:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The earthquake, which occurred during the height of the Cultural Revolution, was not widely publicized by the Chinese government for several decades. - Is 18 years really several decades?
  • Yunnan Province has seen some of the most earthquakes of any province in China. - "Seen" → "experienced".
  • I was going to change this but couldn't find a synonym. Changed to endured. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 16:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The earliest earthquake recorded there was in the 9th century, and strong ones have been observed since the 15th century. - This would read better as "The earliest recorded earthquake there was in the 9th century; strong ones have been observed since the 15th century.".
  • It was located in a tobacco growing region. - This sentence is a tad choppy. Is it possible to merge it into another sentence?
  • It caused 31 miles (50 km) of surface faulting on the Tonghai Fault. - A bit of jargon here; what's "surface faulting"?

Good work, overall. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • some of the most earthquakes - if its the most then some of is redundant if not contradictory. ϢereSpielChequers 16:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, noticed that before too. Changed to many earthquakes, making it one the most seismically active... ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
population figures for Kunming especially differ from those in our articles on those cities. If thats because cities have grown or shrunk since then it is worth saying "which then had a population of". "Effects of the rupture were felt through seven counties and over 5,456 miles (8,781 km) away", I thought at first that maybe counties was a typo for countries, but there are more than 7 in that radius. Is it possible that damage/casualties were spread over 7 counties and the tremor was felt over 5,456 miles (8,781 km) away? ϢereSpielChequers 16:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, I'll consult Ed. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 16:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely at the time. Clarified. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many people lost their homes? Also after this length of time it would be nice to know how the reconstruction went - x thousand homes destroyed or rendered uninhabitable of which Y were reconstructed within z months (including w thousand on safer more stable sites). It should also be possible to put in some context such as the area's population has subsequently increased by xxx% The following major HydroElectric schemes have been built or are under consideration in the area, or close to the fault. ϢereSpielChequers 17:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese government didn't disclose much information, such as the amount of homes destroyed or how long the reconstruction lasted. I honestly don't see why we should talk about the area's population, because this article is about the quake itself. The only reason I mentioned the earthquake monitering system was because the 1970 Tonghai earthquake was cited as inspitation. Will clarify. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's the nub of natural disaster articles. Some of us are mainly interested in how they effected people, others in how they effected the planet. IMHO a comprehensive article on a natural disaster should cover both. ϢereSpielChequers 19:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that is what we have attempted to do. The article, however, should only cover things that happened in the area in the aftermath if they are related to the quake. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. It seems to me this needs a lot of work to get to FA, one of the WP:WIAFA criteria is comprehensiveness and this seems a bit sparse for an earthquake that killed over 15,000 people.

  • The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (so not sure about the note in the lead). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • Since this is an article about China, which uses the metric system, metric units should come first per the MOS.
  • 1970 was in the 20th century, not the 19th. We are now in the 21st century.
  • done. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few ideas for expansion if possible: Where were most of the casualties? How many were injured? How many buildings destroyed and how many people made homeless?
  • The language is not up to the professional level required for FA. One example: Evidence was collected over a broad area of almost 1400 towns, respectively.[8] The respectively is not needed
  • This sentence is troublesome: Government officials from China released a different estimate in 2000, putting the death toll at around 15,000.[6] - a more specific number is given earlier, so why not here? Also, in what context did this new estimate occur? See WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of counties in Indiana[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 know I've got a while to go with adding some references and expanding the lead, but I'd like some feedback on what I can do to make this a featured list.

Thanks, Reywas92Talk 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, well done. You have no idea how refreshing it is to see a list on Wikipedia that's well written, well presented, well sourced and about a worthy topic. I hate listcruft. Now the suggestions:
  • In the first map, what do the different colours mean?
  • The second paragraph is a bit awkward. It seems to contain a lot of trivia and the sentences are often clunky. That shouldn't take much to fix though.
  • The second paragraph has a lot of bluelinks, a fact the bot has already noticed. Since they're mainly place names that should be linked, there's not an awful lot you can do about it. Maybe try to separate them, or delink some of them if they appear somewhere else in the article.
  • Sometimes the word "county" has a capital C, other times not. You should pick one and stick with it. (I'm talking about "county" appearing on its own, not as part of a name of a county)
  • I was going to say something about the lead, but you seem to know all about it.

This is, in my opinion, not terribly far from featured list quality. Well done. I hope my suggestions help. Reyk YO! 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! (Though I didn't write the list, I just want it featured). I don't know what the colors mean; that was what was there before, and I couldn't find a map without them to repalce it. I can take care of the rest as soon as I can. Thanks! Reywas92Talk 13:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I didn't start the article, but I did do the table the way it looks now awhile back. An anon user was the one to add the at a glance stuff and the colored map(I had the population map up there). You can find a couple non colored county maps at commons:Category:Maps of Indiana. I think the colors represent regions, you can find at Geography of Indiana. Anyways, with a little work it can no doubt be featured, I did most of the work on List of counties in Texas which is featured. And you can find more at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties/county lists.  :) Joe I 15:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Puerto Rican scientists and inventors[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have requested a peer review of this list in order to establish what should be expected in a future nomination. The piece, written and created by Tony the Marine, one of this project's veteran writers and a cornerstone of WP:PUR, covers the biographical aspects of research done in Puerto Rico (or by Puerto Ricans elsewhere). I take responsibility of this review, particularly based on the significant amount of research that has been invested upon it. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You need to do extensive copyediting. I've done a fair bit just now, but I reckon there's heaps that I've missed. And you can never do enough copyediting.
  • Consider renaming this List of Puerto Rican scientists and inventors, since this article appears to be more a list of individual Puerto Rican scientists than an article covering them as a whole.Moved Tony the Marine (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of portraits that haven't got borders or captions. This doesn't look good- the reader is forever looking backwards and forwards, matching the faces on the right with the names on the left. Fixed Tony the Marine (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole thing looks messy somehow. Particularly the Aerospace section, which is very long and doesn't seem very organized. Consider organizing all the people into tables. An excellent example of a list containing tables of people along with portraits and short descriptions of them can be found here.
  • For each subject area you've got a short paragraph explaining what it is. I don't think that's necessary; we have articles on all those things. But if you want to keep them in, you've missed the one for Agriculture.

I hope you don't think I'm being harsh with my criticism, but I think this article is still a way off meeting GA or WP:FA status. Best of luck, and feel free to drop me a message at my talk page any time. Regards, Reyk YO! 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm working on a new format shaped after the "List of Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka". I should have mentioned it earlier, but the idea is taking this to WP:FLC not WP:GAC or WP:FAC. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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 hoping this list will eventually reach FL status. I created List of awards and nominations received by Rufus Wainwright and took it up to FL status, and I hope to do the same for this Fiona Apple list. Any feedback would be appreciated before making this article a featured list candidate.

Thanks so much! -Whataworld06 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "The first two albums were released under Clean Slate Records/Work Records, while the third was released on Epic Records." "while"-->and.
Done.
Done. I have been told otherwise in the past, but I am more than willing to cooperate.
To explain this, MOS:LINK says: "items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations" should not be linked. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's really good to know, actually. Thanks for the link! -Whataworld06 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant phrasing: "Throughout her career, Apple has received a total of two nominations from the Billboard Music Video Awards"
Done.
  • "Apple has received one nomination."-->Apple has been nominated once.
Done.
  • "which they say recognizes "the music voted best by college students." " Where is the source for that quote? Also see WP:PUNC, if the period is not part of the quote, the quotation marks should be inside the quotation marks. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I removed the quote, mentioned that winners are determined by online voting, and added a source to the mtvU Official Voting Rules site. I hope all of the above corrections help! -Whataworld06 (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • She has released three albums of original music: Tidal (1996), When the Pawn... (1999) and Extraordinary Machine (2005). - comma before and
Done.
  • Several of Apple's singles have charted in both the U.S. and U.K., including "Shadowboxer", "Sleep to Dream", "Criminal", "Never is a Promise", and "Fast as You Can". - 1)On the first occurrence of the countries, the name of the country should be spelled out 2)If you are talking about the chart, the chart name should be mentioned and linked, not just U.K. because that can throw the reader off into thinking its about the country itself.
Done.
  • Since then, Apple has received nominations from the Billboard Music Video Awards, California Music Awards, a total of seven recognitions from the Grammy Awards, mtvU Woodie Awards, MTV Video Music Awards, and the New Pantheon Music Prize. - you state that she has seven Grammy noms, but I see the others have more than 1 nom as well, why not mention it?
Done.
  • I would, IMO, expand the lead a bit more, add a few more notes about here awards, like here first award and her most recent one.
Comment: I am not sure which came first, but three significant recognitions are listed in association with her debut album. I will try to find a way to incorporate awards associated with her most recent album.
  • The first two award sections need an elaboration as to what the awards are for, like in the other sections.
Done.
  • The Grammy Awards are awarded annually by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences of the United States for outstanding achievements in the record industry. Often considered the highest music honor, the awards were established in 1958. - I don't know why in other lists this is not sourced, but it should be.
Done.
    • mtvU is a division of MTV Networks which broadcasts a 24-hour television channel that is available on more than 750 college and university campuses across the United States. A Viacom-owned channel, mtvU both provides an alternative to standard music television for college students, and gives advertisers and music promotion companies access to college-age viewers, a valuable but traditionally difficult-to-reach demographic group. mtvU also has its own annual awards show, the mtvU Woodie Awards, which they say recognizes "the music voted best by college students." - this as well
Done.
    • The MTV Video Music Awards were established in the end of the summer of 1984 by MTV to celebrate the top music videos of the year. Originally beginning as an alternative to the Grammy Awards, the MTV Video Music Awards is now a respected pop culture awards show in its own right. - and this
Done.
    • The New Pantheon Music Prize is a music award given annually to an album released in the United States. The Shortlist Music Prize was first given in 2001. In 2005, the Shortlist Prize was given under another name, the New Pantheon Prize. In September 2006, Shortlist co-founder Greg Spotts purchased complete ownership of the Shortlist and the New Pantheon, uniting the two prizes. A panel of music industry figures chooses the nominees and winners. Records are eligible if they are released between July two years previously and October of the previous year, and if they have not been certified gold (or sold 500,000 copies) by time of nomination. - also this
Done.
  • In ref #1, no need to have the (billboard.com) in the publisher field, remove
Done.
  • How reliable is Chart stats and Rock on the net?
Comment: I have seen Rock on the Net used for several featured lists (see Radiohead's awards list). Also, I see you were directed here on your Talk Page.
  • Time of music.com seems unreliable, as it looks more like a blog site, how reliable is this source?
Done. That source is no longer being used. Now MTV and Rock on the Net are used for references.

--TRUCO 21:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Followup
  • Its much better now and ready for FL IMO, I would still consider adding a bit more to the lead to make it summarize the list a bit more.--TRUCO 02:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for you assistance and suggestions. I added a bit more to the summary, and I hope these edits satisfy your requests. -Whataworld06 (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andrea Guarneri[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 my first proper article, and I just want to make sure I am doing everything right. I would like to write more biographies of violin makers in the future. I realize that some pictures would be nice, and I'm working on that.

Thanks, Chickpeana (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: A set of biographies of violin makers sounds like an interesting subject to pursue. I have several suggestions for improvement.

  • Finding models to imitate is something that often works for me. You're already aware that the article lacks images, but the first thing I noticed was the lack of an infobox in the upper right. Biographies in Wikipedia usually have them. You can see an example in Lisa del Giocondo, a short featured biography about an Italian from roughly the same time as Andrea Guarneri. The Lisa del Giocondo article uses Infobox Person, which is one of many possibilities. You can also look at biographies at WP:GA and WP:FA to see what other editors have done.
  • WP:BIOG, the Wikipedia biographies project, has a lot of ideas about how to create good articles about people.
  • The existing article has only one in-line citation. A good rule of thumb is to cite every paragraph, every set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that might reasonably be questioned. Paragraphs that can be attributed to a single source may need only one citation at the end of the paragraph, but some paragraphs may need more than one. The cite family of templates is handy for doing the in-line citations, and the one citation in the article does indeed use "cite book". However, that citation lacks the name of the publisher, the place of publication, and the isbn number. All of those should be added. General information about citations can be found at WP:CITE, and information about the cite family can be found at WP:CIT. Beyond that, the book-length sources should probably be listed in a Bibliography section, which makes it easy to create in-line references to specific pages in often-cited texts. The Lisa del Giocondo article uses a bibliography and simple in-line citations listing a short title and the exact page numbers between a set of "ref" tags, like this: <ref>Pallanti 2006, pp. 17, 23, 24</ref>.
  • The lead of a Wikipedia article should be a summary or abstract of the main text sections. The existing one-sentence lead needs expansion.
  • The existing article appears to rely on too few sources. A couple of other possible sources in English are mentioned in Guarneri. It would be a good idea to read everything you can find about the subject.

I hope you find these brief suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Good luck with the article and the larger project. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Cypriots[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 recently significantly revised it, with a good range of sources and want advice on where to go from here. Is the tone/balance correct? What needs to be done to get it to good article status? Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I think the tone is fine. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead is too short even for a short article. A good rule of thumb for the lead is to include at least a mention of the main ideas in the text sections. I'd suggest expanding the lead to include a bit more about history and something about population and notable people.
  • UK and EOKA need to be spelled out on first use like this: United Kingdom (UK). After that it's fine to use the abbreviation by itself.
  • Some of the citation data is missing. If possible, the citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. Citation 22 lacks a publisher, for example, and citation 19 lacks its access date. A different sort of problem occurs with citation 14, where the linked title leads to a Google search page rather than the article itself. If the full article or at least an abstract is unavailable online, it's probably better to leave the title unlinked. That way the reader can tell by glancing at the citation that the source is available only on paper.
  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the words of the article title in the heads and subheads. I'd suggest changing "Notable British Cypriots" to something like "Notable individuals".
  • When multiple references appear together, it's customary to arrange them in ascending order. The 12-11 pair toward the end of the "History" section should be flipped to 11-12.
  • Words like "now" "today", and "currently" are often ambiguous. Here's an example: "One estimate states that there are 130,000 nationals of the breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus currently residing in the UK... " This can be remedied by using something like "As of 2008, an estimated 130,000 nationals... " You should use the date of the estimate, not necessarily 2008. Another example of this same sort of time problem occurs in the last sentence of the "History" section: "Turkish Cypriots continue to migrate to the UK... " It would be better to fill in a specific year; e.g., "As of 2008, Turkish Cypriots continued to migrate... " When the situation changes, the sentence will still be true although a bit outdated. Later edits, say in 2015, might bring the outdated bits up to date.
  • The first sentence of the "History" section stopped me because of a slightly different time confusion. "Prior to the First World War, very few Cypriots migrated to the UK and the Cypriot population at this time is given as around 150... " I think this would be more clear if changed to "... population at this time was around 150, according to... ".
  • It would be helpful to include just a bit more about the independence struggle. For example, it would be good to state directly that the struggle was for independence from Britain. It would also be helpful to say in that paragraph why people from Cyprus would flee to the UK at the same time they were in some sense at war with the UK. Possibility for expansion of the article might lie in briefly explaining some of the complex relationships that must have been operating.
  • If any material exists about British attitudes, pro or con, toward immigrants specifically from Cyprus, that's another possibility for expansion. General attitudes toward immigration might be relevant. Legal immigration controls, if any, might be worth mentioning. Does the UK limit the number of immigrants per year from Cyprus, for example?
  • The prose generally flows well in this article but could be improved in places. Specifically, I'd look for ways to replace "there is" and "there are" constructions with something more direct. An example would be "whereas the Museum of London reports that there are 100,000 Turkish Cypriots in Britain – 20,000 more than in Cyprus... ", which would be better as "whereas the Museum of London reports that 100,000 Turkish Cypriots live in Britain, 20,000 more than in Cyprus."

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll try to enact your suggested changes shortly. I just have a query about your point on reference 19 since it seems to have an access date to me... Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. I'm not sure why I thought it didn't, but it looks OK to me this morning. Finetooth (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just another quick question. You recommended specifying a date for estimates such as "One estimate states that there are 130,000 nationals of the breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus currently residing in the UK", but the source does not have a publication date. Any suggestions for what to do in this case? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean. I hunted around at the BBC site where the source article appears, and I couldn't find anything to nail down the publication date either. I think as a temporary fix, you could just leave the claim as is since the BBC article uses the ambiguous "currently". A more interesting course of action might be to hunt for Viv Edwards' other published work in the hopes of finding more data than the short BBC piece provides. Even if this didn't produce the missing date, it might produce interesting surprises. Finetooth (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. From a brief search, it appears that Viv Edwards is a linguist rather than a demographer (which isn't surprising given that the article she wrote for the BBC is about the Turkish language) so I don't think we're going to find anything that way. That aside, do you think that the article as it stands is worth nominating as a good article? It seems a bit short to me but I'm not sure there's that much more material out there to expand it with. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> The GA criteria include "broad in coverage" rather than specifying a particular length, so I don't think length as such would be a problem. I didn't review with GA necessarily as the goal, but I didn't notice any POV problems or instability, and the article seems generally well-written. It might need another image or two to meet the "illustrated, where possible" criterion. I'd suggest checking the links to make sure none is dead. I'd merge the orphan sentence at the bottom of "History" with the paragraph above it. I see a few nit-picky things like "pp. 360-362", that the Manual of Style would prefer be "pp. 360–62" with an en dash instead of a hyphen. So my answer is "yes". When you get done with this round of tinkering, go for it. Finetooth (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your help. Let's see how it goes. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Bedford Historic District[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 when I finished expanding it a few months ago, it was pretty much the article I had expected it to be. While as it is I don't see this as an FA, I definitely think it's got GA capabilities. I'd like to know what my fellow editors think.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by doncram

  • Nice article, reflecting Daniel Case's fine style in other historic district articles. It's high time some of those should get promoted!
  • Great photos, particularly the lead one and the US Customshouse one, both Daniel Case-taken pics. The next to last one appears kinda fuzzy to me, not sure why.
  • Map showing district boundaries is good, but i think it should be zoomed out to show the district's location relative to the waterfront. I take it the waterfront is across the freeway which i see, but does the map show the waterfront at the right or another street. There is no blue water showing up anywhere.
  • Layout, table of contents work great for me, looking now in Firefox with zoom / larger size fonts for the moment.
  • I have a number of copyedit suggestions and/or detail comments, many focusing merely on confusion about what "it" is referring to. Suggestions/comments:
    • During the 19th century, when the city was the center of the American whaling industry, this was its downtown. Awkward phrasing, reword. Actually, i see that i misread the sentence as saying "this was its downturn." Not sure if the context could have influenced me to misunderstand in a way similar to how any others might. Probably it was just me, but I leave my statement of confused experience reading the sentence for you to consider.
    • Many of them reflect the legacy of whaling in the city's development. It was designated a National Historic Landmark (NHL) and added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1966. For clarity in larger context, change this "It" to "The district".
    • One building within it, the U.S. Customhouse, is the oldest such facility currently in use and has been itself recognized as an NHL. Since 1996 it has also been a part of New Bedford Whaling National Historic Park. Do you mean the Customhouse has been part of the NB WNHP, or that the historic district has been part of the NB WNHP? Replace "it" by "Customhouse" or "district" or "historic district"
    • The district is bounded by Front Street on the east, Elm Street on the north, Acushnet Avenue and the Central New Bedford Historic District on the west, and Commercial Street on the south, an area that takes in 11 city blocks and part of a twelfth. Run-on. End sentence with south, then second sentence like "The area takes in ...".
    • On these 19.6 acres (7.9 ha) are 20 buildings, with some modern intrusions, mainly parking lots.... Are the 20 buildings all historic buildings, or are some of those 20 modern intrusion buildings? Say 20 historic buildings or otherwise clarify. Should the comma after intrusions be a colon followed by a list of the intrusions, instead?
    • Just east of the district is the John F. Kennedy Expressway (MA 18), a limited-access highway which has become a barrier between it and the neighboring waterfront, still in use. Replace "it" by "the district".
    • New Bedford became a whaling port shortly after its settlement when Joseph Rotch moved to the area in 1765. Running on, and/or out of order. Perhaps (if this is factually accurate): "New Bedford was identified as a potential whaling port by its first settler, John Rotch, who moved to the area in 1765."
    • In 1778, the British Army burned the city in retaliation for the acts of local privateers. Could you say, before, what the local privateers did? Perhaps you do not have that info, but it would be nice to provide if you do.
    • Two decades later, the War of 1812 again took a toll on the industry, but it recovered again and by 1823 New Bedford's fleet equalled Nantucket's in tonnage. Four years later it had surpassed the island's in barrels. Replace "it recovered" by the "industry recovered"; replace "it had surpassed" by "New Bedford's had surpassed". (Note "it had surpassed" is incorrect, you meant "its fleet had surpassed".)
    • As the city prospered in the following years, the buildings that currently make up the historic district were built. The buildings were built seems not the most exciting way to lay it out.
    • William, now a wealthy man,... Replace "now" by "then"
    • The Seamen's Bethel, built in 1832, became the traditional spot for sailors' services before departing for the deep oceans. Mysterious, what services are offered in this Bethel? I think this is wrong, but I don't know what a bethel is, and bethel sounds like a brothel, where sailors might want services before departing for long voyages. Maybe explain what a bethel is, either if it is a general term or if it is a local one-only term, especially as the term is used later in the article, too.
    • In 1851 Herman Melville, who had lived in New Bedford a decade earlier, published his classic novel Moby-Dick, which began in New Bedford and mentioned locations like the Bethel and the houses. Interesting. Can you work in a quote or two from the book, rather than just say the book mentions New Bedford? Melville refers to ___ as "____ ___", etc.
    • The industry peaked in 1857, when New Bedford accounted for half the U.S. whaling fleet. What industry? Would be clearer as: "The whaling industry peaked in 1857, when New Bedford accounted for half the U.S. fleet" (or half the U.S. whaling fleet?)
    • ...and the last whaling voyage took place in 1925. Clarify, this was certainly not the last whaling voyage in the world. The last whaling voyage departing from New Bedford? in a ship owned by NB interests?
    • In 1966 the waterfront area was among the earliest National Historic Landmarks designated. Append "in the United States."
    • Two have been added to the National Register in their own right, and one of those is a National Historic Landmark. Suggest changing the second phrase to active voice as well, perhaps: "and one of those has further been designated a National Historic Landmark."

I hope these comments are helpful! Good luck. doncram (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munich air disaster[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 believe it is very close to reaching FA status now, but the way it was put together may have caused it to have a bit of a stop-start feel to it. I would copyedit it myself, but I've done a fair bit of work on this article, and a fresh pair of eyes would be useful. Thanks, – PeeJay 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments: 1) You might want to consider renaming this article so that they conform with the naming convention adopted by both the WikiProject Disaster management and Aviation accident task force, which is <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. The 1960 Munich crash is already named this way (1960 Munich Convair 340 crash), so I took the liberty of changing the otheruses template, as it doesn't need to go through the redirect it was using. 2) You might want to reconsider listing all the victims, and include only the notable ones (ie, those with Wikiarticles). Typically, we don't list all the victims of crashes in crash articles because this is contrary to the guideline that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Other than those comments, congrats on producing a thorough article. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that renaming this article is a good idea. All but one or two sources I've found refer to this event as the "Munich air disaster". – PeeJay 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • External sources don't necessarily guide how articles on Wikipedia are named, however. Naming conventions are adopted in order to provide a cohesive, consistent system across the encyclopedia. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • But we do have to consider WP:COMMONNAME. When looking for this article, most people would search for "Munich air disaster". Some sources I've seen refer to it as the "Munich air crash", and I've also seen "Munich air disaster/crash" with the year added to either the beginning or the end, but "Munich air disaster" is the most common. – PeeJay 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a compromise, I suggest that this article go through the RM process before it goes on to FAC. – PeeJay 22:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offer[edit]

I would be willing to help as I understand the technical details of the accident quite well and have experience of trying to get an article through GA (but failing), I would have to be quite critical though. Remind me if I forget, I only just spotted the peer review request. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's anything about the technicalities of the accident that I've missed out, please feel free to add them in (provided that you can source them properly, of course ;] ) – PeeJay 00:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much missed out as 'not quite right'! I can edit the article myself if it is easier. I have sat through many article reviews and I've thought 'well you could have fixed that yourself! While I'm still conscious I will add some thoughts below:
  • For GA class and above the lead needs to be longer (recommended four paragraphs). That should not be too difficult, we need a paragraph summarising the accident and causes, another to summarise the investigations and hearings (there is some text/coverage missing in the main article here) and another to summarise the aftermath/tributes/effect on Man Utd.
    • I definitely agree with this comment. I guess I spent so much time bulking up the main content of the article that the lead just passed me by. I'll probably add in a {{TOClimit}} template too.
  • The reference section is non-standard layout for the project, I can fix that.
    • Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the References section to me, but that may just be differences in formats between WikiProjects. Therefore, it would probably be best if that wasn't changed for now.
  • The word 'plane' is used many times, this has been thrashed out in the aviation project, we came to the conclusion that the word 'aircraft' is better although repeating that too often is not good either.
    • I was unaware of that particular conclusion, so that can be fixed no problem.
  • There are some aviation navboxes missing from the bottom of the article, when they are added the bright red half-page width Man Utd. box might get commented on as it will look different.
    • Hmm, the club navbox will be a tough one to change; not technically, but because all other English football club navboxes are half-page width. Shame really, as they should be 100% width, but changing them all for the sake of one article is pointless. You should go ahead with adding the appropriate aviation navboxes though.
  • I support you with sticking to the article name, equally nobody in Britain has ever heard of British European Airways Flight 548 but anyone my age and above will remember the Staines air disaster very well.
    • Good to know that I have support on this front :)

Will have another look in the morning. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comments. I look forward to seeing more of them :) – PeeJay 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mjroots[edit]

The referencing of the article needs improvement. Particularly the two paragraphs on the causes of the crash.

The sections of fatalities and survivors should IMHO be reorganised. As this is an article about an aircrash, the crew members should be at the top of the list and the passengers should be below them. If there had not been a single football player on the aircraft, the crash would still be sufficiently notable to justify an article. Having the football players listed first gives undue bias to Manchester United FC. Sections should just be titled "Crew" and "Passengers", there is no need to distinguish professions of the passengers as separate sub-sections. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the referencing of the article needs that much improvement. I'd say that, on the whole, the referencing of the article is fairly good, except (as you say) those two paragraphs. However, that can be fixed soon enough. I have reorganised the lists of fatalities and survivors, though, using semi-colon headers to separate the different groups of passengers. – PeeJay 11:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dates of death for survivors also need references. The alternative is to delete these as not relevant to the article. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't argue with that. I've added as many as I could find. The only ones I couldn't find reliable refs for were Ted Ellyard and Peter Howard. – PeeJay 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Toon05[edit]

  • In the introduction, would it not make more sense to say "a non-stop trip from Belgrade to Manchester was out of the "Elizabethan" class Airspeed Ambassador aircraft's range", since that was the direction of travel?
    • Fixed. Hadn't noticed that at the time. Cheers.
  • In Background, first paragraph, "The following season, the English league was won by Manchester United, managed by the visionary Matt Busby" - that last part sounds very POV.
    • Removed "visionary".
  • Same section, next paragraph, "...with the young team – known as the "Busby Babes" for their youth..." sounds awkward.
    • Changed to "...with the team – known as the "Busby Babes" for their youth...".
  • Both paragraphs: it isn't clear in which season the European Cup is established. It says "In 1955, UEFA established the European Cup... However, the English league winners, Chelsea, were denied entry... The following season..." do you see, or is it just me?
    • Reworded.
  • In The crash section, final paragraph: "generally not aware of the then unknown danger" ...can you rephrase this? It surely goes without saying that they would be unaware of an unknown danger.
    • Yeah, the last two paragraphs of that section need re-doing completely. I still haven't written about the efforts of Harry Gregg in getting some of the last survivors out of the plane.
  • The final two paragraphs of the same sections are not referenced.
    • Same as above.
  • In Survivors: "At the time of the accident, she was pregnant with her son Zoran, who is also still alive" - should probably reflect his also surviving the crash, as we would probably not know if he is still alive today, will become dated.
    • Done.
  • In Aftermath, the Busby quote should be referenced immediately after. Also, "That simple statement lifted Busby from his depression" - does your source have medical evidence of this? It seems a little exaggerated, impossible to prove.
    • The source reads "With those words the black depression lifted and his enthusiasm for the game was suddenly rekindled." Depression isn't always a clinical/medical thing.

That's all for now, I may come back and have another look later, though. Hope this helps, – Toon(talk) 19:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has helped a lot. Cheers mate. – PeeJay 20:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments by Toon05

  • In Memorials > Old Trafford, second paragraph, the following sentence should be rewritten; use the word "unveiled" less: "Also unveiled that day was a memorial to the members of the press who died at Munich, which consisted of a bronze plaque that named the eight lost journalists and was unveiled by Munich survivor Frank Taylor on behalf of the Football Writers' Association."
    • I'm not sure there are many synonyms for "unveil" that would work there. I have reworded it to make it two sentences though, so the (over)use of the word isn't so obvious.
  • There is a problem with seeral of the same items being linked repeatedly. Per WP:MOSLINKS, they should only be linked once, unless they are introduced far apart. Alex Ferguson, Bobby Charlton and Matt Busby are linked several times reasonably close together.
    • It's difficult to find multiple links, but I've removed as many of the links to Ferguson, Charlton and Busby as was appropriate. Not sure if there are any more to be found.
  • In 40th anniversary, the sentence "From then on, the match ceased to be primarily a tribute to the Busby Babes and became more about Cantona." is an opinion, and should be presented as such. also "relatively paltry sum" is probably best attributed to someone.
    • Removed "the relatively paltry sum of", as it should be up to the reader to decide whether £47,000 for the victims compared to £90,000 for Cantona is paltry.
  • In 50th anniversary, "unveiled the renaming of the tunnel" is awkward - how can you unveil a renaming? You can unveil an inscription of the words, etc.
    • Reworded. It now says that they were guests of honour at the ceremony to rename the tunnel.
  • "sponsors logos" might need to become "sponsors' logos"
    • Removed the bit about the manufacturer's logo and simply put "sponsors' logos".
  • In Tributes > Film, is it important to mention Barry Navidi? He doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article, and it isn't explained who he is.
    • I've explained who he is, but unlinked him.
  • Same section "a former United player who had left United only a few months earlier" is awkward
    • Agreed, I've sorted that now.
  • Same sentence, I would prefer that "...was less restrained, saying that the filmmakers were only interested in making money off the back of the tragedy and that they could not possibly know what went on that day without having been there." became an actual quote (there is one in the source); but this is entirely my opinion.
    • I've quoted verbatim (not in the correct order, but that shouldn't matter).
  • The Tributes section itself is a strange combination of bullet points and prose; you might want to make it consistent, it looks a bit trivia-ish at the moment.
    • I've prosified it all except for the list of TV channels that aired programmes about the disaster.

That's all from me, good luck with the article! – Toon(talk) 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta buddy. If there's anything I've done in response to your changes that you're not happy with, do please say so :) – PeeJay 12:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Gygax[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, and although it failed on the recent FAC (notice, no support votes, but no oppose votes either), I think it has potential to get there. Please let me know anything you think that would help to improve it.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good idea, but don't you need to wait until two weeks after the last FAC to put an article up for peer review? -Drilnoth (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dunno. Oops? :) BOZ (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's only two days from now (Jan 10th)... my bad! BOZ (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, auomtated bot! ;) I fixed the "March 5th" to "March 5, 2008", but otherwise the items the bot found seemed like they were inapplicable or beyond my ability to understand. ;) A full copyediting may take some time, but I'll see what I can do. It would be super-sweet if a human reviewer could take a look as well, but I understand that there is a backlog. BOZ (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I just reviewed the Ravenloft D&D module article, so thought I would look at this one too. The first two suggestions here are very similar - anyway, I enjoyed this article and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would also treat the FAC as a very detailed peer review - there were lots of comments there that need to be examined carefully. I would also treat things mentioned as examples and make sure that there are not other examples to be fixed in the article. Once you think everything has been fixed or at least addressed, I would then ask some of the FAC reviewers if they would take a second look at the article to see if they agree that things have been improved.
  • There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) pargraphs and even a few short sections - to improve the article flow, these should generally be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • I think the article could use a copyedit to polish the prose. This is awkward, for example: His family moved from Chicago to Lake Geneva in 1946, just before Gygax's eighth birthday,[5][6] where he lived until his death in 2008.[4] I think it is too disjointed as it is and would read better as something like His family moved from Chicago to Lake Geneva in 1946, just before Gygax's eighth birthday.[5][6] He remained a resident of Lake Geneva until his death in 2008.[4]
  • There are three block quotes in the article. Per WP:MOSQUOTE {{blockquote}} should be used for quotes that are at least four lines long, but the first and third block quotes are less than one line and less than two lines long on my monitor.
  • None of the block quotes does a good job of putting the quote into context - I am pretty sure they are all from Gygax, but the text should make this clear. The last quote in "Personal life" is a great way to end that section, but could be introduced with something like "In a 2004 interview, when he had already suffered X health problems, Gygax said ..."
  • Refer to him consistently throughout - MOS for Biographies is to use the last name if it is not too confusing, but the Awards and honors section refers to him as Gary Gygax in several places (obviously leave direct quotes unchanged, but this is not that).
  • The lead should be a summary of the article, and not contain anything unique. However the inoperable part of the aneurysm is only in the lead and should be in the text too. Also this sentence needs work He was in semi-retirement,[3] having almost suffered a heart attack after receiving incorrect medication[9] to prevent further strokes after those on April 1 and May 4, 2004. My guess is the strokes led to semi-retirement, but it reads like the almost heart attack ??? led to retirement. If it impaired his health in other ways, please say so.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again. I'll take a look into fixing those up once I have some free time. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again; I worked on some of these items as well. Again, I'll remember your suggestion of contacting the reviewers before we renominate for FAC #2. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glengoyne Distillery[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 worked on the article to bring it from this to the current revisions and would like help getting the article assessed.

Thanks, Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 02:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

  • Gawd, these never arrive at a good time! Article is pretty short.
  • References always come at the end of a sentence or after a comma.
  • No need to link really gnereric things like nineteenth century, keep it for rare/specific things.
  • It is reputed to be the most beautiful distillery in Scotland. - erm..by who? Bit peacocky. Needs to be neutral-sounding.
  • Need to talk about the products produced. Are they highly rated? Have they won awards? How does the taste compare with other whiskeys?
  • Once some more comprehensiveness issues are dealt with, the prose can be worked on. I noted some stuff but have to run now. More later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just thought of what I wanted to say - the idea of writing to avoid peacocky terms is that a reader shouldn't be able to tell what the writer thinks of the whiskey. It should sound as if they are neutrally reporting other sources positive comments. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problems fixed Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - much much better. Make sure all the images have proper fair use templates. I am too tired to do much tonight but I know someone who will. I need to sleep! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Doncram

  • The article is interesting and useful and generally well-written.
  • The use of footnote references in the introduction is jarring, particularly when the footnotes appear mid-sentence. The idea of a lead paragraph or section is to provide overview, and can be entirely footnote-free, with following sections providing the detail and the footnotes. In fact, I think there should rarely be anything in the intro that is not developed elsewhere.

Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded the lead section as per Glane23's suggestions - Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 17:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Glane23

  • How about this for the lead -
Glengoyne Distillery is a whisky distillery continuously in operation since its founding in 1833 at Dumgoyne, north of Glasgow, Scotland. Glengoyne is unique in producing Highland single malt whisky matured in the Lowlands. Located upon the Highland Line, the division between the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland, Glengoyne’s stills are in the Highlands while maturing casks of whisky rest in the Lowlands. Unlike many malt whisky distilleries, Glengoyne does not use peat smoke to dry their barley, but instead favours the use of warm air.
  • add back the footnotes elsewhere in the body of the article and adjust the body to flesh out the lead facts accordingly
  • Is there a cite for the location of the stills on the Highland side of the fault line and the cask aging/storage on the Lowlands side? I think that's an intriguing fact, which is why I put it in the lead.
Citation 6 which links to this site backs up this fact. It is possible to derive the location of the stills and the warehouse from the following sentence "The Highland Line, which divide Highland from Lowland Scotland, actually splits the distillery in two, thus Glengoyne is distilled in the Highlands and matured in the Lowlands" - Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 17:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the award information belongs in the body of the article.
Moved the award information into the products section - Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 17:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Geoff T C 18:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! - Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 17:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore[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 at this point it has all the content it needs to cover the topic in summary style. It is also well cited. Please provide constructive feedback on style, grammar, prose and presentation to improve the article.

Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore/archive1.

List of Puerto Rican boxing world champions[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This list has been a pet project of mine for several months. After expanding, sourcing and requesting help from users that are more familiar with these champions, I'm bringing it before the community for consideration in order to prepare for a future FL nomination. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A very good choice of list for the encyclopedia; I doubt an equivalent exists anywhere else. However:-

  • I am wondering what is the reason for the date format (e.g. 2000-05-06) that you have used in the main table? Why are these dates wikilnked? In the smaller "Current champions" list you use standard, unlinked date format.
    • Those dates were linked some months ago, back then auto-formatting linking was recommended by the guidelines. The "Current champions" section was completed after it became optional. Anyway, I will de-link all of those dates. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that these main table dates are when these boxers won their titles (and the column heading in the table should make this clear), why are there different dates for Daniel Santos and for Ivan Calderon in the Current champions table?
    • The dates in the main table list the date when the boxers won their first title, thus meeting the requirements for inclusion. However, the "Current champions" section lists the current reigns. Daniel Santos lost the championship back in 2005, but he returned to action two years later and won again in 2008. Calderón is undefeated, but he vacated his original title after moving to another division, in which he debuted by winning a second championship. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hector Comacho appears in the Current champions list but I can't find him in the main list. \
    • That is because Hector is a boxing fossil, you won't find him close to the other current champions. His first title was won back in 1983, he is #15. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have glanced at the prose. I think this is going to need some considerable attention, as there are some strange phrases and grammatical constructions. And "reglamentation"? You need to persuade a sharp copyeditor to give all the prose a good going-over.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I will respond to the concerns above. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post Oak Mall[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 get feedback on what else the article may need and how its progressed so far before attempting a GA or FA nomination. Its well-sourced, but is it well-structured? Well-written? Comprehensive? Etc.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This a good start. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The links in citations 1, 3, 5, and 9 are dead, and I didn't check all the others. In the case of newspaper links that have expired, it's OK to convert them to off-line sources. The paper versions still exist even if the on-line versions have disappeared. For other kinds of dead links, though, it would be good to repair the links or find new sources, if possible.
  • To get to GA, you'll need images. One of the criteria is that the article is to be illustrated, where possible. It's clearly possible in this case.
  • Some of the wikilinks go to the wrong articles. An example is the Plitt movie theater in "Beginnings", which links to the biography of a botanist. Wilson's links to a disambiguation page. I'd suggest checking all of the links in the article to make sure they make sense.
  • Words for time like "currently" are often ambiguous. An example can be found in the sentence about David Gwin in "Renovations", which ends with "details on what the renovation would entail are currently unknown." It would be better to say something like "As of 2008, details about what the renovations would entail are unknown."
  • Orphan paragraphs of single sentences such as the David Gwin sentence are generally frowned upon. The problem can be solved either by expansion or by merger with other paragraphs. I tried to read the source article to see how this particular instance might be expanded, but citation 10 is dead.
  • The lead of a Wikipedia article should summarize the rest of the article, and it should not introduce material that is not developed in the rest of the article. The existing lead has quite a bit of material about the economic impact of the mall (taxes, retail sales, visitation statistics) that's not discussed elsewhere. One possible solution might be to move this material to a new section called "Economics" or "Economic impact" and to expand it if possible.

I hope these brief comments are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all of your comments except the first two. I'll go through and see if I can find updates the newspaper links (the Eagle redid its website :P) and will try to get a picture of the mall. Would a picture of its entry sign suffice (similar to the one I did for Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas)), do you think? Getting a good picture of the mall itself is difficult without being in the air because of all the roads around it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all links now fixed as well :) (Need to get back to the local library so I can find the original articles and add their page numbers and stuff so its less of an issue :) ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entry sign would be one solution and certainly better than no illustrations. The mall project page list four mall articles that have reached GA here. I looked at all four just now to see how those editors had solved the illustration question. The solution varies according to the situation. Flat malls are tougher than malls with towers or multi-floor buildings. My suggestion would be to take your camera to to the mall and capture 50 or so images from different angles when the light is right and pick the best one or two or three. Interior shots might work as well as exterior depending on the lighting, the floor layout, and what kind of camera equipment you are using. Try some verticals as well as horizontals. Put the best image in the infobox. If you haven't looked at the other GAs, you might get some ideas for what works best. Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenloft (D&D module)[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'm trying to get it up to FA-Class and would like some more comments before nominating it. It does have a previous FAC archived here, and I think that I've resolved everything mentioned there.

Thanks, -Drilnoth (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We received no manual feedback the last time this was filed for peer review, so we would appreciate it if someone could provide some comments this time. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be patient - it can take up to two weeks to get a review. This is on the PR backlog list, so someone will get to it in a few days, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Patience, I can do. :) BOZ (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would treat the FAC as a very detailed peer review - there were lots of comments there that need to be examined carefully. I would also treat things mentioned as examples and make sure that there are not other examples to be fixed in the article. Once you think everything has been fixed or at least addressed, I would then ask some of the FAC reviewers if they would take a second look at the article to see if they agree that things have been improved.
  • To me the article seems under-referenced. There are several paragraphs and even sections without refs (the first paragraphs of the "Original edition" and "House of Strahd" sections and the entire "Master of Ravenloft" section have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Per WP:CITE references generally come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
  • There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) pargraphs and even a few short sections - to improve the article flow, these should generally be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Much of the article consists of descritpions of the different versions of the module and sequels, but there is almost no critical reception information for these (except for the review of Ravenloft II).
  • This While the I6 Ravenloft module is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Ravenloft campaign setting sets, the timeline given suggests that the campaign settings are set a couple hundred years after the events of the module would have played out.[note 2] and the note seem to be a bit too in-universe, see WP:IN-U

Hope this helps and thanks for your patience. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC) 2[reply]

Thanks! I'll look into some of those. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I put some work into some of the items you mentioned. That's a very excellent idea of contacting the reviewers after we have worked on the article, prior to re-nominating it for FAC. :) I didn't notice any instances where citations did not come after punctuation, or at the end of a sentence or phrase, so let me know if I've missed something. BOZ (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William McGregor[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
When this article was passed at GAN, the passing editor said he hoped to see it soon as FAC, but I didn't do anything about that at the time. I'd now be interested to know if people feel there's enough meaty content to merit an FAC, and if so whether there's any further little tweaks need to be made......

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Brianboulton:

  • The article is basically OK, but a bit short, and rather lacking in the depth of information required for a biographical article. It might have some difficulty meeting the "comprehensive" criterion at FAC. For example, the information about his activities after the initial founding of the Football League is extremely thin. He was chairman of the League's management committee, then it's president - what was he doing in these critical early years? Presumably he was busy, so let's hear about it. Also, he was chairman of the FA for six years – again, what did he do? What policies did he develop? How and when did he become a committee member of the FA - it's not mentioned in the article. I would guess that his period as an active national football administrator was the most productive and interesting of his life, but it's glossed over. There must be more to be said.
  • The lead could also be expanded; at present it doesn't really act as a summary of the article.
  • In addition to these general points I have a number of prose and other minor issues:-
    • Lead
      • First line, comma required after "Victorian era", delete "who is"
      • Aston Villa should be "Aston Villa Football Club" for the benefit of non-UK readers
      • The Aston Villa sentence needs splitting. Suggest a full stop after "England", then: "He served the club..."
    • Early life
      • "and" is inappropriate in the first sentence, since the two parts of the sentence are unconnected. Perhaps it could begin: "Born in Braco on Perthshire, McGregor first became..."
      • "he served his apprenticeship..." I know this is commonly said, but strictly speaking it should be "an" apprenticeship (he could hardly have served someone else's).
      • In the same sentence, it's an "and" rather than a "but". The sentence might benefit from a little general rewording.
    • Association with Aston Villa
      • "He also umpired..." This was no doubt the correct term for the 1870s, but it would be better to use the modern term "refereed", for the benefit of today's readers. At the very least the tern "umpired", if you keep it, should be footnoted.
      • Also, the umpiring bit should form a separate short sentence, as it's unrelated to the main part.
      • "Originally the club played at Aston Park" - what is the purpose of "originally" here?
      • There's another unwarranted "but" here; suggest put a semicolon afte "business", delete the "but" and continue.
      • You say he was a director until 1895, then became vice chairman and after that, chairman. Did he cease to be a director when he held these posts? Surely the club chairman and vice-chairman has to be a director?
    • Founder of the Football League
      • The first sentence is too long and needs to be split
      • "was moved to take action" --> "took action"
      • It should be explicitly stated that the extended blockquote is the text of McGregor's letter, e.g. "His letter reads as follows:-"

I hope these suggestions help. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the response would be that the article would be too short and not in-depth enough for FA, hence my asking for opinions rather than just listing it. Thanks for the second opinion :-) To be honest, despite having consulted a number of books on football history and a number of published biographies of the man himself, I've found nothing of substance about him time at the FA other than what's already in the article. Your other points are all good, I will get them actioned -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zaprešić[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed Zaprešić for peer review because I'd like to make this article at least GA-class. I've started working on this article three weeks ago while it was still a 2 KB copyright violating stub and I think I've turned it into a pretty good article. I've come to peer review mainly because it probably needs some copyediting and I've been told before that I'm not good at grammar and MOS (I'm not a natural English speaker); also, I tend not to finish sentences sometimes when I'm in a hurry.

Thanks, Admiral Norton (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article, and I enjoyed it. It's certainly broad in its coverage, stable, illustrated where possible, neutral in its point of view, and it seems factually accurate and verifiable. To improve this article to GA, you'll need to deal with the two small cleanup tags in the last section, but that shouldn't be difficult. That plus what you've already done would take care of five of the six GA criteria. Most of my comments below and the small changes I made as I went through the article have to do with the sixth, that the article be well-written.

Two areas for possible expansion occurred to me. You might want to include a bit of the area's geology, either in its own section or in the geography section. I'd suggest adding a climate section with information about temperatures, rain, snow, wind, and anything else that readers might find useful.

Lead

  • The ideal lead summarizes the whole article without introducing material undeveloped in the main text sections. The existing lead does not mention anything from sections 4 through 11. You'll need to expand the lead to meet this part of the "well-written" criterion for GA articles. WP:LEAD is helpful.
    •  Done I completely rewrote the lead to ensure it summarizes all sections. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, it was formally established as a city as late as 1995." - The phrase "as late as" is vague. Perhaps this would be better: "However, it was not formally established as a city until 1995."

History

  • "passing near today's settlements", "still stands today", "municipalities of Pušća (still exists)" - Words like "today" and "still exists" are tricky because they are vague. "Today" refers to no particular time, and it is always changing. One way to fix this is to use something like "still exists as of 2009" or "passing near modern settlements".
  • "did not formally exist until November 30, 1995" - Since this is an article about a European city, the dates should appear in the main text in day-month-year format. I ran a script to flip them. If you disagree with this change, I can flip them back.
    • I didn't know about that rule before. I tend to write them in month, day form when I write in English, as it's more practical for me. However, the day, month format is the only one commonly used in Croatian language and Croatia and I don't have any problems with keeping the dates in the European form. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

  • "18 km (11 mi)" - WP:MOSNUM recommends spelling out the main unit, kilometer in this case. You can fix this by turning off the |abbr parameter in the convert template. The template will still correctly abbreviate the secondary unit.

Demography

  • "91.1% of inhabitants" - The Manual of Style recommends not starting a sentence with digits. You might say, "About 91 percent".
  • "the whole Zagreb County" - English is odd in many ways. "The whole county" would be correct English, but when the county name appears first, "the whole of Zagreb County" would sound more natural. Further down, "the younger towns in the Zagreb County" would sound more natural as "the younger towns in Zagreb County", without the "the".

Government

  • was founded and settlement awarded a mayor as late as 30 November 1995" - Since the exact date is known, "was founded on 30 November 1995 and awarded a mayor" would be better.
  • "The city council ... has the legislative power over the town and, as explained above, elects the mayor and members of the city government. It represents the residents... ". - You don't need this internal cross-reference. I'd suggest deleting "has the legislative power over the town and, as explained above".
    •  Done Actually, the other part of the sentence was explained above. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure

  • It was beforehand left in Gorjak Creek, endangering the tap water quality." - Maybe "piped into" would be better than "left". The text implies that Gorjak Creek is a tributary of the Sava River. If so, it would be good to say so directly.
    • ✗ Not done Sava drains a half of Croatia, so Gorjak Creek must be its tributary one way or another. However, I can't find a map of this area (either printed or Internet-based) that names all the little creeks in the area, so I can't be sure, although I have a good candidate. I have reworded the sentence as a temporary solution. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "construction of the Zajarki water purification system for screening the used water" - Does the plant only screen out the solids? That would still not "purify" it for drinking.
    •  Done I rewrote a sentence so that readers don't think the tap water is pumped from Sava; the river is way too big and polluted for its water to be potable. Zajarki system releases the water into Sava, not anywhere near Šibice and the water pump, and frankly, I don't see a point in this (maybe they want to protect the non-existing fish). Admiral Norton (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transport

  • "It is thus known as the "northwestern gate to the Zagreb County." - Direct quotes should have citations right after them. If this is not a direct quote from a source, I would suggest removing the quotation marks and the "the" in front of Zagreb, thus: northwestern gate to Zagreb County.
    •  Done It is a direct quote (from geography_zap reference), but not in English, so I followed your advice. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubica in this section links to a disambiguation page and should be made more specific.
  • "current city urbanistic plan" - "city plan of xxxx" would be better, where xxxx is the date. "Urbanistic" is not a word in English. "Urban" is a word, but you don't need it since you already say "city".
    • ✗ Not done This is a bit tricky, because the "general urbanistic plan" or "general urban plan" of a city (Croatian: generalni urbanistički plan, GUP) is a legal term of sorts in urban planning in Croatia, something like a cadastre and there are other plans, such as "spatial plan" (prostorni plan) or "urban plan of land restructuring" (urbanistički plan uređenja), and the same place can be covered by more than one of them. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The date when the construction starts was not yet announced." Better to say, "As of January 2009, the date of construction had not been announced."

Culture and media

  • "Two of these are in the zero category of cultural preservation" - Outsiders won't know what "zero category" means unless it is explained.
    •  Done I've mentioned the organizations that issue these categories. A link to an explanation page would come in handy here, but I'm afraid this is the best I can do. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports and recreation

  • "a fitness club, a sauna and a massage parlor.[49][50][51][31]" When a string of footnote numbers appear together like this, it's good to arrange them in ascending order, thus: [31][49][50][51]. You do that by rearranging the inline references.
    •  Done The problem is that I sometimes add an existing footnote somewhere near the lead or in the infobox and the numbers change. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable inhabitants

  • "an infamous germanization" - I'm not sure what this means. It might mean he invited Germans to immigrate or that he gave some kind of ruling power to the Germans or that he made people learn the German language. A bit of elaboration would help.
  • "The statue is still located on the square today" - Another one of those "today" problems.
  • "rector of the Croatian course" - I don't know what the "Croatian course" means.
  • "Still living inhabitants" - This is like the "today" problem because "still" is ambiguous and always changing. Since you give the birth dates and no death dates for this last group, you don't need to say that they are still alive. Maybe "Other well-known inhabitants" would be better.
    •  Done It's a bit awkward now, but I can't think of anything better. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments and suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, preferably one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta and Great Waterways Railway scandal[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This was recently listed as a good article, which was nice, but unfortunately the review was a little short on specific feedback. I know this isn't of FA-quality, but I can't seem to put my finger on what it is that needs to improve - I think it maybe needs to be reorganized, but I'm not sure how. I'd appreciate any comments on actionable problems, preferably with suggestions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comments by doncram I don't have detailed comments, but I hope my sharing some gut reactions might be helpful to you. My main reactions are that I think it is too long, and it needs a pithier explanation of what the scandal was about, hopefully quoting from some other accounts. It seems like it is a lengthy account based on one main source, reporting in almost the same length what happens page-by-page in the main source. As such, i think it currently is so detailed that it pushes towards a boundary of what is an encyclopedic article. Basically, i think an encyclopedia article should be a summary, referring the reader to the longer source. I expect the source itself is kind of long and boring; this article needs to be punchier and shorter, in my view. I do hope that some other sources exist which could provide different perspective and some interesting quotes.

Also, it is not clear throughout all of the first paragraph what is the government that was toppled. Reading it, I could not tell whether it was the Canadian national government or the Alberta government. It mentions the Alberta legislature and the railway is in Alberta of course, but it still easily could be the case that a national government was toppled over a scandal in one place. The U.S. Teapot Dome scandal, which i don't particularly know about, must have been in regards to an incident that happened at one place in one U.S. state. It was not until the end of the first sentence in the 2nd paragraph, where it is mentioned that the Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta began looking for a replacement, that I could conclude the writer must be talking about a scandal primarily affecting the Alberta government. It seems that the writer assumes the reader already knows about the scandal, and to me that is irritating in the same way that reading a newspaper sports story about Alabama beating Florida by one points in an exciting game, etc., will surely irritate me, anyhow if it is not stated whether the game is basketball or if it is football or if it is hockey or what. It just becomes a bigger and bigger burden for the reader to take in new smaller details, without getting the big picture yet.

How important was this scandal in the nation? Simply, what else was going on in the nation, at the time? Some discussion of what other headlines were at the time would serve to put it in perspective in some way. Was the party in power in Alberta the same party as was in power in Ottawa? How did this affect the national party? After reading almost the whole article and then going back to the intro, I am still not clear on the importance. Mainly, I absorbed just that the one leader lost support, and had to be replaced by another in the same party. That does not seem very important, except in a biography of the one leader. I am hoping other sources could provide some larger perspective.

There is one element in the story that does interest me, about how one minister supported an amended contract for reason of supporting the credibility of Alberta standing behind its contracts. That reminds me of some famous U.S. supreme court case, a very important precedent in U.S. law, about the requirement that a state government (I think Georgia) needed to carry through with some contract it had entered into, despite the contract being a very poor/unfair one for the state in some fashion. This was very important in U.S. economic history for upholding/building the credibility of contracts. I don't know the name of that case, but perhaps the wikipedia article about it could be found, and you would see some similarities and perhaps see a different way to describe this scandal.

How does it compare to other scandals in Canada or the world? Is there a list-article about scandals in Canada that the intro could link to, or could some other scandals be mentioned to provide perspective in this way.

Otherwise, it reads perfectly well and no spelling/grammar/low level issues leap out at me. Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: This scandal should be added to the List of Canadian political scandals. You could browse other scandals on the world-wide List of political scandals to try to identify some other models for organization of this article. I would need a good model to be writing an article like this, personally. doncram (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2: This scandal is not mentioned in the History section of the Alberta, Canada article, which may be appropriate. However, it is also not mentioned in the more detailed History of Alberta article, where it should be mentioned. Working it in there would help bring readers to this article, too. Perhaps comparing it to one sex scandal that is mentioned in the History of Alberta article would be helpful in this article. Also perhaps a stub article about the sex scandal needs to be developed, to be linked from this article. So, is this the 2nd most important scandal in Alberta's history, if u add this to the History of Alberta article? There are other Alberta scandals mentiond in the List of Canadian political scandals. Any more important than this one should be added to the History of Alberta article, if this one is added, in my view. doncram (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Death in England[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 think it's pretty close to FA-level. But every time I nominate an article for FA the main concerns seem to be with the language. I may be a bit sloppy with my English at times, so if anyone could check that all the commas are in the right place etc., and that the meaning comes across clearly, that would be great.

Thanks, Lampman (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting and generally well done - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I do not do copyedits but agree this could use a light polish. Have you tried asking in the copyedit section at WP:PRV?
  • Section headers do not follow WP:HEAD in that they repeat parts of the higher section headers, so as one example in the "Consequences" section, "Economic, social and political consequences" should just be "Economic, social and political" (we already know they are consequences). While the word "Plague" is not in the title, what do you think of calling the "Victims of the plague" section just "Victims"? In any case "Who were the victims" should be changed - perhaps to "Identities"??
  • I thought the article did a good job on the start of the pandemic and then kind of petered out towards the end (of the article and pandemic). The whole "Recurrences" section, especially the part about the Great Plague of London in 1666 seems too brief. What about the village that quarantined itself and stopped the further spread of the plague (forget the name)? Or else it needs to make clearer that the Black Death part is just the first occurrence of the pandemic.
  • Should some words in the first sentence of the lead be bolded? Perhaps The pandemic known to history as the Black Death entered England in 1348, and caused the death of between a third and more than half of the nation's inhabitants.
  • The lead image is OK, but kind of bland - keep it in the article, but perhaps File:Plague victims blessed by priest.jpg would be a better lead image? Or are there any English Dance of Death murals such as one finds on the Continent?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House (TV series)[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 renewed the page and I think it's close to FA quality, but has a few things left to be taken care of. The crew section needs expansion, the DVD table needs referencing and there are problably things I have missed. All help is appreciated.

Thanks very much, --Music26/11 22:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm. I can't see any huge changes that need to be made. The only thing I noticed is that Cuddy and Cameron don't seem to be covered that well in the casting section. Reyk YO! 10:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While this looks fairly good, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The language is generally good but there are some places that are a bit slangy andcould be more professional / clear. Just in the lead, for example The show's premise was created by Shore, who got the idea for the curmudgeonly title character from a doctor's visit. "from a doctor's visit" is unclear - I assume it from Shore's visit to a doctor, but it sounds as if he was visited by a curmodgeonly physician. Or House received heavy critical acclaim ... is just unclear - I think it means very favorable acclaim, but am not sure. Or House is currently in its fifth season of broadcasting. should be just "As of 2009, House is in its fifth season. or perhaps The 2008-2009 season is House's fifth. Avoid "currently" as things change and "of broadcasting" was unneeded. I would get someone to copyedit this before FAC.
  • Article needs more references, for example the first and third paragraphs in Series overview have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. The third paragraph has several direct quotes without refs.
  • Since one of the interesting things about the show are story arcs over a whole season or several episodes within a season, I would mention those in the Series overview section. For example, in the drug addiction section (which I would mention in the lead), why not mention the policeman who hounded House and his associates for most of a season? Or wny not mention the winnowing of 40 candidates to the new team here? Or the Selena Ward character romance?
  • The ref here does not seem to fit - This was referred to jokingly in the season four episode "Ugly", in which a documentary crew follows Dr. House and his team throughout the episode. At one point House starts walking with his team and the camera crew follows, shooting in the "walk and talk" style. As House and his team are walking away, Dr. Foreman asks where they are going. House responds: "Walks look good on camera. They give the illusion of the story moving forward."[63] The ref appears to only be for the episode where this heappens, but saying that this is referred to here without a ref appears to be original research.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so change things like Creator David Shore won a writing Emmy in 2005 for the first season episode "Three Stories".[125] Shore also received a Humanitas Prize for the episode[126]. Actually these two sentences could be combined to something like Creator David Shore won a writing Emmy in 2005 for the first season episode "Three Stories",[125] and also received a Humanitas Prize for the episode.[126]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the review, I haven't had much time to work on the article, but you made very clear points. Thanks.--Music26/11 12:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the ref after the full stop makes it look like ref [126] is for the whole sentence. Since we use logical quoting, why should we use illogical and wrong referencing? -- Jeandré, 2009-01-18t10:38z
Whut...? The reference is for the whole sentence. (frown).--Music26/11 12:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Humanitas ref (previously 126, now 128) is only for the second part of the sentence, and should therefore go before the fullstop, not after because it doesn't mention the Emmy. With the ref after the full stop it looks like the Humanitas ref is for the whole sentence — which is wrong. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-24t07:47z
I get what you mean now (sorry, I didn't undertood you the first time), but ref 127 is for the emmy award and is therefore in the middle of the sentence (after the mentioning of the emmy win).--Music26/11 11:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Emmy ref is in the right place (BTW, the PDF is only a nomination list and doesn't say that "Three stories" won - you'll need to find another ref for that), what I'm pointing out is that while the manual of style states that "Inline citations are generally placed after any punctuation such as a comma or period", doing so in this case for the Humanitas ref makes it wrong - ignore the manual of style and instead get the ref right: before the full stop. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-24t16:22z
I've put both refs at the end of the sentence, so it clears both points. Note that the emmy reference does say that the award was for "Three Stories".--Music26/11 17:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Emmy ref doesn't mention the Humanitas prize, and the Humanitas ref doesn't mention the Emmy - putting both at the end of the sentence implies that they do. Some articles do put all refs at the end of sentences or paragraphs, but refs are then broken when sentences are shuffled or rewritten (acceptable exceptions being tables with specific ref colums where horizontal space for certain fields are the same). It would be better to take the Emmy ref back, and put the Humanitas ref before the full stop.
The Emmy ref says "Three Stories" was nominated, it doesn't say they won it. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-25t12:37z
I've put the ref before the fullstop, but if I ever take this article to FAC, reviewers will problably complain about it, so you'll have to back me up on that. Also the winners of the emmy in the emmy ref are printed in bold, so it does say the episode won the award.
I'll be there, but I'm not going to see any season 5 episodes until it comes out on DVD so I'm not going to read certain sections. The Emmy nom PDF ref actually bolds all show headings - see the two bold Lost titles that lost on page 32; I've put in a ref that says Shore won the Emmy and reworded the sentence a bit. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-25t22:09z

List of Orlando Magic head coaches[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Gary King (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "of the National Basketball Association"-->in the National Basketball Association
  • "the team for 328 games over four seasons" Comparative quantities should be written out the same way.
  • "regular season games"-->regular-season games (multiple occurences)
  • "Stan Van Gundy is the team's current coach, coaching his first game at the beginning of the 2007–08 season."-->Stan Van Gundy has been the team's current coach since the beginning of the 2007–08 season.
  • "regular season winning percentage"-->regular-season winning percentage
  • Can we have a more descriptive image caption?
  • "A running total of the number of coaches of the Pistons." No, the Magic.
  • Ref 1—Are you sure that you retrieved the info in 2060?
  • "Turner Sports Interactive, Inc" is the publisher of the NBA.com refs, see ref 1 List of Washington Wizards head coaches. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay done. The "328" and the "four" aren't being compared; it's "games" vs. "seasons", not "games" vs. "games". Why is the dash needed? It looks a bit strange, too. Gary King (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:MOSNUM "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Do you mean the hyphen? It is used for compound adjectives. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay done Gary King (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

  • The note [N 1] says that "A running total of the number of coaches of the Magic. Thus, any coach who has two or more separate terms as head coach is only counted once." However the table conflicts this by listing Brian Hill as coach 2 & as coach 8. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah; fixed Gary King (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Weeds episodes[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 made a ton of recent and major edits to it in the hope of getting it to FL status and would like the input of others to suggest additions in content (such as if the episode leaks discussed in the main article and the faux talk show Good Morning Agrestic should be included) or make note of errors (if the ratings section needs to be re-written, if the theme song/opening sequence sections need to be extended and if the episode summaries are appropriate).

Thanks, The no erz (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I have never seen this show. Sounds interesting. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead image needs a fair use rationale or it will be deleted. It also seems to be much too big / high res for a fair use image. See WP:NFCC
  • I would probably put the year it started in the first sentence of the lead or least the first paragraph to provide context for the reader. As noted, I have heard of but not seen this and was not sure if it was even still on the air. Perhaps something like The American comedy television series Weeds was created by Jenji Kohan and has aired since 2005 on premium cable channel Showtime. See WP:PCR
  • Language needs a copyedit throughout - I had to read In season four — with the exception of the season premiere — "Little Boxes" and the opening sequence it was played over for the first three seasons were replaced with new opening sequences to reflect the show's change in setting.[18] several times just to figure out what it meant. Or this Taking a break from the development of her false bakery, Nancy goes out to a club with Celia and Conrad, who, later, have a sexual encounter. Andy is ordered to attend MA, where he begins a dishonest relationship with the circle leader. It is unclear in the first sentence who has the sexual encounter (three people are mentioned - this is SHowtime, so all three?). And "MA" is unclear in the second sentence - link it or spelll it out.
  • Since the opening and different versions of the theme song by different artists are important, they should probably be mentioned in the lead too.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DCEETA[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 is in need of a thorough culling, it's riddled with Original Research, misrepresentation of sources, trivia and is barely literate. I've been trying to deal with the various issues for some time and would welcome some alternative opinions on it. There is a possibility that I'm being too harsh and expecting more than the originator can deliver.

Thanks, ALR (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I say redelete the article and protect it from recreation, but thats me. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tom. This article should be deleted as there's no evidence of notability and the article is nothing but a hodge-podge of weasel words and original research. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • God, looking over some of the history...so bizarre, so many unsourced assertions. Redelete, protect from being recreated, then salt the ground and drive a stake through it for good measure. Skinny87 (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a look and I think it's clear that this should be re-deleted too. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sent to AfD. EyeSerenetalk 12:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am archiving this to save PR resources Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States cable news[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 believe this article has a good start, but needs some work.

Thanks, Son (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by using Eddie6705[edit]

  • Firstly i would start by adding the following template for each citation, rather than simply the web address; {{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |work= |publisher= |date= |accessdate=28 January 2009 }} (Delete the parameters you don't need).
  • I would try and expand the lead to make it at least two paragraphs long. Summarise the article more in this section.
  • The first half of the article needs more referencing, there is only one before the ratings section.

Per the peer review directions, I am archiving this as it has a cleanup tag at the top of the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pre-Stonewall American television episodes with LGBT themes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it and its four sibling lists to featured list status and of the five I think this one is closest. Something of particular concern is whether secondary sources are required for each episode. Per WP:PSTS I don't believe they are and have not received a definitive answer on the FL talk page so that question really needs to be addressed.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would add references for each episode. If (as I suspect) they are mostly from a single book, I think a blanket reference would be OK. See ref 1 in List of Pennsylvania state parks (a FL) for such a blanket ref. I suppose if the talk shows are from one book, the docs another, and the dramas, etc a third there could be three blanket refs. If worse comes to worse, I would add a ref for each episode
  • I would provide more context for the Stonewall Riots - at least add the date (1969 IIRC) and I think a sentence explaining their significance in LGBT America is in order, given the title of the article.
  • I think the column header "Network" should be something like "Network or station" since many are local stations
  • Would it make sense to order the epsiodes chronologically?
  • I would add something to the Synopsis for each - if it is a talk show, say that. Identify the city if it was locally produced.
  • Why is one image left justified and all the others right justified?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ugh, I was afraid you'd say to add a ref for each episode. Re chronological ordering, the reason I didn't do that was because of the multiple years for some of them. I thought it was more important and smoother flowing to keep the episodes together in one row rather than splitting them off into multiple rows for individual episodes about which I have very little detail. The column is sortable chronologially, although imperfectly because of the multiple date situation for some shows. The one image is left justified to avoid image stacking. There's a fairly substantial distance between the CBS Reports row and the Max Liebman row, then two images close together, then another sizable gap between them and The Rejected row. Visually it looked awkward to me. I could left justify another image if you think that would give more balance or just rt-justify them all if you don't think it's an issue. Otto4711 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could always leave the refs off and add them in FLC if needed / requested. I would link Mike Wallace ... in Wallace later repudiated his participation ... and probably give his full name. I also wonder if it would help to have some sort of numerical breakdown in the lead - of the X episodes, Y are talk shows, Z are documentaries and W are dramas. I like the idea of right-left alternation of photos. Finally the first paragrap of the lead seems too long and the second too short. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ipecac Recordings discography[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm listing this article for peer review as I think it could go to WP:FLC. There's only one other record-label discography at featured-status, so it would be nice to set a precedent. Any and all advice, help, and criticism is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I have not particpated in WP:FLC mush lately, so I am not sure these are valid points, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I think the one sentence initial paragraph in the lead is too short and should either be combined with the second lead paragraph or expanded. The MOS generally frowns on one sentence paragraphs.
    • Removed – I think it was a fairly self-evident point anyway.
  • To my FAC eyes, the article seems under-referenced. The first External link looks like the source of the list itself, but the discography does not have a ref. Items in the lead that are not in the table itself should also be referenced (some are, but others like the that fact that they also release books) are not.
    • I'm not quite sure how to tackle this. Should I simply add a note (as opposed to a reference) to mention which release was a book?
  • Second sentence of the lead is not grammatically correct, suggest either splitting it or perhaps something like The label was created to release Mike Patton's band Fantômas' self-titled début,[1] while retaining "all the creative control",[2] and to satisfy the Melvins' – friends of Werckman and Patton's – need for a label. Since this is an American label, I changed "whilst" to "while"
    • I've tried to retool this information. I truly drew a blank; they'd ceased to be words to me!
  • Avoid words like "Currently" - use thing like "As of 2009" instead (currently soon becomes no longer current).
    • I think I've sorted this one.
  • I would explain more obscure terms like 7" somewhere.
    • Hmm. In a sortable table, it might be seen as odd to pipe links only on their first instance. But I'd have no qualms about it, and I think you're right that these things need glossing. Do you have a suggestion?
  • Be consistent on spacing - does a slash "/" have a space after it as in "CD/ book" or not "CD/LP"? (I think a space before and after the slash looks best, not sure what the MOS says).
    • Standardised. I don't know what the MOS says either, but any grievances will undoubtedly be aired at FLC one day.
  • Any free images of the bands the label represents that could be added?
    • There are a few available. Do you think I should just stick one underneath the current image of Patton? Maybe if they were each a little smaller...

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I'll swing by the backlog at some point by way of thanks. I used to love this place! Seegoon (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen several lists like this that were not as wide as the full screen with photos along the right side - I imagine that would work here. I have also seen lists that have a key, but I wonder if a sentence or two added to the lead might not work better, something "The label has released media in a variety of formats including compact disc (CD), 7 inch single (7"), ... and even a CD / book combination." (working from memory here). If the only book is the CD / book in the table already, then I think the current lead and ref is OK. Finally, could there be a sentence or a note that said something like "This discography is based on the official Ipecac Recordings catalog. with the EL as a ref? Welcome back, by the way, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long-toed Salamander[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 did my masters thesis at the University of Calgary on the long-toed salamander. Over the past week I have spent numerous hours going over and completely revising the long-toed salamander page. I have compared this page to others and believe that it is ready for a review. I have yet to request a page review - so I am new to this process and would like to learn the process. I have worked on other pages and feel this page is perhaps the most prepared. I would like this page to become a featured article. The sort of questions I have are: 1) Is the article long enough? I have other additional information on the long-toed salamander that could be included, however, there is a point where the reader can follow through on some of the listed references to learn more. 2) Have I included enough headings or would it be more appropriate to break the article into different parts than those listed? 3) Is there anything that is apparently missing? 4) Are the citations appropriate? 5) Is the language appropriate or should it be simplified even more-so?

Thank you in advance! Any assistance that you might be able to provide - would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Mark Thompson

Ruhrfisch comments: This loooks pretty good for a first effort, but needs some work to pass at FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Model articles are useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many animal FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Biology and Australian Green Tree Frog, Blue Iguana, and Cane Toad may all be useful models.
  • I would expand the lead per WP:LEAD to at least two paragraphs. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase . There is no space or comma between refs. I fixed one example.
  • Article is generally well-referenced, but needs more references in a few places, for example Adults may also drop parts of their tail and sleek away while the tail bit acts as a squirmy decoy; this is called Autotomy. The regeneration and re-growth of the tail is one of those remarkable feats that amphibians are able to accomplish. For obvious reasons, this physiological process is of great interest to the medical profession. needs a ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK Things like "remarkable feats" in the quote above or "amazingly" in Amazingly, this species is found to occur at sea level and up to 2,800 metres (9,200 ft) above sea level. are to be avoided - if you can include them as quotations, that is OK.
  • Per WP:HEAD the section names need some work, for example "Biology & Life Cycle" should be "Biology and life cycle", or avoid repeating header names in subheaders, so the "Subspecies and genetic diversity" section subheading "Sub-species morphological characteristics" could just be "Morphological characteristics" (we already know it is for subspecies). ALso be internally consistent - is it subspecies or sub-species?
  • Images are very nice, but there are too many for the current article length. Per WP:MOS#Images avoid sandwiching text between images. One thing to do is put the images in a category on Commons and use {{commons category}}

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thompsma (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Ruhrfisch. I have made some of the changes you suggested with some additions. It is true that there are lots of pictures, but they show specific examples of some of the biology of this species described in the text. I've tried to expand on the discussion to see if the number of images will match the size of the article. I'll think about this more and see what I come up with. I think that the rating of B is a little low. I looked at other B rated articles and was hard pressed to find anything that matched what I have accomplished. Most B rated articles lack references, are brief, and poorly written. I do intend to go through and improve on some of the formatting and styles - which is needed to bring this up to par for a featured article, but a B rating doesn't seem appropriate. I'm a published author on this species and have published several other scientifically peer-reviewed articles, so I like to think that my writing style is at an appropriate level. I wonder why American toad has a high importance rank while my article has a low? Just curious. Thompsma (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you need to use different styles for different journals, so too Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style that articles should follow, most of my comments above pointed out where the article did not follow the MOS when I read it. Assessment is not my cup of tea - I would ask on the WikiProject Biology talk page for someone to reassess the article. As for Low priority, I think that is about the subject, not the article. There are lots of American toads, so a prominent species typically has a higher priority. I have written several FAs on covered bridges - they are all low priority (a few cars a day use them) compared to the high priority Brooklyn Bridge. Article quality is not the same as priority - priority is more based on what are the most important topics in a subject or field. An article can even be different priorities in different projects (a bridge in Pennsylvania might be medium priority as a bridge article, but low priority as a Pennsylvania article)Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again - thanks for the review and for coming back to make further comments!! I have tried to find a reviewer on WikiProject Biology, but no takers yet. I'm reading and learning about Manual of Style and will bring this page up to par in time. Still, however, I think a visit to other B rated articles will show that this article deserves a higher category. I have visited about 20 B rated articles and none have had a comparable level of detail, references, or style. As a kind suggestion - I would recommend that you do the same - it might help you with your assessment skills (i.e. "Assessment is not my cup of tea"). As for the priority aspect - I have written about this and believe that it is a misleading aspect to wikipedia: Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Remove Importance Scales. The comment that there are lots of American toads doesn't hold - there are lots of long-toed salamanders - indeed it is one of the most widely distributed salamander in North America, second only to the Tiger salamander (which - depending on the taxonomic status may be broken into different species with lesser range). I don't have the biomass estimates - however - I would venture a guess that there is at least an equivalent, if not more, long-toed salamander biomass than compared to American toads. The reality is that we don't know - so this shouldn't qualify as a standard to rank the 'importance'. Moreover, the long-toed salamander is the only salamander species covering most of British Columbia's forests. This means that it has extremely high importance sustaining the soil ecosystems that support the forest industry and the economic sector. It is a matter of perspective on priority, which is why I believe a rank free article tree is more appropriate - it doesn't mislead. This is a critical point in relation to species conservation efforts. People might see 'low' importance rank and think that the species is irrelevant - and nothing could be further from the truth. Thompsma (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most readers never look at the talk page or the assessments = I have no desire to do assessments or improve my skills there. I am obviously unqualified to rate the importance as I did not know their numbers were comparable. The idea I had was a guess (I do imagine the toad has a wider range?). Higher than B class is either WP:GA (which has to pass WP:GAN) or WP:FA {which has to pass WP:FAC} or A-class (which usually is set by the WikiProject). I think this would do well at GAN, haqs a way to go before FA, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber[edit]

OK, looking good...some notes to follow...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

heading called Historical biogeography and taxonomy - man, that's a mouthful! Why not just Taxonomy and evolution? remember the readership...
Try to think of places where plainer, simpler words can be substituted without losing any meaning to keep the audience as broad as possible.
Am I missing something, does it have a description section, where the thing is described? How long, colours etc. I'd stick it after the taxonomy bit.

Awesome! Thanks for the excellent feedback. I'll work on these suggestions.Thompsma (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanna Wong Yick-ming[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 see if any improvement can be made and I believe this article meets the FA's requirements. This is my first time to nominate an article to the peer review. All comments and advices are welcomed!

Thanks a lot, Clithering (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think this needs a fair amount of work to get to FA standards.

  • While I like the image of her name in Chinese, I think most readers would expect to see an image of the person herself in the lead of an article. This also follows the Manual of Style, which asks that an article start with an image in the upper right corner (and there is an image of her later in the article).
  • Biggest problem I see with this at FAC is Criterion 1a, a professional level of English. This needs to be cleaned up to meet that standard, for example Wong is the fourth child in the family. She has four elder sisters and two younger sister and brother. The last part should be "a younger sister and younger brother" (I think). Plus, if she has four elder sisters, doesn't that make her the 'fifth child (not the fourth)?
  • Article has an awful lot of red links - I believe it violates the MOS to have a red link such as the one in the "Social work career" section See also: Hong Kong Federation of Youth Group
  • Disambiguation links are to be avoided too - Dame in the lead is one dab.
  • I would be consistent as to how she is referred to - in most places it is just "Wong", but there also places like Dame Rosanna was married to her husband, Dr Alfred Tam Yat-chung, who was a physician specialized in pediatrics on 15 September 1979.
  • Spell out abbreviations before their first use - see the CPPCC National Committee of the People's Republic of China. in the lead as one example
  • Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK See for example "brilliance" in Wong's brilliance as a social administrator was soon noticed by Governor Sir Edward Youde. In 1985, Sir Edward intended to reform ... (I would just say "In 1985, Youde intended to reform ...

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your useful and informative comment! And Sorry I haven't had the time to response to this since my university's new semester has begun. I agree your comment and changes will be made according to your suggestions (but for the photo, sorry that I find no copyright-free photo available and I do not think the only photo of her used in the article is suitable to be displayed in the opening section). --Clithering (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Football League Cup winners[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 know if there any improvements that can be made to the list. Thanks, NapHit (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2001 final was decided in a penalty shootout, but the score is missing. --Hullu poro (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Eddie6705

  • 'is considered to be the second most important domestic cup competition for English football clubs, after the FA Cup', although i agree with the statement, it could be seen as POV and would be better referenced.
  • 'Nottingham Forest won two more consecutive titles in 1989 and 1990' should be a new sentence.
  • '..to be played outside London was held in 2001, as the League Cup final was moved to Cardiff's Millennium Stadium..', don't need to mention League Cup in this sentence.
  • Why are the second mentions of the teams and stadia in the double-legged finals not linked (e.g. Filbert Street and Villa Park), but there are multile links of the same teams and stadia for the single-legged finals?
All links need to be linked in sorable tables this is not so in non sortable tables. NapHit (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i didnt realise that was the case. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have the symbols in the key the wrong way round for penalty shootout and extra time.

Comments by Jameboy

  • "known as the Carling Cup for commercial purposes" - yes, but only since the 2003–04 season.
  • Can we crop the image down so that the cup fills most of the frame? It looks really small in the existing image.
  • In the lead you say that the 1967 final went to extra time - I'm pretty sure there wasn't extra time in that final.
  • "the larger teams returned to the competition" - I thought it said that they weren't in it at the beginning, how did they "return"?
  • "However, several of the larger clubs refused to take part in the early seasons of the competition, resulting in Aston Villa—who had recently been promoted to the First Division—winning the inaugural competition" - You're suggesting that Villa would not have won it had all the "larger" clubs taken part. How do you know? You also need to define "larger clubs" - do you mean "First Division clubs"?
  • Probably making some of my earlier points redundant, but I think some of the History section is going off-topic. This is a list of winners, so we don't need an explanation of how many teams entered when and why. I'd condense the two prose sections into a focussed, three-paragraph lead that gives some background to the subject but concentrates mainly on introducing the list, and let the main Football League Cup explain all the whys and wherefores. --Jameboy (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

  • No need for comma after Cup in first sentence
  • Mention of first winner should go before mention of first winner of a single-legged final, not after
  • "Liverpool hold the record for the most League Cup titles, having won the competition seven times since its inception" - obviously they couldn't have won it before its inception, so that bit is redundant
  • "However, several First Division refused to take part in the early seasons of the competition" - spot the missing word :-)
  • "changes were made to the competition to allow the winners automatic qualification to the UEFA Cup" - although the possibility of European qualification for the winner was added, no changes were actually made to the competition itself, suggest a reword
  • "The last League Cup final replay was held in 1997" - clarify that this because the rules were changed to require a penalty shoot-out instead, currently it reads as if there haven't been any replays since 1997 but theoretically it could happen again
  • "Team from outside the top level of English football (since the formation of The Football League in 1888)" - as the cup wasn't created until 1960, the bit in parentheses is redundant

Looks good apart from that! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

B-52 Stratofortress[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 pretty good article which is looking like it could go through FAC soon. This is mainly a request for any last minutes polishing to it.

Thanks, Xclamation point 21:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Ish[edit]

A few points:

  • There appears to be a bit of a gap in the Service modifications section covering the 70s and 80s - i.e. nothing covering the distinctive LLTV mods of the 70s , the cruise missile mods (including the effects of the SALT treatys) or the aircraft modified to lauch Harpoon.
  • The article talks about airborne alert duty and the accidents involving nuclear weapons that occured during this task. It would be helpful to talk about the end of such operations.
  • Its use as a launch platform for X-15 and such could be described in more detail.
  • Joe Baugher's website is used as a reference a lot. The use of this website as a WP:RS has been questioned before at the F-4 Phantom FAR. In addition, not all the websites used as references are correctly formatted - again this may be a sticking point if the article is taken to Featured Article.

Nigel Ish (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fnlayson[edit]

Here's some things I see:

  • As long as this article is, splitting off a separate Design section seems like way to go.
  • Global Security and Vectorsite are self published works like Joe Baugher's site.
  • List publish dates in references if available.
  • Images should not be on left and right at the same vertical position. That can squeeze the text between and cause readability problems for users with low resolutions or large text. I'll fix some of this.
  • Boeing has offered to replace the B-52's engines times before. That should be mentioned if you can find a good source(s).

That's all I can think of at the moment. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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 hoping this list will eventually reach FL status. I created List of awards and nominations received by Rufus Wainwright and took it up to FL status, and I hope to do the same for this Amy Winehouse list. Any feedback would be appreciated before making this article a featured list candidate.

Thanks so much! -Whataworld06 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • Amy Winehouse is an English singer and songwriter, known for her eclectic mix of various musical genres including soul, jazz, rock and roll and R&B. - unlink English and the genres because they are common terms
Done.
  • Black to Black was issued under Island Records throughout the world, except under Universal Republic in the US. - throughout the world is WP:WEASEL IMO, can a specific geographical description be given instead?
Done - listed Europe, Asia, South America and Australia instead.
Comment - added Billboard singles chart source + sources citing chart positions for "Rehab" and "You Know I'm No Good". If acharts.us is not a reliable source, is there a list somewhere that displays reliable sources for song chart figures?
  • The purposes of the awards also need references to reliable sources as they are also unverifiable at the moment.
Comment - working on this!
  • The Elle Style, NME, Premios 40, Q, Urban, Vodafone, and Vibe awards all need a purpose as to why they are held
Comment - having a bit of trouble with the Premios 40 one, but the others are improving
  • The "Ivors" are the only annual event to honor the music writer. - the tense this is in is in a way WP:POV, reword
Done - this has been removed. Not because I am not willing to re-word, but because I have no way of knowing if it is true or not (and really, it isn't even that relevant). There could be other awards that exist to honor songwriting. The statement was simply taken from the Ivor Novello Awards article, but I have removed it from the list here.
  • The Mercury Prize, formerly the Mercury Music Prize and currently known as the Nationwide Mercury Prize for sponsorship reasons, is an annual music prize awarded for the best album from the United Kingdom or Ireland. - unlink Ireland
Done.
  • Other than that, the list and refs check out fine.--TRUCO 15:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! - Whataworld06 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Amy Winehouse is an English singer and songwriter, known for her eclectic mix of various musical genres including soul, jazz, rock and roll and R&B. "-->Amy Winehouse is an English singer and songwriter. She is best known for her eclectic mix of various musical genres including soul, jazz, rock and roll and R&B. \
Done.
  • "She has released two albums"-->Winehouse has released two albums
Done.
  • "Winehouse's debut album won her several awards and recognitions" Alternatively, you could change "won" to "earned", it depends on the sentence's meaning.
Done.
  • "Award itself is a solid bronze sculpture of Euterpe - the muse of lyric poetry. " The hyphen should be an em dash.
Done.
  • "Originally beginning as an alternative to the Grammy Awards"
Done.
  • "mtvU is a division of MTV Networks which"-->mtvU is a division of MTV Networks that
Done.
  • "The NME Awards are an annual music awards show, founded by the music magazine NME." Comma not needed.
Done.
  • "be by a British artist(s)"-->be by (a) British artist(s)
Done.
  • "as voted on by teens aged 13-19" Should have an en dash in the year range.
Done.
  • "Guiness World Records" should be in italics. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you SO MUCH! -Whataworld06 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Housecleaning[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 think it's good and hope others think so too. I worked on it over a year. I think my wording is not a how-to. I hope you think so too. If other editors read it, they might want to work on it and make it longer. I plan on adding a picture or two.

Thanks, Chuck (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is undersourced. One citation per section is not sufficient. I would recommend that "litter problem", "clutter problem", "dustiness", and "dirtiness" become subsections of the "reasons" section, and that the training section be significantly expanded. This article should also have a section discussing how housecleaning varies throughout the world with subsections about different areas. A history section would also be very helpful. I also agree with the merge proposal; house work, household management, and housecleaning usually refer to the same concept, and "housekeeping" is the most common term for that concept. Neelix (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liv Tyler[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 have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature article status. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Bradley0110

Please bear with me on this please, I haven't done a proper PR for about two years(!)

  • Her birthdate should appear in the "Early life" section as well as the lead, and be referenced.
  • "She is the daughter of Aerosmith's frontman, Steven Tyler and model, singer Bebe Buell." There's a comma issue here ("Steven Tyler and model"?; it might be better to have "She is the daughter of Steven Tyler, the frontman of Aerosmith, and Bebe Buell, a model and singer."
  • "but quickly decided to focus on acting" --> better to change "quickly" to "after less than a year", per later in the article.
  • Check for hyphen omissions throughout the article; "first born" should be "first-born" (or even "firstborn")
  • "Her mother named her after Norwegian actress Liv Ullmann after seeing Ullmann on the cover..." Two "after"s looks a bit odd. You could changed the first one to "named for".
  • Be careful of redundant over-referencing (such as "She went to York Prepatory in New York City for junior high and high school,[12] after her mother researched the school to accommodate Tyler's attention-deficit disorder.[12]")
  • "In an interview, Bertolucci chose Tyler for the role after meeting with a number of young girls in Los Angeles," He chose her in an interview? What a groundbreaking director! ;-)
  • "Tyler next appeared in Armageddon (1998), where she played Bruce Willis' daughter and love interest of Ben Affleck's character." --> "The daughter of Bruce Willis's character.." (a forgiveable error, since Willis was just playing himself in that film)
  • Roger Ebert's review of Armageddon seems superfluous to an article about Tyler; are there any reviews that talk about her?
  • "Tyler was required to master an English accent". Are there any sources that talk about her methods or if she modelled it on anyone in particular?
  • "She learned to speak the fictitious Elvish language that was created by Tolkien". As above--are there any comments from her on whether she found it easy/difficult?
  • "The film became one of the most critically acclaimed films and greatest box office successes of all time." Ref?
  • "playing a woman who re-opens a widowed father's heart to love, played by Affleck." Affleck played love? "re-opens a widowed father's (Affleck) heart to love".
  • The first sentence of the Strangers paragraph is a run-on sentence.
  • "Although the film was garnered with mixed reception..." --> "Although the film garnered a mixed reception"
  • "she accepted the part after a day without reading the script." Was she deprived of the script? How about "She was offered the role while driving home and accepted it the next day without even reading the script"?
  • "The Incredible Hulk was a big financial success, earning a revenue of $262 million worldwide at the box office." --> "The Incredible Hulk was a box office success, earning $262 million worldwide."
  • Some references are incorrectly attributed; Ref #3 should be The Daily Telegraph (Australia) rather than "News Limited", which is the publisher. Additionally, for news sources like that, the url is not required (no need for news.com.au, or dailyrecord.co.uk in Ref #14)
  • Is everything listed in "Further reading" necessary? Can any be incorporated into the article? For example, James Mottram is a big cheese in film criticism; could that interview serve to expand the LOTR paragraphs?

Nice work, but this probably isn't FA-ready yet. After this review is closed, you might want to submit it to the biography peer review for closer scrutiny. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi ThinkBlue. You really need to learn how to correctly handle quotes and citations. You can't simply paste a direct quote into the text and cite it to the source (though I thank you for citing it; well done). You either need to paraphrase (as I did in a small way with the "gravitas" bit) or include quotation marks around the entire quote. The words "a certan gravitas" were a direct quote but were not marked as such. Ditto a much worse case: "The UNICEF Snowflake serves as a beacon of hope, peace and compassion for vulnerable children around the world". That's questionable on two levels: First and worst, it is a direct quote but is not marked as such. Second, it is irrelevant to Ms. Tyler. I will fix this as well, mainly by deting most of that sentence. More later. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looked again, still finding instances of WP:COPYVIO. You must learn how to avoid this problem, and learn as soon as possible. Please don't take this article to WP:FAC without a top-to-bottom scrubbing for this problem. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runaways (comics)[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 with a lot of work, I feel it can be built into a good article. It will also be a first for Wiki- a main comic book article as a GA. However, since I have no examples to look at but GA comic book characters, I might need some help and other opinions.

Thanks in advance, -- A talk/contribs 18:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and sounds like an interesting comic, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Per WP:OVERLINK, avoid repetitive links - for example Pride (comics) is linked twice in the lead and twice more in the article, and its Members section is linked for each of the parents. My rule of thumb is to have a link in the lead once and then perhaps once more in the next mention in the body / text.
  • Some things that could be linked, like Deinonychus for Old Lace, are not. Done
  • I would include more about the group in the first paragraph of the lead than just The series features a group of teenagers who discover that their parents are part of an evil crime group called the Pride. Perhaps The series features a group of teenagers who become a team of dysfunctional superheroes after discovering that their parents are part of an evil crime group called the Pride. You get the idea (hopefully)
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there are several sections that do not seem to be in the lead, such as Alternate versions. Please see WP:LEAD
  • There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article.
  • Article needs a copyedit throughout to meet the professional Englsih FAC criterion. For example Ever since the original groups' introduction, the Runaways have been portrayed as a somewhat dysfunctional yet loving family. should be Ever since the original group's introduction... or watch tense changes in things like After creator Vaughan leaves the series, Joss Whedon conducts his run (plagued with delays)... I can undertsand describing the plot of the comic books in present tense, but this is not the plot of the books.
  • Biggest omission I can see is no critical reception section - some reviews mentioned in the article, but info on this should be in one place, expanded, with info on sales, awards, etc.
  • Avoid things like Current and now and currently - use as of January 2009 (things get out of date quickly otherwise).
  • Another thing to watch out for is writing from an in-universe perspective, see WP:IN-U.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hornoir:

I have to agree with Ruhrfisch's overall commentary, with a few additional remarks.

  1. The first paragraph lead omits one simple, yet important, bit of information: that the kids run-away from home after discovering their parents are The Pride. It is, after all, where the title of the series comes from.
  2. Expand Plot summary/Main series. I'd advise altering this to a plot summary by story arc.
  3. Alternate versions could be a single paragraph or two, instead of split by subheading.
  4. Merge the two collected editions tables into one, make the oversized hardcover entries span multiple rows.
  5. The References list is a strange amalgam of citation template use and not; standardize it please.
  6. With a Reference list this long, I'd advise towards a two column layout so that it doesn't take up as much room in the actual article's length.
  7. Merge the two References sections together.

Hope this helps you. hornoir (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Harlem Heights[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 worked on it quite a bit lately and I want to see if there is anything else I can do to improve it.

Thanks, Kieran4 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711 comments

Lead:

  • Reduce overlinking of common terms and multiple links to the same article per WP:OVERLINK. For instance, in the lead, Continental Army is linked three times in one paragraph. Such words as "retreat" don't need to be linked as most English speakers will know what a retreat is.
  • Suggest changing "Americans" in the first paragraph to "Continental Army" rather than a piped link. Remove the word "what became". Wikilink "Alexander Leslie".
  • "The battle went a long way to restore the confidence of the Continental Army after being outflanked at the Battle of Long Island soon followed by a terrible performance at Kip's Bay." This sentence is too long and detailed for the lead. Perhaps something like "The battle went a long way to restoring the confidence of the Continental Army after recent defeats" or something similar. The shift to the NY/NJ campaign is jarring. I would eliminate the word "also" from the following sentence.
  • The last paragraph of the lead is too short and abrupt. It also does not appear to be supported by the body text. The lead says Washington was "compelled" to move the army but the body says that he moved the army after about a month of inactivity in response to a British troop movement. It does not make the connection between the Battle of Harlem Heights and the troop movement.
  • I would re-arrange the caption text under the infobox image to read "A plaque commemorating the American victory, on the math building of Columbia University." I don't find the location of the building to be necessary.

Background:

  • Avoid misleading pipelinks, for example linking "Battle of Kip's Bay" to "troops landed" and, later, "Battle of White Plains" to "defeated". Spell out and link the actual phrase.
  • Eliminate the phrase "after making preparations".
  • Eliminate the word "Thus" and make the time notation either both upper-case or both lower-case.

Battle:

  • Wikilink "picket" to Picket (military)
  • Eliminate the phrase "After spotting Knowlton's troops".
  • "Ensued" is the wrong word.
  • Comma needed after "retreating".
  • The Lengel quote needs a reference. remove the word "instead" immediately after the quote.
  • Add and reference the fact that the British blew a fox hunt call. It can't only be in the lead.
  • "entrap" → "trap".
  • Why does "Sunken lane" link to Hollow way and why is "Sunken" capitalized?
  • "After the British were in the hollow way, the 150 volunteers were reinforced by 900 more men and all the troops were stationed too far away from the British so that neither side could do too much damage to the other." Break this into two sentences after the word "men".
  • Wikilink Knowlton's Rangers
  • "Buckwheat" should not be capitalized.
  • Insert "he" between "back," and "sent".
  • "Buckwheat Field" should be lower-case.
  • "such as" → "including"
  • Comma between "Washington" and "fearing".
  • "have" → "gave"

Aftermath:

  • I wonder if the first two sentences of this section shouldn't actually be in the Battle section?
  • "moral" → "morale"
  • The lead mentions the New York and New Jersey campaign but the body text doesn't, nor does it explain how this battle was connected to that campaign.
  • The text does not make it clear why these particular events are the "aftermath" of this battle.
  • The section is very short but explaining and clarifying the above points should result in an appropriate expansion.

I would go through the article with an eye to reducing the number of commas. The large number of commas where they aren't needed makes the prose read choppily.

So, mostly minor fixes with a couple of more serious issues. Hope you found these comments useful. Otto4711 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pell's Point[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 have expanded it drastically in the past few hours and I want to see what people think of it. I welcome any suggestions as to how to improve the article further.

Thanks, Kieran4 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's a very well written article. I just wish we could find a picture for the page. I looked on the internet, but I couldn't find anything. Bernstein2291
  • Overall quite improved. Here are some recommendations. 1) Spellcheck, spellcheck, spellcheck. I notice spelling issues in many of your articles and additions... including here. Make use of a spellchecker. 2) Needs external links section. 3) I'd recommend some additional (and better) sources, although your citations are fine, and better than most articles (although see #6 below). I honestly believe that quality of sources will be primary issue if you intend to push this forward to an A-Class article. 4) Needs a few pictures. Even if it's ones of some commanders, should have 'em. 5) Style. I recommend checking Hlj's pages here (albeit for U.S. Civil War) for guidelines on Names, Ranks & Units. His work is great, and I've been making use of his MoS myself in American Revolutionary War articles. 6) Your refs should be in the style of "Eicher, p. 251." - not "McCullough p.290". 7) Get regiment names/order of battle for both sides, use in article and link out to articles where possible. 8) Lastly, and quite minor, I'd create a stub for the redlinked historian in "Aftermath" section. I hope that you find this feedback useful in improving this article. Alphageekpa (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a significant improvement over where it was in November, well done. Issues:

  • Spellcheck (2 typos in the lead, at minimum). Copyedit. "bottled up" -- not encyclopedic.
  • Action sounds like tactical defeat, strategic victory.
  • Definitely needs a map. one possibility, another, another, shows Pell's Point. (BPL has great maps.)
  • "The British waited a half hour before attacking." Presumably there was a reason. (It may not be in the cited source.)
  • "Glover moved his force to Yonkers." This sounds like a retreat to me -- he is facing a vastly larger force, yes?
  • You never say "Harlem Creek" or "Harlem River". You say GW is worried about being trapped on Manhattan. Why is "going from Harlem to White Plains" getting GW out of the trap?

-- Magic♪piano 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2003 (United States)[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 sure there are still glitches to fix. I am looking forward to passing this to WP:FLC soon. Thank you,

Regards, Efe (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

The introduction needs a lot of rewriting. At present it is muddled, jargonistic and, in places, ungrammatical. It needs to be written in a form that can be generally understood, not just by those who follow charts. Here are a few specific points:-

  • "Data" is a Latin plural, so "date is compiled" is wrong. Since "data are complied" sounds artificial, I suggest you replace data with "information".
  • I am wondering why this slipped off the eyes of the reviewers. But anyway, I changed is to are, that was kind of offensive grammar of mine. --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 52 issue dates": issues of what? Please clarify.
  • Changed to "in 52 issues of the magazine". --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence needs significant re-writing: Although 12 singles charted atop the chart in the inclusive issue dates, rapper Eminem's "Lose Yourself" began its stretch at number one in 2002, thus excluded.. "charted atop the chart" is clumsy; "in the inclusive issue dates" appears to mean, simply, "in 2003", and the final phrase needs to be expressed in proper grammatical form, "...and is thus excluded"
  • Indeed clumsy. Tighten. --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First sentence of following paragraph is also problematic. I think "Throughout the year" should be "During the year"; there is also an unnecessary "had", and it should be "nine acts which", rather than who. The sentence could, however, be simplified to: "During the year, nine acts achieved first US number-one singles..."
  • Is this fine "nine acts achieved each a first US number-one single"? --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another sentence needing attention is: Knowles, rapper 50 Cent and dancehall artist Sean Paul had two entries in 2008.... I assume you mean they each had two entries in 2008. But as this article is about the 2003 list, the reference to 2008 should be given in the future, e.g. "...would each have two entries..." etc
  • Fixed. Its 2003, not 2008. Sorry. --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference to "this year's chart". What year? If 2003, say so.
  • I've been repeating 2003 throughout. Is it clumsy phrasing? --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...becoming the longest-running number one single..." As this phrase refers to two separate number ones, it should be "singles"
  • "three chart run of which were in 2003" - ungrammatical, can't work out what it means.
  • Testing: "three weeks of which were in 2003". --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these examples are sufficient to indicate the level of attention that needs to be given to the prose before it can reached featured standard. The list itself looks OK. I hope you find these comments helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Epstein, at 451.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/January_2009&oldid=907017243"