Wikipedia:Peer review/July 2012

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.

---

King's College London

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential to become a GA. It has undergone major changes since the last nominations in 2007-08. I look forward to constructive suggestions and remarks which can help take this article towards a GA.

Thanks very much, Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  08:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This nomination for peer review looks premature. There is basic work to be done before it is ready, in particular:

• The lead is supposed to be a broad summary of the contents of the article, not a collection of facts. The detailed statistical information should be given in the body of the article, and cited there.
• The History section looks thin and incomplete.
• The article is seriously under-referenced. The "Campus" section has scarely any references, and other sections e.g. History, have many uncited statements
• Nearly all the sources are online. What steps have been taken to research literature (books, articles etc) that might deal objectively with aspects of the College?
• In addition, the article appears to be overdependent on sources belonging to Kings College itself.
• Reference formatting requires standardising, and there is at least one dead link
• The prose does not look well organised, with rather too many single-sentence paragraphs.

I think you need to study one of the "College" articles that has made it to GA, and see if you can work up this one to that standard. I reommend Jesus College, Oxford. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions Brianboulton. I will take them one by one and work on it. Many thanks.--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  10:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Push the Button (Sugababes song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to improve the article to its full capability. It was a WP:FAC but wasn't promoted due to the lack of feedback, and more recently it became a GA.

Thanks, Till 05:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• After going through the article thoroughly and making some copy-edits, I feel that my concerns have been addressed, so I will close this now. Till 13:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  

---

List of Awake episodes

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

Thanks, TBrandley 04:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• A good start, will be good for FLC soon I think.
  • Thanks.
• "In one reality, his wife Hannah Britten (Laura Allen) was killed in the crash, where he wears a green wrist band" I think perhaps "In one reality, in which he wears a green wrist band, his wife... The other reality, in which he wears a red..."
  •  Done
• "It aired its last episode " just "The last episode aired..." is fine.
  •  Done
• " after it was canceled after eleven of " avoid quick reptition of "after"
  •  Done
• You talk about the series conception after you talk about its air details. This seems counter-intuitive to me.
  •  Done
• "its script was cited as potentially being too complex for mainstream American television." ref?
  •  Done
• "had averaged only 4.8 million " no real need for "only".
  •  Done
• "were particularly praised. Various cast members were praised, particularly " repetitive.
  •  Done
• Lead says first episode originally aired on NBC but makes no mention of the online premiere which took place a month earlier.
  •  Done
• Lead has "green reality" but summaries have "green" reality. Be consistent.
  •  Done. Also with the "red reality" too.
• "Hannah is finding comfort " finds comfort (to avoid the old ...ing ....ing issue).
  •  Done
• "himself preparing to have a new " preparing for a new life?
  •  Done
• Episode 13 summary is too brief.
  •  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for PR review. I think I have fixed most issues. TBrandley 09:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article about one of the greatest writers at GAN and later maybe at FAC. Thanks.GoP_T^C_N 09:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Give me a bit of time for this, but I'm looking forward to it. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I closed Otis Redding's pr. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comments only... Referencing: there are six works by Frank cited; almost all of the inline citations are to "Frank 2009". It appears to be the overarching citation for a five-volume work. Each volume then appears to be listed, all with different publication dates, and none of them are 2009. Confusing, and also not really useful as referencing. For example, what is "Frank 2009, pp. 912–932." Is that volume 3? I wouldn't know from that text nor from the works listed at the bottom. And I hate to say it but "Frank 2009, pp. 723–803", for example, is an awfully wide page range to use seven times.

• Yes, you are quite correct. I will work on it.--GoP_T^C_N 09:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Done.--GoP_T^C_N 10:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Given that Freud is likely considered to be full of shit on the topic of Dostoyevsky's health (I mean, I don't know, but I'm guessing), I wonder if an extensive block quote from him is undue weight. ("Dostoyevsky called himself an epileptic…it is highly probable that this so-called epilepsy was only a symptom of his neurosis and must accordingly be classified as hystero-epilepsy – that is, as severe hysteria. The most probable assumption is that the attacks went back far into his childhood, that their place was taken to begin with by milder symptoms and that they did not assume an epileptic form until after the shattering experience of his eighteenth year – the murder of his father.")

• :) I put it in an extraordinary quote box because I was unable to find the page... I asked on Freud's talk page.--GoP_T^C_N 09:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me why there is bolding in the block quote "Fyodor Dostoyevsy, Pisma, XXVIII, i, p. 176". Is that from the source? Riggr Mortis (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• It is for emphasis. I removed it anyway.--GoP_T^C_N 09:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a beginning, more coming because I haven't read the entire article:

MOS

• Numbers should be written according to WP:MOSNUM
• Blockquotes don't have leading quotation marks per WP:MOSQUOTE

•  Done

• Avoid the use of the cquote template

•  replaced

• Fyodor > use surname instead per WP:LASTNAME

•  Done, but I left out some as they don't make sense if replaced with his surname

• Some high-level links such as world literature and inferiority complex should be removed; more valuable low-level links be added.

•  Done world literature and inferiority complex; linking/delinking will follow.

• Follow Plain English and avoid words such as "ameliorate"

•  replaced ameliorate with improve

• Avoid inflated language per WP:Peacock

• Some are needed to explain his uniqueness and to frame his legacy.

• To be encyclopedic, it needs to be framed using neutral language, or using the language from a quote or paraphrase with attribution. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

MIsc

• Influenced by and influenced in the infobox should probably be removed

• I think it is even better to have more parameters in the infobox as the TOC is too large.

• I'm not a fan of infoboxes at all; that said, the influenced and influenced by sections are subjective unless sourced - and that makes a mess. It's just not really necessary, but up to you. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Make the quote boxes the same color & no decorative quotation marks

Childhood

• The information about Maria Nechayeva seems out of place; should probably be put with the information about his father
• "The nanny Alina Frolovna, who helped the family when their manor burnt down, and the serf and farmer Marei from Darovoye, who helped him to fight his early hallucinations, possibly caused by the terrible tales and gothic literature, were influential in his childhood." > a lot going on in this sentence, so it's hard to follow. Simplify?

•  shortened

• "He also encountered a crime upon a nine-year-old girl there, who was found raped in the garden" > did he see the rape or find her? Needs clarification

•  Done he found her.

Youth

• "After a short visit to his brother Mikhail in Reval, Fyodor often went to concerts, operas, theatres and ballets, and was introduced to gambling by two of his friends." > needs fixing; did he only go to the theatre after visiting Mikhail?

• I don't know exactly, but I think when he passed the exams he wanted to see his brother first before gambling.

• "His job became more and more humiliating. After quitting a duty travel, he was released on 19 October 1844 as a lieutenant." Which job? Draftsman or translator?

• As a lieutenant. I am not sure but how can a draftsman or translator be a lieutenant?

• Entire section based on two sources, might need more for a different perspective

Early publication and circles

• Might want to rename the section because it's not clear what "circles" refers to

•  Done changed to "early career"

• "he hoped to obtain a wide readership in order to ameliorate his financial condition" > simplify the language
• "What matters is that my novel should cover everything. If it does not work, I will hang myself." Add reference after direct quotation
• "he idea for The Double is principally brilliant, but its external form is miscarried and full of multi-clause sentences.[14][15][11][12]" Why four cites here?

• Reber and Terras is the ref for the quote and the other are the refs for the whole section

• Order the refs

• I was told it was not necessary

• Refs should be ordered. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "used its library" where?

•  saturday and sunday ie when he had the opportunity :)

Exile in Siberia

• Confusing - he is discovered and then suddenly at a mock execution. Was he arrested first? This section needs some work for flow. Also, does the picture show Dostoyevsky's actual mock execution or is it from a another execution?

• "Dostoyevsky and several members of the circle were nonetheless arrested on 22 April 1849 upon the request of Count A. Orlov and Emperor Nicolas I. "

• Add references after direct quotations
• Reformat the block quote to avoid the decorative quotation marks

 reformatted

Release from prison

• Do we know what happened during the four years he was in Siberia?

• I left it out as it was not really anything special. He documented it in The House of the Dead anyway. What I know that he had haemorrhoids and was chained all the time.

• Being chained all the time is something special. I've read The House of the Dead, can you perhaps use a passage from that? Or does the introduction to the book have information? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• How and when did Wrangel become an admirer? Maybe introduce him sooner?
• Maria refuses him, yet travels with him, and then marries him? This needs a little more explanation.

• The trouble is that his second wife burnt down nearly all the letters of Maria/Dostoyevsky, so many information are not known.

• "granted permission to travel to Russia" > confusing. Probably should begin the section explaining that he was released but had to stay in Siberia, if that's the case.

•  added that he was forced

• "Dostoyevsky began his trip to Europe on 7 June 1862" > comes of nowhere. Was this planned? Or maybe rewrite to say that in 1862 he traveled to Europe …"

•  added that it was planned

• Time was a very popular periodical with more than 4000 subscribers, > another jarring opening. Should probably be combined with the mention of Time two paragraphs up, or make a paragraph break here

• I think it is a neat beginning of a paragraph; also it is chronologically ordered (they started the magazine -> Dostoyevsky went to Europe -> they closed the magazine)

• The second half of the last paragraph has a lot going on and it needs to be reworked for better flow: he travels again to Europe, meets another woman with whom he breaks up because of gambling (?), his brother dies (?), his wife dies. How did these events affect him? And why does he have the burden of the fees for Epokha - how is he involved with the magazine

She left him because of her affair with an another man and because of his gambling. His brother's death resulted to high fees. The death of Maria is also changed his life as he "subsequently became the lone parent of his stepson Pasha and Mikhail's family".

Crime and punishment

• Coming after the section above that has a lot of information stuffed into a single paragraph, the information about the stenographer seems to be detailed > also did he dictate The Gambler? It's hard to believe a book of that size was written in 26 days

I don't think it is too detailed. It is true that he finished this book in 26 days.

• Interesting that he wrote so quickly. I'll re-read the section later. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest keeping the information about Crime and Punishment together, and the information about Snitkina together
• Avoid referring to a seizure as a "fit", also what is a "double-fit"?

•  replaced A double fit are two fits in succession

• wife had to drag him away from the panel lest its grip on him induce an epileptic fit" > needs rewording

•  reworded

• Who are the Raymond sisters? Someone they knew? And this: Dostoyevsky occasionally played in Saxon-les-Bains to find money > playing what? gambling?

•  removed the sisters; "played" - "gambled"

Return to Russia

• Previous section mentions Anna is pregnant a 2nd time and will give birth on 26 September; this section mentions a child to be born on July 15 - are these two different children?

• Aimee came first, then Fyodor

• Okay, thanks. I must have missed that. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Structure

• I think maybe try combining personality and physical appearance in the general biography instead of separating it out. Also, his seizures are mentioned earlier, but maybe mention when they first began. I strongly suggest deleting Freud's quote, and generally I'm not in favor of trying give a diagnosis in hindsight - it's probably fine to mention in the bio he had seizures of an unspecified nature and leave it at that.

• Dostoyevsky's seizure is well-known by neurologists, so it deserves at least a paragraph long mention. Also I am in favour to split content from the biography to seperate sections as it is tidy and clear. I believe Freud's pseudoscientific statement should be mentioend here to keep the article neutral. His quote was mentioned by many people and he even wrote a book describing Dostoyevsky's epilepsy.

• I think this is very problematic for the following reasons: 1., Freud wrote over a century or so ago and his theory is not only dated, but truly absurd. 2., to me it reads that the article bases the diagnosis on the Oedipus theory using Freud as a source and then using other sources, debunks it, which is close to WP:SYNTH. If you want to mention Freud, go ahead and mention that Freud wrote about Dostoyevsky, but leave it at that. Surely something more has been published more recently than Freud? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Religious beliefs - also try to incorporate in the main bio sections - the big block quote needs reformatting and trimming > all of this information maybe simplified a bit according to summary style
• The same for the section about anti-semitism

Themes

• I'll return with suggestions for this

Legacy

• Should mirror the lead. The lead says Hemingway was influenced by him, but it's not in the legacy section (and nothing I've read about Hemingway suggests it, though he probably was to an extent) but you need strong scholarly sources in terms of who he was influenced by and who he influenced

 expanded

Works

• I'd move all of these synopses out of this article into the sub-articles

• I often found articles which has synopses to their major works, eg Balzac, Jouyce and Döblin

• The alternatives are Ernest Hemingway, Stephen Crane, Emily Dickinson for example. The problem is that the page is very long and I'd suggest some trimming. When I checked last week I think, off the top of my head, it topped 10,000 words (unfortunately the prose size script isn't working for me today, so can't double-check), and this would be an area to trim as it's not strictly necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

• Try mixing up with a variety of biographies for more perspective and to be comprehensive. I need to look more closely at the sourcing

Prose

• Will need a lot of prose work. I know you're getting help, and my suggestion is to get the facts right, more and maybe better sourcing, and then have a serious top-to-bottom copy-edit. He's an important author and I think people will help. I'll pitch in as much as I can

More later Truthkeeper (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast and comprehensive review! INeverCry told me he will finish the copyediting. Your comments are much appreciated so far, thanks again. --GoP_T^C_N 08:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Referencing

• Looking at this entire section it's important to reference the quotations to the specific source and to mention the pieces of Dostoyevsky's writing that are quoted in the source. This needs to be done throughout the article. Furthermore, some of the phrasing is very close to the source, so may need better summarizing:

Many Russian authors at that time wrote about these suicides in their works. Dostoyevsky's suicide victims are only disbelievers and models of the "new man": the Underground Man, Raskolnikov, Ippolit, Kirillov, Ivan Karamazov, Smerdiakov. In a correspondence with the atheist Petr Verkhovensky, Kirillov remarks in The Demons that "God is necessary and therefore must exist", while Verkhovensky responds "Well, that's wonderful". Kirillov then answers "But I know that He does not and cannot exist" and after a meaningless cliché by Verkhanovsky he continues "Don't you understand that a man with these two thoughts cannot go on living?", and Verkhovensky meant that the one must shoot himself. Kirillov's consequence, that "a man can shoot himself for that alone", will be realized at the end of the novel, as Kirillov begins suicide, while Verkhovensky a murder. The cause of the suicides is the characters' disbelief in God and immortality and their acceptance of the contemporary beliefs (for example positivism or materialism). Dostoyevky saw the belief in God and immortality necessary for human existence.[98][99]

Truthkeeper (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look at the changes yet. Will try to tonight or tomorrow. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment: I think you should remove the numbers from the citations and only use the years. e.g. "Frank5 2003" -> "Frank 2003". The year are enought to distinguish them. The numbers are confusing only, is "Frank4" the fourth in the "Biographies" section? Frank is used earlier in the "Bibliography" section too. Thanks for all your work on this important article! The User 567 (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks.--GoP_T^C_N 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: I'll review sources and cite formatting as soon as possible, most likely this weekend. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I am responding to a message on my talkpage asking me to contribute to this review. I haven't got very far; just the Childhood section. I am afraid that I found the prose rather weak and error-strewn, as the following listing indicates.

• Last sentence of lead: "Dostoyevsky left a lasting influence on other writers, ranging from Ernest Hemingway to Joseph Conrad, and had an influence on philosophers and psychologists such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud." Also, I don't understand "from Hemingway to Conrad". I suppose that "Conrad to Hemingway" would make some chronological sense, but since Conrad is never mentioned again in the article, the point is somewhat lost.

•  shortened

• "Dostoyevsky's paternal lineage was descended from the multi-ethnic and multi-denominational Lithuanian nobility from the Pinsk region, however the family had fallen on hard times and had been reduced to the class of non-monastic clergy". The word "however" cannot follow a comma, which needs to be upgraded to a semicolon. Also, lineage means descent - lineage is not "decended from" anything, so the first part of the sentence needs rephrasing. You need to get rid of the "from...from", too.

•  reworded

• You need to decide whether you are writing in British or American English. You are using the British form "practised", but "at age fifteen" is an American idiom. Also, why "fifteen" (word) here, and "20" numeric" in the next sentence?

•  Done

• In a new paragraph, the first mention of a subject should be by name, not pronoun. Thus: "In 1809, at the age of 20, Mikhail gained entry..."

•  Done

• "the eleven-years younger Maria" is a very awkward formulation. Why is the age gap relevant? Also, give Maria her full name.

•  Done

• Since Fyodor Dostoyevsky is the subject of the article, I would expect his birth to be dealt with less perfunctorily than "After the birth of two sons, Mikhail and Fyodor, he was promoted..." etc

• Not exactly sure what you mean...

• You should provide a conversion (miles and km) for versts, rather than relying on a link which then requires readers to make further calculations

• The problem is that I don't know to which unit I should convert.

• "5 more children" - MOS requires numbers below 10 to be written.

•  Done

• Another major clunk: "The nanny Alina Frolovna and the serf and farmer Marei from Darovoye, the latter of whom helped him to fight his early hallucinations, possibly caused by the terrible tales and gothic literature, were influential in his childhood." Needs rephrasing
• "miserable hospital garden" Is "miserable" really the best word to describe the garden?
• "It was on the other side where he found a nine-year-old girl raped by an insane man in the garden." "Where" should be "that"; is "found" the right word? "Raped" should be preceded by "who had been"; the last three words are redundant. In fact the entire sentence needs rewriting.

•  reworded

• "he learned reading and writing with his mother from the Bible." This reads/sounds like nonsense. I assume the intended meaning is that his mother taught him to read and write, using the Bible.

•  reworded

• "Fyodor's father also placed much value on a good education." This repeats the information given in the first sentence of this paragraph

•  removed

If this section is typical, it would seem that the article is in need of some rigorous copyediting throughout. I don't have time to attempt this, though I am prepared to look at other sections from time to time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. --GoP_T^C_N 09:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Wadewitz

This is a very impressive start on a very difficult article - congratulations! Below are my comments. Drop a line at my talk page if you have any additional questions.

• In general, the article needs a good copyedit. I did some of this as I was reading, but it needs a careful combing over. A few examples:
  • He wrote eleven novels, three novellas, seventeen short novels and three essays - What is the difference between novellas and short novels? Why are these separate categories?
  • After his graduation he worked as an engineer and briefly enjoyed a primarily liberal lifestyle. - "liberal lifestyle" is vague
  • Around the mid-1840s he wrote his first novel, Poor Folk, which brought him into the mainstream. - Do you omean "which brought him recognition"?
  • It was on the other side where he found a nine-year-old girl raped by an insane man in the garden. He never forgot this traumatic experience. - Unclear. He saw this happen?
  • F. Dostoyevsky's career, however, seems to have been decided, as his father expected spaces at the academy for his sons, and the political propensity under Nicholas I allowed them the opportunity of a good professional military career - I'm not sure what "political propensity" means here.
  • Mikhail was murdered in 1839 by one of his peasants; the cause was one of Mikhail's irascibility attacks. Fyodor continued with his disliked studies. - Very awkward wording.
  • Mikhail Petrashevsky discussed in a harmless manner the possibilities of social reforms in Russia. - I'm not sure what this means.
  • In this book he criticised such themes as capitalism, modernisation, materialism, catholicism and protestantism. - This seems like a huge condensation - perhaps a few more sentences?
  • The magazine was also doing well, bringing around 500 new subscribers. - Confusing.
  • Anna proposed to delegate her husband's copyrights and negotiated with the creditors to pay off their debts in installments. - Not sure what "delegate" is supposed to mean here - perhaps a more precise word?
  • Just as the movement, he believed that the Catholic Church adopted the principles of rationalism, legalism, materialism and individualism from the ancient Rome and passed on its philosophy to Protestantism and finally to socialism, which then leads to atheism - This sentence doesn't quite make sense. I think you are trying to pack too much in.
  • He was known for his gifted narrative, and through his sharp and often deep, sophisticated statements in intellectual and political discussions he was described as a spiritual guide, a teacher and even a prophet - I'm not sure what this means.

• The first paragraph of "Return to Russia" seems to come out of nowhere - I would focus the material more on Dostoyevsky and perhaps cut it down.

• In general, there is a lot of detail about traveling that seems unnecessary - I wonder if this could be cut down a bit.

• More should be said about "The Brothers Karamazov" in the biography section and how it fits into the narrative of D's life.

• The "Personality and physical appearance" section replicates much material that comes before - I would combine what isn't replicated with similar information earlier in the article.

• Why is there a section on his religious beliefs but not, say, his political beliefs? This section seems oddly long and out of place.

• I would suggest making the "Stance on Jews in Russia" a subsection of the "Religious Beliefs" section as this is properly a religious topic. Also, is there a way to connect this material to Dostoyevsky's life or writing more clearly so that it has some context for the reader?

• The "Themes and style" section is the weakest overall - it does not have a coherent structure. Because Dostoyevksy wrote so many works, it would probably be best to focus on broad themes and styles, so you should have subsections on specific themes and styles, but the section jumps around between the two. See Honoré de Balzac or Mary Shelley for ways that this has been done.

• There are too many unconnected quotes in the "Legacy" section.

I hope this helps! Wadewitz (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Responding to your request on my talk page, I've read through the article carefully but only once. I'd like to do more, but I'm temporarily one-eyed, and reading big chunks of stuff on a computer screen will not be feasible for me until at least mid-July. I agree with the reviewers above who mention the need for copyediting. The kinds of small errors noted by Brian Boulton appear in the lower sections as well as the upper. However, fixing those alone won't be enough, as you can see from the comments by Wadewitz. Here is a short list of additional problems I encountered; I'll try not to repeat the ones noted by other reviewers.

Youth

• "After quitting a duty travel, he was released on 19 October 1844... ". - What is a "duty travel"? Could that term be made more clear?

Early career

• "The idea for The Double is principally brilliant, but its external form is miscarried and full of multi-clause sentences." - This odd set of claims is apparently supported by four sources. I have not checked the sources, but it seems unlikely that all four support all of the claims within the sentence. Further, it's unclear what is meant by "principally brilliant", and although a novel can be "full of multi-clause sentences", its "form" cannot. It's also not clear how the form of the novel is "miscarried". What does that mean?
• The sentence above ends with four refs, as follows: [16][17][18][14]. These should be rearranged so that [14] appears first. Ditto for the many other strings of refs in the article. All should appear in ascending order.

Release from prison

• "thematizing his experience" - "Based on" rather than "thematizing"?
• "to being forced serving in the Siberian Army Corps" - Awkward. How about "to forced service in the Siberian Army Corps"?
• "released from military service due to a medical certificate" - Maybe "medical condition" would be better.

Crime and Punishment

• "Dostoyevsky was so captivated by the picture that his wife had to drag him away from the panel to avoid receiving an epileptic seizure." - This is awkward in multiple ways. "Induce" would be better than "receive" since it's not possible to receive a seizure. Further, the sentence structure suggests that his wife is the one who may have a seizure, and that is not what you mean to say. Finally, what is it about this particular painting that might induce an epileptic seizure? What made Snitkina think that looking at the painting was risky?

Last years

• "During his impressive and hypnotising speech... " - It would be more neutral without the peacock adjectives; "During his speech... ".
• "attacked by several people" - Why? What didn't they like about the speech?

I hope these comments help a bit. I'd be happy to take another look later this summer when I can see clearly again. Please ping me on my talk page in late July or thereafter if you'd like me to comment further. Finetooth (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like a lot of work is needed... Thanks for your helpfull comments. Honoré de Balzac and Mary Shelley are very good examples. The latter especially has heavy coverage in Themes and style and I think this is the most relevant example for this article. I could add a characters section, and also about his travelogues. I also can add a section about existentialism. But I still speculate where I should begin with... Wadewitz, you contributed to many articles, and I ask you where did you begin and end? Can you give me some tips? Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 11:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Hong Kong

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope this passage can upgrade to FA. What can improve in your eyes?

Thanks, Asiaworldcity (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: Just for starters, the article has a dozen or so links that seem to be dead. See details here. It also has three dabs, as identified here. Finetooth (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Asiaworldcity: it looks like you have not made any edits to this article. It is customary (not to say required) for editors considering FAC to make some effort to improve the article towards meeting the FA criteria, which are described at Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria
• You should also review the prior FA nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hong_Kong/archive4 and make sure all the issues addressed there have been fixed.
• As Finetooth says above, another task is to click all the links in the Toolbox in the upper-right corner of this PR page, and make sure any issues there get resolved.
• After a quick glance, the article appears comprehensive and well-sourced, but I can see a few, relatively minor, issues with prose.
• I'd be happy to do a full Peer Review on the prose after you make a pass through the article yourself. Or, perhaps another reviewer will want to jump in before that.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Knight of Gloucestershire: Although this article has a few issues, I believe it won't be hard for us to sort out all the problems and solve them. I personally will keep an eye on it until it's perfect.

---

Lisa Goes Gaga

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like for it to become a featured article one day. I would like some feedback on the current state of the article, and provide any areas of concern that should be addressed.

Thanks, —DAP388 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Three paras a little too much for an article of this length.
• Where is the prod code referenced?
• It says "Zii" in the infobox but links to Wii. Maybe worth a note.
• "prompting Gaga to go out " followed by "Lady Gaga guest-starred " if you wish to call her Gaga alone, then do so, but be consistent.
• "transpired" nope, they just "took place".
• "Television critics were divided with "Lisa Goes Gaga", who despite adulating the singer's performance, was critical of" -> "Television critics were divided with "Lisa Goes Gaga", who, despite adulating the singer's performance, were critical of"
• "a 2.1 rating in the 18–49 demographic" what does that mean to anyone outside of America?
• Why is Bart linked to "Bart Simpsons"?
• "Lisa then catches Gaga just before she leaves town to apologize, and after being forgiven Lisa and Gaga perform a duet together. " ouch, perhaps "Lisa catches Gaga just before she leaves town to apologize, and after being forgiven she and Gaga perform a duet together."?
• "to compliment Gaga's outré" no idea what that means. A good example of something to actually link!
• "from the respective demographic" is that the best way of explaining this?
• Ref 20, for example, why is it L., Teresa and not just Lopez, Teresa?
• Check for WP:DASH fails in the ref titles.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna give my 2 cents worth of input, with the FAC criteria in mind. I normally never watch this show; this is actually the only episode that I've watched. I know little of Lady Gaga, and that's because my friends made me listen to this "Born This Way" single. Okay, I'm gonna stop my soporific rambling right now. On with my 2 cents to the peer review.

• Lead
  • ""Lisa Goes Gaga" is the twenty-second and final episode of The Simpsons' twenty-third season." I suggest that you change that to: ""Lisa Goes Gaga" is the twenty-second and final episode of the twenty-third season of the animated television series The Simpsons." Notice it was important to wikilink "twenty-third season".
  • "Tim Long wrote the episode with Matthew Schofield as director." ...as the director of what? Every aspect of this, and any, sentence needs to be clear. Try: "The episode was written by Tim Long and directed by Matthew Schofield."
  • "Tevision critics were divided with "Lisa Goes Gaga", who, despite adulating the singer's performance, were critical of of the episode's concept and general execution." Personally I don't like that wording. Also notice the "of of" in your phrase. I think a better way to say it would be: "Critical responses to the episode were mixed; critics praised Lady Gaga's performance, while they looked down upon the episode's concept and general execution."
  • "Upon airing, the installment attained 4.79 million viewers and a 2.1 rating in the 18–49 demographic, according to the Nielsen Media Research." Nah, please go with: "According to the Nielsen ratings, the installment attained 4.79 million viewers during its original airing." The 2.1 rating part is not as significant for the lead and thus should be removed. The Reception section already covers that anyway.

• Plot, production, reception reviews ... more to come.

89119 (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

---

List of God of War characters

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to find out what is working for the article, what the peer reviewers think should be fixed, what they think of the characters description (it currently lists their chronological appearance in the games/comics, is this okay?), and anything else the peer reviewer thinks would help this article to become an overall better article. Also, what does the peer reviewer think of the lead? Another editor thinks it should only be one sentence that says it's a list of the characters and that's it.

Thanks, JDC808 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello JDC808. Since you requested me to peer review this, I'll begin my review here. First of all, let me say that this article needs quite a lot of work. It has only 1 inline citation, which is a poor thing. I'll request you to add more inline citations to make this article eligible for a FL. Next, most of the other references are from IMDB, which isn't completely a reliable source. Please find other reliable references. I'd suggest having few images in the lead section. It becomes boring (completely, IMO) to scroll down a big list without having any images. I see one image present, I'd suggest moving that in the lead. I'd prefer if you'd have this article for a short copyedit before nominating it at FLC. If these issues are cleared I hope that this will be a FL. Regards, Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

 Half done I've gotten more images throughout the page. Will now search for more reliable sources. JDC808 (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, are you doing the inline citations? I don't see that yet? Remember: Inline citations are very important for any "featured" item, so it would be better if you add more inline citations first. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't see them yet because I haven't done them yet lol. I was going to do them last night but I was too tired. I'm going to do inline citation once I find some reliable sources. JDC808 (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've gotten 34 (hopefully reliable) sources using inline citation. JDC808 (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments

• First up, have a quick look at my checklist, it's here. It shows you all the "obvious" things to address in any list before taking it to WP:FLC. It doesn't guarantee success but it'll certainly smooth the passage.

Will look into. Thanks for the link.

• Avoid bold links in the lead, per WP:CONTEXTLINK.

 Done JDC808 (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Check that you're not using spaced hyphens, but spaced en-dashes per WP:DASH.

 Done

• As noted above there's a serious lack of inline citations which are expected at FLC, or any other featured process for that matter.

 Done

• Check image captions - those which aren't complete sentences should not have full stops.

 Done JDC808 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• I take by IMBD you mean Internet Movie Database? That's not usually considered a reliable source so you may need to look around for something more suitable.

Yes for IMBD, which has been removed. Source issue noted above. JDC808 (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Also, if Giant Bomb is a wiki then it may not be considered reliable either since content is not controlled editorially.

 Done Removed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Tintor2 (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Since I agree with the things mentioned by The Rambling Man, I'll just add

• There are various FLC characters list like Characters of Final Fantasy XII that could be used as examples to used regarding citations and style.

Will check it out.

• There are multiple non-free images that only illustrate one character. Replacing them with a groupal would pass WP:Non free content

I've been trying to search for a group image but all I've been able to find is the one of the five gods.

• The article also lacks a creation and a reception section.

 Half done The page now has a "Concept and creation" section. "Reception" coming. JDC808 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Fictional or mythical gods should be in lower case, unless there is a good reason.--GoP_T^C_N 15:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you capitalize if a proper noun... Sorry.--GoP_T^C_N 15:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: So how can we list the enemies of the God of War franchise like how it was planned on the character page's talk page? Also, I managed to align the character pictures with their bio if that is OK with you. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:43, January 14 2012 (UTC)

The images except Gaia (which she was close to her listing in that particular section) were aligned with their bios (at least on my screen). Gaia was placed in the Titans section to represent the Titans and to not put two images in one small section. I'm not sure about the other characters. I don't know if they would be suitable for FL. JDC808 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: there are a few too many images, including an unnecessary pic right at the top, which is rather intrusive. Names also need to be linked.

I can agree that the names can be linked in the caption of the images. If there is a majority vote to remove the "unnecessary" image, then it will be removed. However, as it stands, it is the only group image that we have (and have managed to find without creating using photoshop or some other tool). I don't know what you find intrusive about it. Also, if the image is artwork of the character, it should be noted in the caption of the image.

The link for the series also needs to stay as the information goes hand in hand with this list.

It is unneccessary as it is already linked in the first few words of the very first sentence of the lead. Take a note from other character pages. They do not put the link as you're suggesting.

The opening paragraphs should speak in accurate, general terms about the characters, with the prime focus being Kratos. All the previous links have been added to what is a comprehensive list of related products, and features a quote.

The lead should have an emphasis on Kratos, but should not be the prime focus per se. There's already an entire article dedicated to him. You have also reduced the lead greatly and removed valid information in comparison to other character page articles. JDC808 (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More to come. Bluerim (talk)

---

List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there is a lot of these "List of people from..." pages and I think getting some consensus on what they should look like would be a good move. I chose this list because it's the best example I've seen. Relevant consensus include Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) and WP:USCITY#Notable people. This list has previously been nominated for featured list and the result was not to promote, in order to seek further peer review. This nomination could set precedent for similar pages so a good peer review is in order.

Thanks for your time and consideration, Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead is too short and without image makes for a bland start.
• "The city is home to several notable people" where I come from, that means it's where people actually live, not where they were born/brought up.
• You link Clinton in the lead but not Ford, why?
• The lead claims "most notable" or "widely recognisable" but that seems to just be opinion. Sure, to people in the US, but the sources just back up the bare facts, not the "recognisability" or particular "notability" of the people in question.
• The "see also" could be better woven into the lead and pipe linked so we don't see the ugly "Category:".
• Ref column shouldn't be sortable.
• Because no images in "Academics and engineering" section, table widths all different from the rest of the article.
• In fact, all tables seem to have odd sizing from section to section.
• " 8–year " hyphen not en-dash, there are other issues here (see WP:DASH).
• Image captions are, frankly, dull.
• Names should sort by surname, using the {{sortname}} template.
• Don't see why Known for should be sortable, it's free text.
• "[37] [38]" no spaces between refs.
• Check ref titles for dashes/hyphens per WP:DASH.
• E.g. ref 43, where, what is the Daily Herald?
• Be consistent with date formats, i.e. all publication dates should be same format, all access dates should be the same etc.
• Avoid SHOUTING in the refs.
• No need for "anonymous" in my opinion when you don't know who the author of a source was.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest. Yes, a textual "summary" is desirable. Some think there should be no lists at all! Note that this is an eerie mirror of Rambling Man's comment on who should be in the lead! I'm fine with this one, but the problem is defining "most" notable. My grandson's band who tapes in his garage and somehow has an article is pretty notable IMO!  :)

I'm not sure about "born and grew up in." On one hand = human interest, on the other hand, seems parochial.

I like the tabular form justifying and classifying the entries.

I think the pictures are way too large. We might want to limit size in a "standard." (thumb?)

Also we need to place a limit on the number of pictures. Not every entry needs a pic.

Not sure about Grant Wood artwork, though clearly a classic. (And do we really want a picture of Grant Wood?) Does this encourage someone trying to include music, pictures of other art, etc. some of which won't seem as classic?

Also I would truncate "known for" to "profession." This downgrades the list to trivia, which I want to do! I would say "Professional tennis player," and let it go at that. I don't care if they got a "Grand Slam" or "Hat Trick" or were Olympic champs before they went professional. I would just list one and only one profession.Student7 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to peer-review the article. I just got crazy busy, but plan to work on this over the course of the summer. I think we are starting to get a vision of what these lists should look like. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 13:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

---

2010 Pichilemu earthquake

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, just as I pointed out in the previous peer review, I want to nominate this article for FA status. I believe it is promising now. After more than two years, several new sources surfaced and so, the article seems benefited from that.

Thanks, Diego Grez (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: It is clear that a lot of effort and research has gone into the article, and I see that it has been classified as a Good Article. However, I believe that a lot more work is necessary before the article can be ready for a shot at FAC with any real chance of success. There are particular issues that need to be addressed relating to the lead and to the overall quality of the prose, as well as questions of clarity and accessibility to the non-technical reader.

General point

• Directly quoted material should be specifically attributed, unless it is obvious who/what is being quoted. For example: 'Chilean seismologists were worried about the "absence of an earthquake around magnitude 7 following the February 27 quake."' Who said this?

Lead

• The lead is supposed to be a broad summary of the contents of the main article. Detailed information, such as the precise time at which the earthquake struck, the exact population of Pichilemu, etc, should be reserved for the main article.
• As a general rule, the lead should not give information that is not included in the body of the article, and should not include trivial/marginal information, e.g. Punta de Lobos's status as a surfing centre.
• Likewise, all significant information in the article should be at least touched on in the lead.
• Information should not be cited in the lead when the same information is given, and cited, in the main article.

Background

• In the lead we have: "The 11 March earthquake was at first thought to be an aftershock from the 27 February event, but University of Chile Seismologist Jaime Campos identified it as an "independent earthquake".' Yet here we are told, without qualification: "The 6.9 earthquake of 11 March 2010 was part of a series of earthquakes and aftershocks in central and southern Chile after the 27 February event."

Geology

• The term "the change in regional stress" needs clarifying for the benefit of non-geoloogist readers
• "Preliminary analyses by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) of their locations..." Confusing "their": to what does it refer?
• In the second paragraph of this section, three separate locations for the earthquake are provided, seemingly quite different. I assume that these locations refer to the epicentre, though this is not stated. The differences seem quite significant - 15 km NW of Pichilemu, 35 km NE of Pichilemu, 105 km west of Rancagua, etc. What is the explanation for these divergences of data?
• "~30 km": for the benefit of general readers, this format ("approximately") should be spelt out. Also, most of this paragraph will be incomprehensible to general readers, and needs to be written less technically.

Reaction

• "protocolary": never heard of this word; did you make it up?
• What does it mean "with his visits"? Should it be "with his visitors"?
• "one of the most affected cities by the quake." Don't use the vernacular ("quake"), and reorder: "one of the cities most affected cities by the earthquake."
• "[SHOA] issued a tsunami warning between Coquimbo and Los Lagos regions..." - needs to be "issued a tsunami warning for the area between Coquimbo and Los Lagos regions", and you should give date and time for this warning.
• "The SHOA-emitted tsunami warning was lifted at around 15:50 local time (18:50 UTC)". "SHOA-emitted" is an ugly formation. On what date was the warning lifted?
• "President Sebastián Piñera urged coastal residents..." No need to give the president's full name again
• decreed "catastrophe state"; surely "declared" rather than "decreed"? And it should be "a catastrophe state".

Damages and casualties

• "epicenter" is American English; you have used British English (and British date formats) until now.
• "balaustrades" - what are they? (Not an English word)
• "damaged severely" is followed in the same sentence by "severely damaged"
• "while the road to Panilonco resulted damaged" - not literate English
• "damaged after the 1985 Algarrobo earthquake..."? Surely it was damaged "during" the earthquake?
• What is "dramatic" damage?
• "...small waves were seen in the area surrounding Pichilemu." Can you amplify on the nature of these "small waves"? If they were on the sea, they would surely be nothing exceptional?
• I may be misunderstanding something, but sea wave heights of six inches or a foot don't seem to me to be in the least bit threatening, let alone being described as part of a "tsunami".

Aftershocks

• Again, avoid use of the informal "quake"
• "centered" is American
• "within the following six hours after..." The word "following" is made redundant by "after"
• "The United States Geological Survey measured the earthquake with magnitude 5.9." To what does this sentence refer? It says "measured the earthquake", but I believe you mean aftershock. Also, "measured the earthquake with magnitude 5.9" is incomplete English: "...with a magnitude of 5.9"

I will be happy to look at the article again when you have dealt with the above issues. Please contact me via my talkpage when you are ready. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

working on it Diego Grez (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ping me when you're through Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Ancestry charts of the current British Royal Family

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

• The data given under the section "Questionable connections" need further input.
• Whether the article should be merged with other article(s).
• If the article is to stay, then suggestions for improvement and cohesiveness.

Thanks, Hrishikes (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: As the article has two major cleanup banners, it does not qualify at the moment for peer review ([[WP:PR specifically stipulates this). This review should be closed and resubmitted when the problems represented by the banners are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Cosima Wagner

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Daughter of one malign genius (Liszt), wife to another (Wagner), Cosima Wagner stacked up plenty of negatives on her own account. Austere, glacial, unforgiving, obsessive, a rampant anti-Semite... Yet she served Wagner well; she was both his late muse and the protector of his legacy. The obsequious critic Ernest Newman thought she was one of the greatest women who ever lived; subsequent judgements were less indulgent. Trying to give a balanced account of such a controversial life is not easy, but I have done what I can; comments on all aspects welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Peer reviewing your articles gets harder and harder. There's so little to add or quibble at. Here are my meagre gleanings:

• Links to disambiguation pages: Grand Canal, Biebrich, Hans Richter
• May I put in a strong plea that Cosima's first husband should be referred to, except when his first name is used, as "Bülow", not "von Bülow". The article on him gets this right. It is unidiomatic – indeed wrong, I'd say – to refer to "von Karajan", "von Bülow", "von Aschenbach".
• Family background and early childhood
  • Link wet nurse?
  • Showing my ignorance, perhaps: I'd expect the wife of the Comte de Lavigny to be the Comtesse de Lavigny rather than Madame de Lavigny, but what do I know?
• Schooling and adolescence
  • "Blandine and Cosima were meeting with their mother again" – I know this is acceptable in US English, but in UK usage one meets with disaster or success but not one's mother, whom one just meets
• First festival
  • "princes and Grand Dukes" – inconsistent capitalisation
• Parsifal
  • "Wagner took the baton from Levi and conducted the final scene" – to avoid the image of a tussle on the rostrum, perhaps a footnote explaining that this would have been out of sight of the audience, under cover of the Schalldecke?
• Venice and death
  • "died … in Cosima's arms" – I never know what this phrase means. it sounds rather a contortion for both parties

• • It's a well-worn cliché, best removed. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Interregnum
  • "Neither Liszt nor Bülow were interested" – was interested?
• In control
  • "chief remembrancer" – I imagine Shaw meant something like "chief mourner", but the phrase is an unfamiliar one and though it's a shame to kill the joke by explaining it, I think you had better do so.

• • Shaw was referring, sarkily, to her insistence on retaining Wagner's stage sets and instructions long after these had become outdated. I think this is clear from the context: This policy incurred criticism, among others from Bernard Shaw, who in 1889 mocked Cosima as the "chief remembrancer".

• • Mahler needs a blue-link
  • "Bayreuth's right, acknowledged by Ludwig, to perform Parsifal exclusively" – might this flow better as "Bayreuth's exclusive right, acknowledged by Ludwig, to perform Parsifal"?
• Notes
  • "acquiline" is in a quote, so I didn't like to correct it to aquiline

• • I'm a rotten speller even when I'm copying stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's my lot. As usual I've amended a few typos, but please check you're happy with my changes. You've done marvellously to keep the article so neutral. The temptation to drive a stake through the old bat's heart must have been almost irresistible at times. – Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for these comments, all of which I've addressed per your suggestions, except as noted above, Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede

• "which closely followed after her death" Consider omitting "after".

Background and early childhood

• "but the union had become sterile" perhaps "but the union had thereafter been barren".
  • I am using the word "sterile" in its more general sense of lacking in vitality or inspiration, rather than anyrelation to childbearing. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• "child became known thereafter." Strike thereafter,given the child's extreme youth, there is as yet nothing but thereafter.!
• Did the wet nurses and the children accompany the parents?
• "were dented" Dented? That's unusual. If the case was now hopeless, I would say "dashed". If hope remained alive, I would use another construction.
  • It's quite common in BritEng to refer to hopes being "dented", i.e. diminished though not extinguished. I can alter to "diminished" if you feel it is a real problem for American readers. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• It's not clear to me how Liszt's action solved the problem, or indeed exactly what the problem referred to is. Were they after social status or childcare?
  • I have redrafted to clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Was the father's right paramount in this situation? It might possibly be worth inclusion, possibly as an explanation of why Marie gave up the struggle. It seems worth a few words in both cases.
  • Redrafted Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Schooling

• "on this occasion" I would strike. The reader knows there's going to be a next time.

Marriage to Hans

• " pair were drawn together. They declared their feelings to Liszt," I think some might have to think twice to realize what was meant by "drawn together" Suggest the feelings be made clearer.
• "her husband's career, encouraging him to be more creative. " You haven't actually said what von Bulow did. You've mentioned conductor and pianist. Thus it is not clear what he would do with the scenario you mention next.
• The deaths: I understand that Daniel's death was shocking, even when one knows someone is going to die it can be a shock when it actually happens. But if this shocked her despite the long, wasting illness than it was unexpected, at least from Cosima's viewpoint. In that case, you shouldn't call the second one unexpected because it carries the implication that what is mentioned just before was expected, and it was not, so I gather, by Cosima.
• "frequent contact with the composer was inevitable." Hm. You make it sound like it was something to be avoided, when they had no reason to. Perhaps "the Von Bülows often interacted with the composer" or similar.
• "making a fair copy" a pipe to someplace descriptive of this process would be helpful if you know of one.
  • The only relevant pipe (this one) doesn't seem especially helpful. But I think most people will know what a fair copy is. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I added a link to wikt:fair copy on Wiktionary Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Munich

• " transformed " Perhaps something more mundane, "greatly improved"?
  • I think in this instance "transformed" is appropriate. Before Ludwig, Wagner was mired in debt, pursued everywhere by creditors and in constant danger of imprisonment. Ludwig got him out of a very deep hole. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• "where Cosima set up home" with or without Hans? Not clear.
• "rival " Can there be a rivalry when only one side is aware?
• "still took steps to avoid public scandal," You haven't made it clear that Hans is interested in making it public. Judging on his innings to date, quite the contrary would be expected. You haven't presented his wife as, nearly as important to him as Wagner.
• "continually subject" I would say "subjected". It may be an engvar thing.
• "even inducing Ludwig to issue" I would make it clearer that he lied to Ludwig, perhaps "even deceiving Ludwig into issuing ..."
• "youngest child," "youngest" reads oddly in this context. Perhaps "third and final" or just "final"
• " Liszt only learned of the marriage through the newspapers." This implies he would not have known but for the newspapers, which is surely not the case, he would be bound to know sooner or later. Perhaps begin "Lizst was not informed in advance of the wedding, and learned of it first through the newspapers." What about Hans, was he told of the wedding?

Bayreuth

• "the Festival rescheduled " since you've deferred it already, I think this should be "scheduled" not rescheduled. It is already of indefinite date.
• " but then disappeared" Are you saying no one knew where he was, or are you saying he just left town for one of his castles? Did he see the Ring?
• It may not be clear to the reader if Wagner and von Bülow broke off professionally, so some explanation of why Richter, not von Bülow, conducted the Ring may be helpful. Either that or make the extent of the break clearer, after all, you have von B. sending Cosima relatively friendly notes.
  • I have added a footnote. None of the sources explain why Richter was selected for the conducting job, beyond the fact that Wagner owed him a favour as explained in the footnote. After the divorce VB cut himself off from the Wagners, never went to Bayreuth and was never seriously considered as a Festival conductor. I'm sure he would have declined if asked. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• "precluded any likely repeat" Perhaps "likely precluded any repeat."
• Mildly surprised Vikki received a divorced woman.
• " a repeat" the thing which is being referred to here is some time ago in the prose. Perhaps "another season"

or "reviving the event".

• " who along with" I would say "like". I would note that this is a very casual and offhand way of introducing the topic of her anti-Semitism, which is definitely in the top three when you think of Cosima Wagner. Perhaps a rethink is wise as to how to bring this up. One idea would be to inaugurate the "Building the Festspielhaus" with the paragraph that follows that discusses the roots of the anti-Semitism.
  • I have reordered the material to address your point. I hope this reads better (your next two points are incorporated into the change. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Cosima records the conductor's astonishment on being informed." This would seem more logical, chronologically, earlier in the sentence.

  "visceral and unchanging." perhaps "visceral and remained unchanged."

• It may be worth mentioning whether the second festival made or lost money, in view of the difficulties with the first.
• "about whom there were suspicions of an affair" Unless I'm missing some nuance here, perhaps "who may have been having an affair with Wagner"
• The whole Pringle thing is very unclear. I can't make out who is doing the claiming that she was there, and if the visit was just to Venice, or to the house where Wagner was.
• It's unclear if they were still arguing when Wagner's heart attack occurred.
  • The Pringle matter is indeed unclear; I have added material to emphasise this. It is not certain that she and Wagner were having an affair, not known if she went to Venice in February 1883, not confirmed beyond Isolde's much later report that her parents had a row about it. It's all rather conjectural, so I have played it down. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Mistress

• " even for moment" Check quote. Since it probably wasn't in English, it is a bit odd.
• Her unwillingness to deal with Mahler seems inconsistent with her willingness to bend for the betterment of Bayreuth.
  • Well, Levi was thrust upon them, though he gained a measure of acceptance by the quality of his work. But, as Carr puts it, "for Cosima, Levi was already one Jew too many", so she wouldn't accept Mahler. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• "her death in 1919." Unclear who "her" is.
• "Winifred Williams" surely a pipe to her married name?
• "the war" perhaps "the conflict" to avoid repetition.

Legacy

• " own business acumen" can some other term besides business be found to avoid repetition? Or better, just strike the word.

Well done as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I will address these points later today.

On the question of displaying Cosima's malignity to the world, I'm not certain you've gone far enough. You may want to include some notorious incident or other.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will need to give this point further consideration; it would be very easy to let a POV become too apparent. Thank you again for your very useful comments. In most cases I have followed your suggestions, otherwise per my specific responses. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch: Comments transferred from BB talk:

Cosima image review and other comments - I am reading the article, checking the images as I come to them. I will also comment on the text as needed.

• I uploaded a new version of File:Cosima Wagner Lenbach.jpg as the former version had a watermark from Bridgeman (and was a slight crop of the painting compared to the second version uploaded).
• I would also perhaps add in the cpation that this is a painting of her by Franz von Lenbach
• Lead - I would add the year of her retirement to Her influence was such that this conservative approach was continued by her successors long after her retirement from the directorship.
• File:Cropped Hans von Bulow.jpg faces right and draws the reader's eyes out of the page (instead of into the center, as the MOS wants). There is one left facing photo of him on Commons, File:Hans von Bülow.jpg, but it is not as well sourced and has some glare on the top (from a flash?), so I would rather keep this one.

• Yes, I don't know the source of the left-facing image. The trouble with moving the existing one to the left is that it seriously disrupts the text. I'm not sure it matters too much that Bulow is looking the other way (he did that often enough during his marriage to Cosima!). If you think it's a serious problem, I could drop the Ludwig image, move Tribschen to where Ludwig is, and move Bulow to where Tribschen is. But of course, that means losing an image. How important an issue is this? Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that it is fine to keep the current image of Bülow in the article. It is a better image (no glare) with a clearer source. I doubt anyone will object to it facing right. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Extra word Bülow was quickly impressed by Cosima's pianistic skills, in which he saw the stamp of her father, and the pair were developed feelings each other.
• Wikilink St. Hedwig's Cathedral in Berlin? (I've been there - it is an interesting church, though almost completely rebuilt after the war)
• I would also use Ludwig II (the wikilink is correct, but he is just identified as "King Ludwig of Bavaria")
• Identify the city (assume it is Munich) Ludwig also provided Wagner with a lakeside retreat at Lake Starnberg, and a grand house in the city itself.[34]
• Link "Munich Hofoper"? - presumably to Bavarian State Opera?
• Stray single quote in this (after "raised"): By the spring of 1873 only a third of the required funds had been raised' further pleas to Ludwig were initially ignored, but early in 1874, with the entire project on the verge of collapse, the king relented and provided a loan.[64]
• I have read to the end of the "First festival" section - why did Bülow no longer conduct Wagner? Was it the divorce?

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Re last point - this is covered later in the article. I have done all the minor fixes, leaving just the one outstanding point, per above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem for me is that Bülow is such a milquetoast cuckold, knowing that his wife Cosima and Wagner are having children together, but still associating with both of them, that I was not sure what he would do once the divorce was final. I read the note and it is fine, but it comes two sections after the divorce, and as a note some readers may not get to it until the end of the article (if then). I wonder if adding part of the note would help, say "After the divorce Bülow distanced himself from both Wagner and Cosima." after the current Legal processes extended the marriage until 18 July 1870, when the divorce was finally sanctioned by a Berlin court.[51] The rest of Bülow's history could remain in the note.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

More...

• File:Richard and Cosima Wagner.jpg says "Original photo taken on 9th of May 1872 in Vienna by Fritz Luckhardt (1843-1894)." Should any of this information be included in the photo caption in the article? The year? The photographer?
• I checked all the images and added more information in some cases to the files. I also fixed a few typos. Looks very good to me, as always, please let me know when it is at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Cohen I've done one read through during which I wikilinked Minna Planer. I did wonder about your punctuation at times - I think I would use more commas and would probably avoid the parentheses about Minna's death. I plan to check my references which you don't have for additional information and read through the text when I'm more awake. However, my first impression is that this is a good read and a proper featured article. It is probably worth mentioning that, according to Cooke, it was Cosima who persuaded Wagner to drop the Buddhist/Schopenhauer I saw the world end conclusion from the immolation scene. (p.22 of the book of that name). Would you prefer me to insert soemthing myself or leave it to you? Ditto for what I find in other sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Peter. On the Schopenhauer thing, I do have Cooke's book. My feeling is that including this titbit might generate rather too much explanatory text, so let's not be too hasty. I would prefer to discuss any significant inserts or changes, though by all means feel free to implement minor adjustments or additions. Your punc query may simple arise from the different US/UK conventions, but I'll take a look. I have very limited online access this week, so I may initially be rather slow in responding. Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

---

20–20–20 club

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I believe this page could be on its way to becoming a featured list. But first, I would like to get a peer review to give me feedback on what, if anything, needs to be tweaked/fixed about this list.

Thanks, Bloom6132 (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "club, reaching the milestone in 2007." image caption, I'd say ", both reaching..."

•  Done —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• "was the first to join the club" probably better to say "was the first to achieve this"...

•  Done —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Of these, 5 were left-handed batters, 1 was right-handed and 1 was " five, one, one...

•  Done —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Brett and Rollins collected more than 200 hits alongside achieving 20–20–20." ref?

•  Done —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Last sentence of third para is unreferenced.

•  Done Added sources, but I'm not too sure whether or not these are self-explanatory. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• If this publication is so major, why not name it? (Baseball Digest)

•  Done —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• You should probably mention the 20-20-20-20 club in the lead as it should summarise the article.

•  Done —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Don't overlink in the lead (e.g. home run, doubles etc are linked multiple times).

•  Done —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Willie Mays reached both the 20–20–20 club and the 30–30 club " this caption needs reference and some explanation needs to be provided as to what a 30-30 is.

•  Done Explanation provided in the form of a footnote. Source is again Baseball Reference (BR). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Much appreciated! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

---

? (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC soon and would like some outside opinions.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Will do, I'll try to get to it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments:
• "However, the film protested by several Indonesian Muslim groups, including the Indonesian Ulema Council, Islamic Defenders Front, and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), which disagreed with the pluralist message of the film." "Disagreed with" sounds pretty mild, did they just disagree or did they actively criticize the film?

• Added "MUI had previously declared pluralism forbidden."

• "and allows his staff time for prayers and a holiday during Eid ul-Fitr, the largest Muslim holiday." A little ambiguous, is it that he only allowed them time for prayers during Eid?

• Clarified

• "Meanwhile, Rika feels stressed because of the way her family and neighbours have treated her since she converted to Catholicism from Islam; she is also dealing with the competition between Surya and Doni (Glenn Fredly) for her affections." This feels a little wordy, is there a good way to tighten it?

• How's this?

• "Abi is feeling conflicted" Is there a better/more detailed way to say this than "conflicted"?

• How's this?

• "Soleh joins the Islamic group Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), enabling him to feel more confident" & "He eventually joins the Banser branch of the NU" A brief explanation about the nature of NU might be helpful. i.e. Are they a charity? An orchestra? A terrorist organization?

• Thought Islamic group would be enough, but added "charitable"

• "Eventually all are able to reconcile." Not sure you need this summary statement, it might be clear from the text earlier.

• Hidden

• "After the attack, Hendra reads the 99 Names of Allah and converts to Islam;" Is it clear from the movie why he did this? Or is it left to the viewer to figure out why?

• Left to the viewer, although I think (OR territory) that he realised his father wanted him to. One of my friends said she thought he did it to get Menuk.

• "Temat considered her character to have married Soleh instead of Hendra, despite loving the latter and not the former, because Soleh was Muslim." Also kinda wordy, any good way to tighten this? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Changed to "According to Temat, Menuk married Soleh, whom she did not love, instead of Hendra because Soleh was Muslim."

• Back again, sorry for taking so long.
• "Although he hopes to be a movie star, he has only received bit parts and as such is financially desperate[4] and going through an existential crisis." I'd suggest rephrasing the second half here, maybe "his inability to secure more than bit parts provokes financial desperation and an existential crisis."?

• Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The film, his fourteenth, is one of several Islam-themed movies he has directed, after Ayat-Ayat Cinta (The Verses of Love; 2008) and Sang Pencerah (The Enlightener; 2009)." Did his previous Islam-themed films carry a similar message?

• Added the genres. Short answer, no.

• "Revalina S Temat" Should this be "Revalina S. Temat"?

• Indonesian sources drop the period generally, but no biggie

• Watch for repetition of "stated"

• From six to two

• "Sasono notes that a scene in which a Catholic priest is stabbed by two men on a motorcycle reflects a case in Bekasi, which became a national issue at the time" Might want to state the year instead of "at the time".

• Will dig.

• "Sasono noted that the Muslim majority shown in the film did not have their motives shown explicitly" shown repeated here.

• First shown removed.

• "had been seen by almost 100,000 people,[34] with another 50,000 seeing it by 17 April.[16] By mid-September ? had been seen by" Some repetition here, "seen... seeing... seen".

• Trimmed the middle, changed a seen to watched

• "According to Bramantyo, the film was also screened in Vancouver and Paris, receiving positive feedback." I'm not sure you need the in-text attribution here.

• Can't find independent verification of Paris, all I could find is tweets for Vancouver. Just to be safe (a director could, theoretically, lie, right?)

• "Frans Sartono, reviewing in the historically Catholic daily Kompas, found the film to be heavily didactic, but ultimately interesting because its social commentary was in the right context" This covers a lot of ground.

• The "historically Catholic" may be dropped, although it is for context (see where they are coming from). Compare Republika's descriptor above.

• "considered the film to have"

• "Praised the"

• I rephrased a bit in the reception section, better check my work there.
• You mention that their decision to show the film was heavily criticised, any notable critics?

• Added a footnote about the NU. Nobody of note that I could find, really.

• "In an October 2011 interview, he stated that he was "bewildered" that the film was poorly received by Muslims." The irony is really substantial here, a film designed to "counter the portrayal of Islam as a "radical religion"" was poorly received by Muslims. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed, but its possible that many people didn't see the characters as people not living up to the standards of their own religion, but as representatives of Islam, Buddhism, and Catholicism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Stephen Hawking

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because following a successful GA, and later PR it was nominated for FA. Unfortunately it wasn't considered ready for FA at the time so since then I've got some more books from the library, and adjusted the article quite a lot - chiefly in the career section, but also as part of a lot of tightening up, removal of trival, and rearrangment (with a whole bunch of editors who have very kindly cleared up after me when I'm overly keen). I'm looking for a peer review for general recommendations/review to find out if we're ready to go back to FA.

Thanks, Fayedizard (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by TR

The article is looking much better than it did a couple of months ago.

Some (relatively minor) comments and remarks:

• The remark about the luftwaffe at the end of the first paragraph of the early life section may need some clarification. Although many reader will, not all will a) realize that 1942 is the time of WW2 b)know that the Luftwaffe is the German airforce. The sentence good by modified along these lines (At this stage of world war 2, London was the target of German air raids).

Have made a change that I think covers this.Fayedizard (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That works.TR 07:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• In the aclaim section it might be worthwhile to mention the Stephen Hawking Centre at PI.

Good call! I didn't know about the Stephen Hawking Centre at Perimeter Institute and as a result of putting it in I've been able to clean up the text around it much more nicely. Fayedizard (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is the list under "awards and honors" complete or is it a selection of the most notable? (If it is the latter, I suggest mentioning this explicitly)

Changed to 'Major awards and…' to be safe. Fayedizard (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• The various facts mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the "personal life" section seem rather disjoint. You might want to double check if these are mentioned in the best possible place or if they need to mentioned at all. (For example, I am not sure that Hawking's stance on the Iraq war is that relevant. It also seems unlikely that this the only political subject on which he ever took a strong position, in which case if the Iraq war is mentioned so should other things. The part about his connection to St. Albans, may be better place as side note in the early life section, keeping it all in one location.)

I've moved the St Albans to early life, not sure about the Iraq war issue - I've got very few other mentions of direct political statement in the sources (I think he's be described as 'labour voting') how about I make the relgion and philosphy section 'relgion, philosphy, and politics' and pop the iraq war stuff down there with anything else I can dig up? Fayedizard (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is also possibility to simply not mention it all. This is basically a case of WP:NOTNEWS.TR 07:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've commented out the reference to see how it feels and to see if it gets missed, I can imagine it being part of a political section if one is ever required… Fayedizard (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• The remark about how long it took Hawking to answer a question at a TED talk in the "Illness" section, seems rather anecdotal for an encyclopedia.

I'd definately like to discuss this a bit more - I think this is one of the best examples of an instance where the general public would be pretty surprised at how difficult the communication actually is. However we might already have that with the 'one word a minute' stuff - what do you think? Fayedizard (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the one word a minute remark could be enough, but do not feel strongly either way.TR 07:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped it :) Fayedizard (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• The in popular culture section, currently reads as a very dry summation of trivia. It could do with any introduction sentence. Also his appearance is various TV series can be phrased more compactly by combining them in a senctence. (Something like "Hawking appeared as himself in episodes of the TV series Red Dwarf, Star Trek, and The Big Bang Theory and dubbed his own voice for episodes of the Simpsons and Futurama").

Reduced and reformed - I suspect I could also lose the clock thing (although it is a very cool clock) and even lose the subheading and make these two paragraphs part of the personal life introduction… what do you think? Fayedizard (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the section serves as a WP:SUMMARY to Stephen Hawking in popular culture, I think it should stay as a separate section. A small point (which may be just me), but It seems odd to say that he appeared as himself in cartoons (simpsons/futurama), he dubbed a cartoon representation of himself. (not sure how else to phrase it though).TR 13:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a very difficult one in that case - it's not ideal as it is - but I think it's better that way than having to be really really careful about what is 'dubing' and what isn't in this case… Fayedizard (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• The mention about the remark "primitive life is very common and intelligent life is fairly rare" seems more of a plug for George Washington University (probably added by somebody who attended the lecture). The remark itself is rather trivial and basically common lore, it is rather weird to credit it to Hawking specifically. (Hawking probably has also said that "the sky is blue", this does not make it noteworthy)

Dropped.Fayedizard (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• The relgious and philosophical view section can be merged to a single section preventing a single paragraph section. (Which are discouraged).

DoneFayedizard (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• The list of references needs a thorough look over for consistency of formatting (full names vs Initials, full dates vs. Just years), and completeness (At least some references are missing some required fields such as author for journal articles.)

It certainly does, and this is my big thing to check over - I'd like to look at if after much of the rest of the comments have been addressed though… it's one of those things that is a bit disheartening to keep going back to… Fayedizard (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I know, it is a pain. If I have time I'll try to help out on this.TR 13:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That's very lovely of you - I'm actually about to ask some questions of people in the know about the best way to arrange the references for this article so there might be some major changes the article has to go though… Fayedizard (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I put my question over at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Looking_for_some_sourcing_advice_at_FA_level and it was answered promptly - so I'll start pottering on with references.Fayedizard (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Made a bunch of changes today on the refs to bring them a bit up to scratch - let me know if I've missed much…

In all the article is looking in very good shape. Most of the physics seems fairly accurate (as accurate as you can get without talking mumbo jumbo).TR 14:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wonderfully - thank you so much for responding so promptly - I'm actaully going to be unavailible for the next 18/24 hours - but will get stuck in on my return - when I do, would you be happy with inline replies? Fayedizard (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with inline replies. (just make sure to copy the timestamp/signature to any location where the discussion is broken up.)TR 16:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is looking good. I would say it is almost ready for FA. Just a couple of points:

• The images in the article need alt texts as per WP:ALTTEXT. I know they are a pain to write, but they are important for accessibility. (And will hang a FAC if not present).TR 11:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  *Blush* - will get right on this (should have been obvious for me as well) Fayedizard (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have passed through the references and cleaned them up where need. I think the only thing that needs to be settled is whether the reference use initials or full names. In general, I think giving initials is easier, because it is not always possible to find the full name of an author. But any choice (as long as it is made consistently) is fine.TR 11:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  So just to get a little context on this - I might have missed some - but I think the only places where some refrences use initials and some use full names are Hawking's own. He signs popular books with his full name, but he signs his scientific work 'S. W. Hawking' - even when other people on the paper get their full name (for example [1]) - I took this to User_talk:Nikkimaria#Looking_for_some_sourcing_advice_at_FA_level, who I think is probably the person to go to for FA level sourcing querys and it came out as an okay thing (I should post to talk:hawking about it as well I think). Does that sound reasonable? (also - I might just be missing something obvious with one of the other references, if so - then slap me with a wet trout… Fayedizard (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor Comments from Dcrjsr

This version seems very good - complete across a wide variety of aspects, and appealing both to the scientists and the laymen who are interested. I have only a couple of minor suggestions. One is just to delete the extra space between paragraphs in the Early Life section. The other is that I'd love to see one or two images that illustrate concepts from his work, to complement all the photos of him. That may not be easy, but presumably there are diagrams in his books that could be redrawn to give open-license images, if none are found in a web search. - Dcrjsr (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dcrjsr, that's a great idea - although I think you're right that it might be a little tricky to find images, particularly because so many of the images that descibe stuff well to the layman annoy the scientists because of the level of simplification - I'll have a bit of a trawl though the physics articles and see if anything wonderful pops up - although I'm a bit consious of the possibility the article covering scientific topics that are already covered by well-established other wiki-articles (the other side of this, of course, is that it struggled at FAC last time partly because of a lack of scientific content… so certainly worth thinking about.) - I've sorted out the paragraph spacing issue as well :) Fayedizard (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Songs and sketches of Dan Leno

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Dan Leno, the leading English music hall comedian and Victorian stage actor was a popular music hall performer and was chiefly known for his many dame pantomime roles that were popular at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from 1888 to 1904. During his career, he originated and popularised many songs in his music hall act; some of which were recorded and released to the general public. A few months ago, I significantly contributed to the main article and co-nominated it at FAC, and it was promoted to FA status. As I went along, I extensively researched his recordings and songs and have compiled this short list which now supports the main article. I feel confident that this list is a thorough and comprehensive collection of Leno's works and now, together with Ssilvers, we intend to submit it to WP:FLC for consideration. Before doing so however, we are submitting it for this peer review in the hope that we gain some knowledge about FLC before it's listing. We hope that you enjoy reading this article and look forward to all comments and suggestions. Thanks -- Cassianto^Talk 18:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to comments. It would be particulary helpful if anyone with experience at FLC would comment about what they think will be needed to pass the Featured List criteria and to let us know what stumbling blocks we might need to watch out for, since we are not experienced at FLC. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments The only issues are that the tables do not meet WP:ACCESS, see also WP:DTT. The other is that this article lists his songs, so I suggest to move to "List of songs by Dan Leno" or similar. As long as their are no albums or other recordings by him, the current title is confusing. Otherwise ready for FLC: Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 12:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comment. A personal preference would be to keep it all together and go with a name change instead. Could we call this article "The music of Dan Leno" or similar and retain this articles current content? If not, we will have to move. Ss your thoughts? -- Cassianto^Talk 15:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to be sure what the commenter means. Cassianto, can you ask him/her for more details, please? I'd love to hear from more commenters. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Done of his/her talk page. In the interests of continuity I will copy my points here:

Thanks for your helpful comment. Could you be a little more specific on a couple of things;

"The tables do not meet WP:ACCESS, see also WP:DTT."

• Which parts of the tables need attention? It's our first FLC so we are not fluent in the criteria or table formatting.

• The two tables need to have a format to meet the access requirements. I am not fluent in English so it is hard to explain properly, so I just give you this example: List of songs recorded by Chrisye. You should change the row lines to "!scope=row" (note the exclamation mark) and column lines to "!scope=col". To avoid bolding add "plainrowheaders" somewhere inside the class parameter. If you want more information I suggest asking User:RexxS, who is an expert in this field.--GoP_T^C_N 18:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you GoP! Cassianto, can you see if you can get RexxS would give us a review? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"The other is that this article lists his songs"

• Could we rename the article so it doesn't specify a discography and instead call it The music of Dan Leno or The songs of Dan Leno and retain the one article? Any clarification would be great! -- Cassianto^Talk 19:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is a great idea.--GoP_T^C_N 18:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I shall make it so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Since some of these are sketches, I changed the name to "The songs and sketches of Dan Leno". Better? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the table to see how well it meets the accessibility guidelines of WP:DTAB. To be frank, you've done the most important part by identifying and marking up the column headers with ! scope="col", so that's a good start. The reason for the extra markup is because some visually-impaired visitors use a screen reader that allows then to navigate around a table in any direction. They may want to read down the column of notes in the second table, for example. What the extra markup does is to identify for each cell a column header and a row header that can be announced by the screen reader in conjunction with that cell. For example when they reach 11th row of 3rd column of the second table, then instead of just hearing "Written by Leno", they could hear something like "I'll Be Waiting For Him Tonight", "Notes", "Written by Leno" - I hope you would agree that would be much better for them. For that to happen, we have to use not only ! scope="col" for the column headers, but also we have to choose and to mark up the row headers (I'd suggest the titles are best for this) with the markup ! scope="row". That also alters the formatting of those cells making them bold and centred (i.e. headers), so we often return them to normal weight and left-aligned by using the class "plainrowheaders" in the first line of the wikitable. I've sandboxed examples of how you might mark up the two tables at User:RexxS/The music of Dan Leno - have a look at the edit mode to see the wiki-markup of course. Please feel free to take/use any part of what I've done there, or ask me to show you any changes you want to the formatting - as you can see I've left-aligned the notes to fit in with the left-aligned titles, but you can have centred text if you prefer it (I prefer the left-aligned, but that's merely a personal preference). Does that make sense? I'd be happy to go over it step-by-step if you wish, or you could compare what I'm suggesting here with this edit and the two subsequent ones on List of space stations which added the row headers to a table there. Let me know if I can help any further, and good luck with the FLC. Ping me for a review when you get there at least. --RexxS (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the great advice. Yes it did get a bit technical but your sandbox really helped illustrate your points. I agree it is important for visually impaired people and doing that extra bit of work makes it all worth it. I have used your examples and replaced the old tables with them. I hope that's ok. Hopefully the table formatting part of this review is now complete and there are no further issues with this. Could you just check if I have done this correctly and let me know of any other issues re the tables? -- Cassianto^Talk 11:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you found it helpful. Please treat any demos I make as public domain: I don't need attribution and you're free to make whatever use you wish of them. You've understood what is needed perfectly and I don't believe anyone will find fault with your tables from an accessibility viewpoint. You may see requests on other lists for table captions, which are useful to screen readers, but are often redundant to the second-level headers. I usually suggest captions if the table is separated from the section header by substantial piece of text (see List of field marshals of the British Army for example), but as in this case there's little value in repeating the section header with a table caption if one immediately follows the other. Your article is an entertaining read, and I hope to see it at FLC soon. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much RexxS and GoP. I guess we're ready to submit this to FLC now.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has gone through a good article nomination, which dredged up a large amount of problems in the article which were not detected previously. These problems have since been resolved, but I would like guidance here on how to improve the article here and make it more representative of all of the expert speculation on the subject. As I have exhausted nearly every free source, this involves, in large part, an ability to access the non-free references which have been cited and those which cannot be cited because no information can be gained from them. Admittedly, though, I have not exhausted all non-free sources, and the vast majority of the information here has not yet been used as I do not really know how to include all of the content of the article beyond what has already been included. Perhaps some peer reviewers can aid me in that.

Furthermore, I feel that the prose is rather uninteresting and repetitive, and I would like a way to make it more lucid and captivating for the reader. While after my extensive copyedit the article probably meets the prose requirements for being a good article, but my ultimate goal with this peer review is to make a possible future featured article candidate.

Thanks, Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 20:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting subject for an article, but I agree it needs a fair amount of work before it owuld be ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Peer review is more for pointing out problems with articles for others to address / fix, than for finding people to fix the problems. It seems as if you have a decent idea of some of the issues with the article, but I am not really sure what this means As I have exhausted nearly every free source, this involves, in large part, an ability to access the non-free references which have been cited and those which cannot be cited because no information can be gained from them. If a source exists but is "non-free" can you get it from a library or via inter-library loan?

None of these sources would be readily accessible in a public library, one would have to go to a university library in order to access even a fraction of these sources.

• I think the article title might be better as just "Impact of extraterrestrial contact", as the first sentence says, the topic is not limited to cultural impacts: The cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact covers the potential future implications that contact with extraterrestrial civilizations could have on culture, science, technology, politics, religion, law, and other aspects of society.

Changed to "Implications of extraterrestrial contact."

I've reverted this change. The reviewer did not make this suggestion, and his suggestion based on the reading of the first, unsourced sentenence is generally at odds with the sources and the topic. Culture includes science technology, politics, religion, law, and other social aspects. In our case, we are referring to Western culture. In terms of ET, we are talking about ET culture. The sources make this very clear. That the editor did not make this clear in the lead section using the best sources is not a good reason to change the title. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - I am not sure what a good model would be, but there are several conceptul FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Physics_and_astronomy - perhaps Extrasolar planet or Formation and evolution of the Solar System or Planetary habitability might be useful models
• One dead link and some links that need access dates

Fixed. I will add WebCite redundancy to every link when I get the time.

• The lead seems a bit sparse to me and should be expanded to 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 I do not see anything on artifacts or ecology in the current lead. See WP:LEAD
• Per WP:See also, links are generally repeated in See also if they are already linked in the article. Search for extraterrestrial intelligence is linked at the top of the article and in the section with that title.
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. One of the biggest problems I see with the article is that there are a fair number of passages without references - for example:
  • In addition to all of these factors, whether or not the authenticity of a supposed extraterrestrial signal has been confirmed, and to what level of confidence this confirmation is, will play a role in the ultimate impact of extraterrestrial contact.
  • The studies also show smaller, but still large, weighted correlations between participants believing that extraterrestrial contact may either conflict with or enrich their personal religious beliefs, and how conservative such religious beliefs may be, with more conservative individuals holding extraterrestrial contact to be more harmful. Other significant correlation patterns indicate that participants took the view that the search for extraterrestrial intelligence may be futile or even harmful.
  • Some theories predict that an extraterrestrial civilization may be advanced enough to no longer use biology, instead living inside advanced computers.
  • In order to do so, various methods may be used, including intervention only to avert catastrophe, intervention by advice and consent of world leaders, and forcible corrective action.

These statements are all supported by inline citations, but I have added additional citations to these particular sentences.

• I agree that this needs a copyedit - might be best to make sure the coverage is complete and then ask for help at WP:GOCE or one of the copy editors listed at WP:PR/V.
• As one example, of a sentence that is difficult to understand see

Civilizations aiming to ensure the success of other populations of verifying the presence of extraterrestrial species may also use probes, due to their ability to store information on long timescales in a way that radio waves cannot, their ability to create a strong signal within a star system which can be unambiguously identified as being intelligent in origin, rather than being dismissed as a UFO or natural phenomenon, and an ability to modify any signal sent based on environmental factors in a reasonably short period of time.[38]

• Most source information for references should be in the footnotes / citations, not in the article itself - so A paper written by James W. Deardorff published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1986 speculates that a small fraction of the intelligent life-forms in the galaxy may be aggressive, but the actual aggressiveness or benevolence of the civilizations actually covers a wide spectrum, with some civilizations "policing" others.[21] should just be something like In 1986 James W. Deardorff speculated that...

Done.

• Would a see also on fiction on this topic be useful?

I'm not sure about a fiction section, as this is an article which focuses on the science of the subject. I really don't know how to make anything beyond a brief hatnote blurb (already there) fit in with the article as a whole.

My first reaction to the article title, though, brought to mind two big things that fit under its broad description. The first is what the article discusses - the cultural implications if aliens actually made contact with humans. The second is different, but possibly more relevant: the cultural implications of the *idea* of alien contact - or, so to speak, the existing cultural implications of human-alien contact, which is to say depictions of and relating to this kind of contact. I think each kind informs the other, and see both being relevant to the subject.

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Done.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

RJH comments – It looks like a lot of work has gone into this article and it appears to be in-depth coverage. Unfortunately, the writing seems rather wordy with many redundant elements, and it could do with some tightening of the prose. I'd suggest looking at some of the advice available near the bottom of WP:WIAFA.

• Something that seems to be missing from the article is coverage about bridging the comprehension gap between the aliens and humans. Much of the text just assumes this will happen, and it goes further to assume they will behave very much like us. But their motivations may be strikingly different and the only thing we could have in common is mathematics. A possible analogy here is in how much difficulty we have had trying to determine how animals think and feel.
• Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson have made some interesting observations regarding the perils of alien contact, but I don't see that mentioned. I particularly like Dr. Tyson's insightful observation that, "If aliens are just like us, then they should be feared."

Lead

• I'm not clear that the hatnote is necessary, per WP:RELATED. In any case it is inordinately large for the actual value it provides. The hatnote is part of the interface, rather than the article, so keeping it brief is beneficial.
• The lead doesn't really serve as a concise summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. For example, there is no summary of SETI. It could also use some type of image; perhaps a photo of the Allen Array?
• How does "The ultimate results of such contact..." differ from "The results of such contact..."? Does it mean long term? If so, how long?
• "The medium of communication ... could also change the results..."; if we only make contact through one medium, how can we say it changes the results? Perhaps "...could determine the results..."?
• "Based on these factors, there are various contact scenarios which each cover different types of civilizations and contact, and the specific implications of contact with each type"; to me this sentence is pretty nebulous and it uses the word "contact" three times. Can it be better written?
• "These implications come in various areas of the human experience, such as religion, politics, the law, science and technology, and the ecology of the Earth"; is this sentence necessary? It's vague, so it doesn't appear to add much value. Perhaps something more concrete can be used?
• "Results of such contact ... possible results of extraterrestrial contact"; redundancy.
• "However, as the nature ... Nevertheless, various systems..."; what is the 'nevertheless' in regards to? Perhaps it means "Because of this, various systems..."?

Background

• "...natural astrophysical phenomena which...": how is this different from "...natural phenomenon that..."?
• "In 2009, A Message From Earth was sent to the Gliese 581 system,...": I think this should say "sent toward", since it will take 20 years for the message to get there.
• "Subsequently, the SETILive effort, which began in 2012...": The "Subsequently" here is redundant, since a year is given.
• "...Kepler target stars with the radio telescope": should be plural "telescopes".
• "While there have been several false positive signals... no evidence has been found that these signals are indeed of intelligent origin": redundancy
• "consequentiality": please just use normal English words like "consequences" rather than practicing polysyllabicism.
• "The ultimate impact of extraterrestrial impact can be said to depend on...": again, what does "ultimate" mean here? I'm not clear that this use of the word "ultimate" is needed in the article. Does "can be said to depend on" mean the same as "can depend on"? If not, it may be WP:WEASEL.
• "...among other factors. In addition to all of these factors...": Redundancy.
• "Subsequent modifications to the scale": some dates would be good here.
• "...and the nature of the information received if there is any": the "...if there is any" seems unnecessary, since any non-noise message will carry some type of information.

Contact scenarios

• "...which are willing and able to draw upon vast reserves of force to subjugate humanity...": couldn't this just say the "...draw upon the forces necessary..."? Depending on their technology, they may or may not need "vast reserves of force".
• "Collaboration with such a civilization could initially be in the arts and humanities before moving to the hard sciences, and conversely, artists may spearhead collaboration": wouldn't the converse case be scientists spearheading the collaboration?
• "...which would cause harm to civilization": theirs or ours?
• "An advanced extraterrestrial civilization may not be coming to Earth in order to expand an already-burgeoning empire, as with their level of advancement they may have achieved an equilibrium, as proposed by Ćirković (2008)": doesn't quite make sense.
• "Extraterrestrial artifacts": there is not much information in this section about the cultural impact; it's mainly about the motivation for using these devices. Hence, I'm not clear why this section needs to be so large.

Further implications of contact

• "...due to the geocentric nature of such religions": which? The Western or the Eastern?
• "...the teachings of Giordano Bruno...": wait, a guy who was burned at the stake for challenging established dogma somehow indicates that existing religions will successfully adapt? I'm not sure I understand how that conclusion was arrived at.
  • Even if he was burned at the stake, religion has survived Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Heisenberg, and too many other scientists to count. He was burned at the stake but religious authorities will adapt eventually, as they have before.
    • True, but my concern was with how the article is (or is not) communicating this fact. Picture a reader who is none too familiar with scientific history; how would they process the information? Anyway, the issue seems to have been corrected. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• "...as scientists begin to attempt to decipher...": "begin to" is wordy and unnecessary.
• "Harrison (2000) [missing] the communications may": a connecting statement is missing here. Further, it perhaps seems arrogant to assume that contact with us could result in the establishment of a "galactic club". Most likely such would already exist, if other civilizations have been contacted before. If not, then it's a "club" of two.
• Regarding the "Legal" section, you might also point out that this cuts both ways. What legal rights would humans hold in an alien legal system? Would we be restricted to the Solar System until we surmount some threshold? What happens if the aliens send automated representatives; what legal status would they have?

References

• There's some inconsistency in the reference formatting:
  • "Daniel Terdiman" rather than "Terdiman, Daniel"
  • "Ian O'Neill" rather than "O'Neill, Ian"
• The "When SETI Succeeds: The Impact of High-Information Contact" and "Xenology" are used widely as references. However, these are lengthy publications. I'd like to see specific page numbers be provided, such as via WP:SFN. For example, where does one find the (to me) astonishingly optimistic statement that begins, "... extraterrestrial civilization may also put an end to the religious conflicts ..."?
• Some of the citations only have a minimum amount of information. Example: "Kepler: A Search for Habitable Planets"; "Counting on Beauty...". Is there anything more that can be added?

Okay I'm done. Good luck with your article! Regards, RJH (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Berkelium

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because R8R Gtrs told me it's the closest to FA among the non-FA actinides and I'd be interested in working on this.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll do this one. --Noleander (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Picture File:Berkeley 60-inch cyclotron.gif may have copyright issues: The source data for that pic should prove that the photographer that took the pic was a DOE employee. At the moment, I only see that the pic is from a DOE archive.
• Picture File:Berkelium.jpg - also needs to identify the individual photographer. NOTE; you can try to get these pics approved at FAC, but others have been rejected in the past for these reasons.
• Lots o' footnotes: " quickly decays to californium-250.[74][75][76] " - Consider collapsing groups like this; follow guidance at WP:CITEBUNDLE. There are several groups of footnotes that could be improved that way.
• Footnotes per sentence: Generally, it is okay to have footnotes at the end of a paragraph. But when a sentence has a particularly interesting or provocative statement, it is best to attach a footnote to the sentence. See WP:INTEGRITY for some discussion on that. For instance, this sentence: "Little is known about the effects of berkelium on human body, and analogies with other elements may not be drawn because of different radiation products (electrons for berkelium and alpha particles and/or neutrons for most other actinides)."
• Define term: "The maximum permissible body burden for the isotope .." - what is "body burden"? Define or link.
• Wording: "The second important berkelium isotope, berkelium-247, is an alpha-emitter as most actinide isotopes" - Should that say " ... as are most ..."?
• Wording: "The longest-lived isotope of berkelium (247Bk) has a half-life of only 1,380 years" - Remove "only" ... a bit judgemental; the remainder of the sentence explains the import. Also, c.f. "The thus-produced 249Bk has a long half-life of 330 days".
• Wording: " ... during its formation, should have decayed by now. " - "Should" is a bit ontological. Just say " .. has decayed by now".
• Wording: " ... the quantities produced at NIIAR are not widely reported. " - Either they are reported or not. Remove "widely".
• Wording: Synthetic: "Berkelium is a synthetic, silvery-white, radioactive ..." - Why "synthetic" in the "Physical properties" section? First, the article implies that some was in existence in primordial earth; and second, synthetic is not really a physical property. Would we see "expensive" here? Better would be the lead wording: "Berkelium is a soft, silvery-white, radioactive metal. ..."
• More pics are always better: consider pic of Seaborg, or colleague.
• Link needed for first occurrence of divalent. Also, check other technical terms ... there may be others with this issue.
• Links: I see no ambiguous links.
• Ext links: Tool says they are all okay.
• Citations: look good. But some end in periods; some don't.
• Footnote #48 has a star icon in the source name; is that supposed to be there?
• Wording: " A search for an initially suspected isotope 241Bk was then unsuccessful." - Remove "then"; unless there is a great reason for the word, in which case explain the reason in that sentence.
• Explain: "with the layer sequence ABAC and so is isotypic with α-lanthanum ..." - isotypic is a red link, which is okay, but therefore you need to add a few words here explaining the term.
• Comprehensive: Great ... I like the fact that lots of supplemental facts (e.g. US/Russia collaboration) are included ... it enriches the article.
• Clarify: "The above reactions illustrate that although 247Bk is the most stable isotope of berkelium, its production in nuclear reactors is very inefficient. " - I don't think it is proper to ask the reader to assess the reactions ... can you supply words here that help the reader understand that causality?
• Wording: "..procedure adopted at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory was as follows:" - I've never liked "as follows" but maybe that is just me.
• Tense: "Berkelium(III) sulfide, Bk2S3, was prepared by either ..." - Should probably be "is prepared" to be consistent with other material in this section.
• Also: "Berkelium(III) fluoride (BkF3) is also a yellow-green solid, but .." - the word "also" should generally be avoided, especially here where it is starting a new paragraph. Ideally, paragraphs could be moved around a bit without impacting other paras. Consider removing "also".
• Isotope? - "At ambient conditions, berkelium assumes its most stable α form ..." - is this limited to a particular isotope?
• Wording: "Upon heating, α-berkelium transforms into another "metastable" phase (that is at ambient temperature it gradually converts back to α-berkelium). " - Confusing. Try: "Upon heating, α-berkelium transforms into another phase with an fcc lattice; this phase is metastable and will gradually revert back to the original phase at room temperatures." Or similar.
• Conclusion: I think this is very close to FA status. I think if you can implement the above suggestions, you should be able to take it to WP:FAC. Also, consider asking an editor who has created an FA-quality article on elements to review it (e.g. User:mav).

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Too wordy for an element that has only laboratory interest. Californium is half the size and that element has much more practical uses. Examples: History section goes on and on about the isolation of Bk (and isn't there any history for this element after its isolation?). Filler in the Physical section, first paragraph that lists relative location in periodic table, and then some comparisons of physical properties between Bk, curium, and californium; why is that significant? The "two sharp fluorescence peaks" sentence sounds interesting and I want to know more about the f-shell connection but then the next two sentences loose me with info that I read in specialist articles but would not consider putting in a general encyclopedia article. Gotta go. More later. --mav (reviews needed) 01:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Common toad

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just been granted GA status and I am interested in taking it to FA. It was an article of 250 words when I started expanding it 3 months ago so it is nearly all "my own work"! Thanks, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Wer900:

As far as sourcing is concerned, I have no objections to the article. Everything looks legitimate and I believe that the good article reviewer(s) have taken appropriate care of any sourcing issues which may have existed previously. In terms of overall large-scale organization there are no issues, as the headings are laid out quite nicely and are at the appropriate level. On a smaller scale, though, there are numerous issues with sentence structure, such as choppiness or multiple structures in one sentence. Also, some sentences are in the wrong places in their paragraphs. Here are some examples:

Small, fast moving prey may be caught by a flick of the tongue while larger items are grabbed with the jaws. Having no teeth, it swallows food whole in a series of gulps.^[14] It does not recognise its prey as such but will try to consume any small, dark coloured, moving object it encounters at night. A research study showed that it would snap at a moving 1 cm (0.4 in) piece of black paper as if it were prey but would disregard a larger moving piece.^[16]

Thank you for your comments. I will work on this aspect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To be updated

Comments by FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Instead of just mentioning Ireland and Iceland as places in Northern Europe the toad cannot be found, wouldn't "islands in the North Atlantic" or some such be better? Since there are many other islands than these two where toads cannot be found. Or maybe those islands (Faroe Islands, Hebrides, Shetland, Orkney, so on) are counted with the countries they belong to? Because the Mediterranean islands all seem to be mentioned by name. I changed this but on further thoughts I changed it back. Ireland is a nation and Iceland is a significant land mass rather than an offshore island. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• "It is one of a group of closely related taxa that are descended from a common ancestral line and which form a species complex." What does closely related taxa refer to here? Different Bufo species, or the subspecies within Bufo bufo?This is a bit difficult as I lack good source material.
• The lead could perhaps need some more wikilinks for terms such as metamorphosis, tadpoles and witchcraft, and maybe the less obvious facts could be sourced. Done.
• The article itself could also need some more wikilinks, for example when other animals are mentioned, such as Bufo viridis, and words such as fecundity.
• There seems to be inconsistency on whether the different taxa mentioned in the article are species or subspecies. I understand that this is because their relationships are unclear, but I think it would be better to stick to one classification, instead of for example mentioning a taxon as B. b. spinosus in one sentence and then as B. spinosus in another. There also seems to be some confusion about B. b. japonicus, which is mentioned as a subspecies in the taxonomy section, but isn't listed along with the others below it, and further down in the article, it is simply B. japonicus. But there isn't really an explanation of why.This is a bit difficult as I lack good source material.
• If the subspecies have common names, it could be nice to list them along with their Latin names in the subspecies section.
• Two of the subspecies have no info as to who named them. I need to find further sources.
• Synonyms of Bufo bufo and its subspecies (Rana bufo, Bufo colchicus, etc.) could be placed in the taxobox. I need to find further sources.
• The subspecies names should redirect to this article. Done.
• If possible, it would be nice to identify which subspecies are shown in the pictures, but I'm aware this is an almost impossible task.
• Maybe the length of the tongue could be mentioned? And after looking at pictures, I wondered if the variation in colour occurs within subspecies?
• As for references, it seems that two ways of citing authors are used (full names, along with last name followed by initial), and there seems to be inconsistency in dating (year alone coupled with year and month). I'm not sure how important this inconsistency is, but it's there. It seems a pity to miss out first name if I know them but in some instances I don't.
• As I mentioned on the talk page, it would be good to remove the sentence claiming the article is only about the Northern subspecies, even if most info applies to it. And maybe some of the stuff in the culture section should be removed if it is from areas where the common toad doesn't actually exist.
• The sound clip of the call would be a nice addition. And maybe a photo showing its camouflage or other behaviour. Better taxobox image could probably be found.I like the taxobox image, it's full of character!.
• You should try using the {{Cite doi|doi of your source}} template, it is very easy, and fills out all the info for you. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC) I tried cite doi and it is very clever, but it does not put the species name in italics so is limited to articles without species names in the title.

Apart from that, great article! FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments and for adding the witch image to the article. I will work on the points you raise but really need to find further information from other sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and by the way, I think you can work around the taxonomy issue by stating clearly that it is presently unresolved and why, no one expects the article to somehow find a solution to the problems of toad taxonomy. A brief mention of the alternative classifications would be enough. As I mentioned on my talk page, this article by Darren Naish seems to have some good citations.[2] The Naish article also mentions that the common toad is sexually dimorphic when it comes to colour, I think that would be important to mention here. As for the taxobox image, yeah, it does have character, so no problem, I was only thinking of showing it clearly, but other images in the article do that. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps toad should be wikilinked somewhere, so it is explained it isn't a natural group. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As for automatic DOI sometimes showing things wrong, that's the good thing, there's a small edit button under the citation in the ref section, if you see an error, you can manually fix it by pushing edit. I did that in several of the Dodo citations, where it for example showed the date a 19th century article was first published on the web, instead of when it first appeared in print. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC) It's useful to know that - I must use cite doi more often.

Comments by Little Jerry

I can guarantee that Answers.com will not be accepted as a reliable source for a FA status article. Same for refs [28], [29], [35] and [39]. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I'm sure you are right. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this would make a better source for road mortality and this for toads and witchcraft. LittleJerry (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I have used them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll still have to get rid of those others. LittleJerry (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Chimes at Midnight

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is complete and well sourced content-wise and would simply like to improve it further.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Samsun

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

I am not sure what it needs

Thanks, Jzlcdh (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Dana Boomer

I'm not sure where you're planning to head with this article (GA? FA? Just improving it?), but there is quite a bit of room for improvement. Here are some specific thoughts:

• Lead should be expanded. Per WP:LEAD, two paragraphs should be about right for an article of this length.
• There are a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs, which make the article feel very choppy. Quite a few of these should be either expanded or combined with other paragraphs.
• Referencing should be improved. There are quite a few spots missing references (entire sections go without references), plus two citation needed tags and one better source needed tag.
• Web references should include a title, publisher and access date at the very least, plus author, publication date and other info if applicable.
• Telephone numbers, visiting hours and directions to various places are inappropriate - this is an encyclopedia, not a tourist guide.
• There are quite a few sections that I would expect to see in a city article that aren't here. Where is the information on demographics, governance, arts and culture, media?
• Has nothing happened in the city since 1919? The history section overall could stand to see some expansion.
• Places to see needs to be re-written to avoid sounding like a tourist guide. I think this section could easily be presented as prose, instead of a bulleted list, with items grouped in paragraphs by theme (religious places, historical places, etc), and some context to show why these are the places to see in Samsun.

Despite the above, the article is a good start on the topic. Thank you for your work on it so far, and please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Archy and Mehitabel

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of a few things: 1)it's a little too early, but the centennial anniversary of this column will be in four years, but since no one really knows who this cockrocah poet and this feline who claims to be Cleopatra are anymore, i would like to make it on the featured article so everyone knows who these animals are 2)i'm sorta new here, and i have no idea wotthehell (wink, wink to the fans) am i doing, so feel free to tell me if i'm doing it wrong so i can clean it up. i would actually like to take a big leap because i've done NOTHING for this past year since signing up for Wikipedia. and so, i would like it to be on the main page in four years. is the article in horrible condition? Yes! am i inexperienced? Yes! will you help me? probably not, but you'll expand on it, i hope.

Thanks, Youknowmyname657 (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Missing My Baby

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring the article to FAC. It already passed GA so I hope to achieve my first FA article

Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead is possibly a little too long, see WP:LEAD, I would imagine just two paras to summarise an article of this size.

  •  Fixed Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• No images available?

  • It was not a single. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • No but any kind of free image available to brighten it up? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• "to help her crossover attempt." crossover to what?

  •  Fixed Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• "mid-tempo" just linking tempo looks odd here.

  •  Fixed Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• " influences of urban and soul music" not of, from. or "is influenced by urban..."

  •  Fixed Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Selena had used these techniques to emphasize the song's title and its central theme." no need for "had".

  •  Fixed Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• "The lyrics are about the love felt " -> "The lyrics describe the love..."

  •  Fixed Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• As usual, I'd suggest a quick copyedit from someone who can do it much better than me.

  •  Done Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Use same name in infobox for Quintilla as writer and producer.

  • What do you mean? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • As a writer you have his full name and as a producer just his surname. I know it's odd but in info boxes we do tend to repeat full names. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• ""Missing My Baby" was written by Selena y Los Dinos backup singer Pete Astudillo and produced by Selena's brother and principal record producer A.B. Quintanilla III." almost verbatim copy of the lead. Try to mix it up a little.

  •  Fixed Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why have a single row table sortable?

  What do you mean? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • • The table which has one row is sortable. It's pointless having it as "sortable". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Full Force - backing vocalists" en-dash.

  •  Fixed Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 2 needs a sub, ref 3 doesn't but is a very similar source, really?

  • I don't see the difference, the only thing is the year (1993) and the editor Burr, Ramiro. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Please link things the first time, not the second, e.g. Austin American-Statesman. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ref titles should comply with WP:DASH ie. spaced en-dash, not hyphen.

  •  Fixed Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Denver Post is The Denver Post.

  •  Fixed Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Check other publication names.

  •  Fixed Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have  Fixed most issues, mind a second look? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Public sociology

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Public sociology is a challenging but important topic. Challenging because there are some strong perspectives on it; important for a variety of reasons, including that it has been a major area of debate and/or campaigning within sociology (as well as other social sciences) for some time. My own sense is that the article can be substantially improved. I'd like to hear other views & suggestions how best to do that. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is what I'd describe as C-class. It seems comprehensive, with an OK prose, but it suffers from several problems: 1) insufficient referencing (majority of paragraphs, not to mention individual sentence, are missing inline refs) 2) MoS issues: "Public sociology today" section is too long, needs to be broken down with subsections; there are notable terms that are not redlinked (primarily names of individuals) 3) The section on applied sociology needs to be better tied in with the article, and likely split into its own article; it also tries to talk about "sociological practice" and "clinical sociology", which only adds to the readers' confusion 4) Categories probably need more attention (is it really a sociology paradigm?) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article confuses differing terms. I would also venture to say that Clinical and Applied sociology are also different from one another, though the terms are frequently linked and conflated. All could be subsumed under the term "Sociological practice", which currently redirects to this Applied sociology subsection. Currently, the Applied sociology subsection contains little information so, if split, would be a stub article. I'm not opposed to that action, but wonder if it might be an interim solution to move this page to "Sociological practice" with all three as subsections of that main article? Meclee (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

---

USS Mahan (DD-364)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

User:Pendright is a new user who created his peer review page in the wrong place, so I'm copying the content over here. - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Pendright says: I added the lead to the above article and re-worked the body. The article’s origin is the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS). In addition, I included three general references to the existing two. United States Destroyer Operations In World War II – 1953: This book contains twenty pages of information about the eight-year existence of Mahan, and it parallels the material in the DANFS article. Rear Admiral Thomas L Wattles edited the book’s manuscript, and its preparation was aided by critical comment from destroyer officers. Kamikaze – 2000: This book devotes two pages to the sinking of Mahan and confirms the DANFS material. AT WAR with the WIND – 2008: This book devotes three pages to the sinking of Mahan and confirms the DANFS material. I added an external link to USS Mahan Association, because it has a host of details about Mahan and contains first-hand accounts of the Kamikaze attack and sinking.

Please help me make this article a better one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendright (talk • contribs)

Comment: I have taken a quick look. I think that the most approprate forum for improving this article would be within the MilHist project, rather than in the main Peer Review process which is intended for articles in a later stage of development. I can't say whether the article meets requirements for comprehensiveness or accuracy, but one obvious problem is that there are no inline citations whatever in the text (this would normally warrant a major cleanup banner at the head). Some of the prose organisation looks dodgy; one section consists of a single short sentence. The mania for adding co-ordinates to all and sundry seems particularly inappropriate in an article about a ship which presumably moved about a bit. New editors should always be encouraged, and I am sure that there will be plenty of willing hands within Milhist. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Taken in the spirit in which it is given, constructive criticism can be a powerful force for improvement. Thank you for pointing out the article’s shortcomings. Pendright (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Pendright, and welcome to Wikipedia! At this point, I have to echo Brian's comments, especially with regard to the complete lack of in-line citations. This is something that needs to be done before a detailed peer review can really take place. I would suggest looking at some of the ship articles listed at Wikipedia:FA#Warfare (these are the best of the best of the warfare articles on WP) and aim to have this article look like that. A short, almost non-existent construction/design section and a lack of detail about her final engagement are two things that jump out to me as needing expansion. At this point, probably focus on referencing, and then bring the article back to Peer Review if you still feel the need. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome and thoughts on how to improve the article. They’ll be very useful, I know, as I continue to grapple with the process. Thanks too for leaving the door open for questions. Pendright (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

---

List of Formula One circuits

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would some feedback before I take the list o WP:FL. The layout of the table is the main concern for me, could it be improved? should i just include first and last race instead of listing all the seasons the circuits have hosted a Grand Prix? All suggestions are welcome, thanks, NapHit (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image is so small I can't make out the locations at all. I would suggest ditching or moving the Formula One navbox and increasing the image to the max allowable per MOS (300px I think?).
• "and cars must" would prefer "vehicles" but I guess it's a matter of taste.
• "Silverstone, since" think a semi-colon here.
• " 22 kilometres (14 mi)" vs " 25.800 km (16.031 mi) " be consistent in the accuracy of the conversions.
• " a safer and shorter" perhaps just "a shorter, safer .."
• A couple of sentences have run-ons which would be better suited to either new sentences or semi-colons rather than commas.
• "The most recent circuit to have hosted a Grand Prix was the Buddh International Circuit, which hosted the Indian Grand Prix in 2011" not true.
• "become the latest circuit " the latest different circuit?
• Put the Pescara Circuit into context, i.e. where it is and when the longest laps took place (i.e. which Grands Prix).
• Length column, be consistent with accuracy, i.e. similar number of decimal places.
• Not often do I see "United States of America", normally just United States.
• I would reduce width of the Seasons column to give more space to the "Grands Prix" column which pretty much always spreads onto two lines.
• Circuit Charade appears to be really called Charade Circuit.
• Was the Indianapolis 500 part of the Grand Prix calendar some time? I think that's what you're implying. Add a note if so, tell me if I've got the wrong end of the stick.
• "Spa-Francorchamps" ->"Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps"?
• Proposed circuit table is unreferenced, and you could force the col widths to be the same as the preceding table (omitting the number of GPs col of course).
• 2010 Autocar external link seems superfluous.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Burnside Fountain

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an article about a rather quirky statue in Worcester Massachusetts that is a sort of mascot for the city. I feel i have covered the topic and am looking at perhaps nominating for Good Article.

Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image in the infobox is cool but somewhat overwhelms the lead because it's so large...

• Shrunk image--Found5dollar (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• "non-working drinking " I think "non-functioning" be better.

• done.--Found5dollar (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not entirely convinced you need to link bronze, it's a pretty common term.

• un-linked--Found5dollar (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Due to Harvey committing suicide before.."-> "Harvey committed suicide before... leaving Sherry Fry to..."

• fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you have "USD $5,000", you could just link the $ or alternatively remove the D because right now it's US dollar dollar...

• I was under the impression that that was the correct way to write and link monetary units. I'll fix it.--Found5dollar (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Worcestor Common is over linked in the lead.

• fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Since then there has been one successful theft in 1970" odd way of putting it, why not "The statue was stolen in 1970..."

• fixed

• "the Manneken Pis is one for Brussels." don't need the "one".

• removed

• Dimensions only include two dimensions, the basin looks like it's three-dimensional to me...

• those are the only two dimensions I can find references for....--Found5dollar (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Don't have the "unfortunate" quote in both the text and a quote box.

• removed the box quote--Found5dollar (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Again, think about the USD $ thing and in any case, don't over link it.

• removed--Found5dollar (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• "showing it's bright green" its.

• fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Sadly" - POV.

• removed.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think you mention it's commonly referred to as Turtle Boy about five times in the article, once or twice (i.e. once in the lead, once in the article) would be sufficient.

• removed alot of the repetition.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• "a substantial amount for a Reddit posting. " ref?

• removed as i can not find a ref for that.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• References section should come before External links.

fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Works, such as The New York Times should be in italics in the refs.

• done.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Celtic F.C.

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA status and I think it would be really useful to hear what other editors feel are needed to make it a succesful article. Obviously there are still some maintenance issues with refs and the article hasn't been copy edited but I would prefer to resolve those issues after the content has been improved. That is my main focus at the moment and I'd like to hear what could be done to make it more like other football clubs at GA and also to improve what may already be there.

Thanks, Adam4267 (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments some quick ones while I cook my chips in anticipation of the Czechs stuffing the Portuguese (I live in hope).

• I would tend to say "an association football club" just to be clear.
• Lead could use expanding, it's supposed to summarise the whole article, WP:LEAD has some guidance on how long it should be.
• "and the 2003 UEFA Cup Final.[3][4][5][3]" don't think you need the second [3].
• Check score lines in the article meet WP:DASH i.e. are separated by an unspaced en-dash.
• Don't think you need to link "Irish" to Ireland.
• Avoid squashing text between images.
• It's either Celtic F.C. or Celtic FC, not both, so pick one and be consistent.
• "The extra 'h' imitates " don't think you need to link the letter h.
• Be consistent, is it "h" or "H", i.e. capitalise (or not) the same way.
• Just at a quick view, lots of short paragraphs in the History section, for better flow I'd suggest merging several of them.
• An odd balance to the History section... Of 14 paras describing the history of the club (1888 to present), the first 4 paras (36% of the paras) take us to 1895, the next 1 para deals with 1897 to 1944, the next 6 paras take us to 2000, then we have 3 paras for the last 9 years. You need some balance here.
• Avoid POV words like "trounced" and tabloid phrases like "annus mirabilis" unless you can directly attribute them to reliable third-party sources.
• Ensure paras like "On 19 October 1957, Celtic trounced Rangers a record 7–1 in the final of the Scottish League Cup at Hampden Park in Glasgow, retaining the trophy they had won for only the first time the previous year. The scoreline remains a record win in a British domestic cup final." have all facts referenced.
• Don't think you need a "Current season" section when it's in the infobox.
• "Crest and colours" section is really brief, would suggest expanding it.
• "They also had the 12th highest average attendance out of all the football clubs in Europe." unreferenced.
• "Celtic media" section reads like a list of trivia.
• Be consistent with italics for works like "The Celtic View".
• Fix the [citation needed] and red-link.
• Where are the minor "honours" referenced? E.g. the Fenway Football Challenge?

That'll do for now. There's a long way to go, even for GA in my opinion, but start fixing this lot and you're in with a chance after a few more reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Crest and colours" section, you don't really discuss the crest at all, and I would hazard a guess that some of the away strips over the past 100 years may be notable? May even be worth expanding the section to discuss when shirts started to be sponsored, and by whom... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Dodo

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article became a GA in 2007, but it was quite short back then, so I have expanded it much recently. Most undisputed info about the bird is now in the article, and very little is known about it apart from the old descriptions, so I have added many of those, since they are in the public domain. All important images of the bird, that is images thought to be based on live or stuffed specimens, and not simply copies of older images, have been included in the article. With the sources I have gathered, the article could go much further into the histories of the different specimens, paintings, theories and so on, but not much more can be said about the bird's biology, apart form maybe the complex history of classification. There's probably a lot to write about popular culture also. It could be nice to get it to FA, but I've never done that before, so I'd like some help to get on the right track of what would be appropriate to do with the article from here.

Thanks, FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC) The layout, content, prose etc. are in general good. I thought that the most important way that the article could be improved was with regard to the referencing:

• The references need to be in a consistent form.

I added this[3], and apparently it'll summon a bot that fixes it... If not, I'll of course do it manually.

Just finished doing it manually, should fix the three points below.

• Dates should all be in the same style.

Done.

• Multiple authors need to be laid out consistently. (Current references 42, 45, 86 and 90 exemplify this point)

Done.

• I was told elsewhere that it was not correct to mix templated and untemplated citations.

I've used the cite doi template wherever I could, so I guess I'll go with templates...

• Some of the paragraphs do not have a citation at the end. I always try to end a paragraph with a cited statement. (I might be wrong here and this may not be a requirement.)

I usually do this, but for example when a sentence follows a quote, and the source for the quote and the sentence is the same, what should be done?

• Some facts have no citations, "No fossil remains of Dodo-like birds have ever been found on the island" for example.

This should be fixed now, please point out if I've missed something, or if something seems odd.

Some of the image captions could be improved, "The skeleton put together by Richard Owen from bones found in a marshy pool on Mauritius, Natural History Museum" for example makes it sound as if the Natural History Museum is on Mauritius.

Done.

Some other points:

• "According to most renditions, the Dodos had greyish or brownish plumage, with lighter primary feathers, and a tuft of curly light feathers high on its rear end." - I don't think "rendition" is the right word here and be careful with singulars and plurals.

Done.

• "One of the most detailed descriptions is by Sir Thomas Herbert from 1634, who had visited Mauritius" - Awkward - the clause should be by the noun to which it refers.

Done.

• "Painting of a Dodo head by Cornelis Saftleven from 1638, which is the last illustration of a Dodo not copied from earlier work" - Awkward.

Done.

• "According to this claim, the gaping nostrils often seen in Dodo paintings were thus depicted due to drying in stuffed specimens." - Awkward.

Done.

• "However, this account is problematical, since it also mentions the bird had three toes and no tongue, unlike Dodos, and it was most likely mingled with that of a cassowary." - This sentence is unclear.

Done.

• "Interaction with humans" This section has too many short paragraphs which makes it scrappy.

Done.

• "Though Mauritius had previously been visited by Arab vessels and Portuguese sailors, none of them left any known records of encounters with Dodos. The earliest known descriptions of the bird were made by Dutch travelers. However, few contemporary accounts are reliable, as many seem based on earlier accounts." - This paragraph is contradictory and unclear and the word "known" occurs twice in close proximity.

Done.

• "According to Julian Hume, the following part of this journal may be the first mention of Dodos, referred to as penguins, a word not used for penguins at the time" - Another awkward sentence that needs clarification.

Done.

• "Mascarene" - you could explain this name.

I've now inserted a lot more info about the island itself, its fauna, name, and what the Dutch used it for.

• "Two live specimens were taken to India in the 1600s according to Peter Mundy, and one of them likely depicted in an Indian painting." - This sentence is either ungrammatical or awkward, depending on how you read it.

Done.

• "Extinction" - The word "humans" is mentioned three times in the first couple of sentences.

Done.

• "After the castle was occupied by Denmark in 1702" - You presumably mean Danish troops.

Done.

• "Clark, explained his procedure to The Ibis:" - I realise that "The Ibis" does not describe a bird but perhaps you could clarify this, and wikilink it too.

Done.

• "A white bird on Réunion was first described as follows in 1625 by Mr. Tatton, the Chief Officer of Captain Castleton:" - Was the ship called the "Captain Castleton"?

The source wasn't clear about this, and it isn't really important, so I removed it.

• "The ibis was also reassigned to the genus Threskiornis, now combined with the specific epithet solitarius from the binomial Raphus solitarius, which was coined by Baron Edmund de Sélys-Longchamps in 1848 for the white dodo." - This sentence is too long and convoluted.

Done.

• "It rampant appears on the coat of arms of Mauritius." - Awkward.

Thanks for the thorough review! So I figure I'll address your points, and then perhaps make a comment to each of them in bold? Junglejill will be copy-editing. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Elizabeth of Bosnia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get advice on how to improve it. Please let me know if there is anything that should be fixed, reworded, clarified or corrected, or if there is a problem with images or prose. The article is already a GA.

Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "Stephen II, Ban of Bosnia, and member of the House of Kotromanić. Her marriage to King Louis I of Hungary" you could link "King of Hungary" by rephrasing "Louis I, King of Hungary" perhaps?
  • Sure, but now it seems somewhat redundant to me. Of course the marriage to the king of Hungary made her queen of Hungary; marrying anyone else wouldn't have done it! If you think "Louis I, King of Hungary" would be better yet, I have no problems with it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• "was her father's most significant achievement" this reads a little odd to me, that her marriage was her father's most significant achievement.
  • I am not sure how to phrase it. Arranging the marriage of his daughter to his feudal overlord is usually cited as his greatest accomplishment. Should I remove it? Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Queen of Poland (which redirects to List of Polish monarchs) could be linked in the lead?
  • Done (linked to List of Polish consorts). Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• "and soon after gave birth to the" -> "and soon after she gave birth..."
• " long anticipated heir" hyphenate "long-anticipated".
• "the elder surviving daughter" should be "eldest"?
  • I am not sure how it works in English, but at the time of his death, he had only two living daughters (the firstborn having predeceased him). I described Hedwig as "youngest" sin order to avoid repeating "surviving".
• "ascended the throne of Hungary" perhaps it's just me being British, but I would commonly expect "ascended to the throne..."
  • I am not a native speaker of the English at all, so I just used the phrasing I had seen before. If I recall correctly, a user "Americanised" the article because the spelling was mixed.
• " as regent." could link that appropriately in the lead for non-experts.
• "Unable to retain control over Poland, she secured the Polish throne for her youngest daughter, Hedwig" this doesn't make any sense to me at all. If she couldn't control Poland, how could she secure the throne?
  • I rephrased it a bit. What I tried to say is that she couldn't maintain the regency, but through negotiation she at least managed to have her younger daughter elected and crowned.
• "who wished to take advantage of Mary's insecure reign" -> "who wished to" is a little weak here, I would suggest "who attempted to" or "who tried to".

That's the lead. Or most of it, at least. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

---

List of Major League Baseball all-time leaders in home runs by pitchers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take this through the FL process, but I want to get as much fixed as possible first. Any problems that are noted will be dealt with quickly, and I appreciate any and all input.

Thanks, Neonblak ^talk - 04:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "typically a fair hit...at a distance from home base of 250 feet or more, which entitles the batter to legally touch all bases and score without liability." Probably better to say "a hit that allows the batter to reach home plate safely without any errors being committed by the defensive team in the process." Then you could go on to say how it is typically/usually hit out of the park, but can (but atypically/rarely) also be inside-the-park.
• "passes over an outfield fence or into the stands" Hitting the foul pole will also result in a home run.
• "Season" and "Game" headings to "Single season" and "Single game," respectively
• Rather than place a key in every category, it would be better to place one at the very beginning in a separate category (see the FLs 3,000 hit club and 500 home run club for formatting, style, colour-code, etc.). Then you could do away with the designations at the top (e.g. "Most home runs by a pitcher in a season, their total home runs, year, and team") as they would be in the key.
• It would be better to do away with bolding the names of players that have been highlighted, since highlighting suffices (again the same format as the 2 FLs above)
• You should probably use the same shade of blue and double dagger for active pitchers as the ones in the 2 FLs
• You make the judgement call on this one, but I think it would be good to briefly explain why home runs by pitchers are so significant (i.e. they are poor batters who are the only position players excused from the Mendoza Line and are not known for their competent batting, let alone their home run prowess)
• This isn't related to the article itself, but shouldn't this peer review be under the "Lists" section rather than "Everyday Life" (which, along with all other categories, is for articles).

Other than that, the list looks very close to reaching FL quality. Hope this helps. Also, it would be great if you could help review the 20–20–20 club list I placed for peer review. I want to take that list to FL quality (just like you want to with this list) and would like as much feedback from as many people as possible.

Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Osiris myth

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've rewritten it using the best sources available to me, and I'd like some suggestions for polishing before sending it to FAC.

Thanks, A. Parrot (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks an exceptionally well resourced and carefully prepared article, in the style of Egyptian temple. I don't see any great barriers to prevent this becoming featured in due course; my comments are mainly prose quibbles, some of which may be merely style preference:-

Lead

• "The Osiris myth reached its essential form by the 25th century BC". It should be either "had reached" or "in the 25th century BC", but not as it stands,
• Last line: the postpositive "well known" has no hyphen

Sources

• "immensely": it's probably best to avoid overexuberant modifiers in a neutral encyclopedia article. "Very" is probably OK, but nothing more, I'd say.
• Clarify meaning of "spell" in second paragraph
• There is a stray apostrophe after Coffin Texts
• What are "stelae"?
• Perhaps "entertainment" rather than "entertaining"?

Death and resurrection of Osiris

• "often is extended" → "is often extended"
• "the continued existence of the deceased". Slightly confusing wording, since "deceased" = "non-existence". Maybe find alternative phrasing.
• Give some provenance to "The Tale of Two Brothers"

Birth and childhood of Horus

• "There are instances in which Isis travels in the wider world". Do you mean there are versions of the myth in which Isis travels in the wider world?

Conflict of Horus and Set

• Hanging participle "deciding which..." - better as "to decide which..."
• "...for this reason his right eye was said to be the sun and his left eye said to be the moon". Somewhat heavy-footed and repetitiive; delete the second "said to be"

Resolution

Origins

• "There are, however, important points of disagreement." Better make this the first sentence of the second paragraph, to avoid the effect of ending a paragraph without a citation.
• "well-known explanation"? Depends what you mean by "well-known"
• "Yet more recently, the Egyptologist Rosalie David still maintains..." The words "yet" and "still" are redundant.
• Maybe the "inundation" should be explained?
• "Griffiths still sought..." → "Griffiths sought..."

Influence

• "By the early Middle Kingdom, the association with Osiris was believed to be available to people of all classes, and he became Egypt's most important afterlife deity." I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "the association with Osiris was believed to be available to people of all classes". Believed by whom, and is "association" the best term? Further clarity needed.
• "By late in the Middle Kingdom..." Date indicators would be helpful, to avoid having to go back and check when this period was.
• Citations missing from the paragraph beginning: "The myth's religious importance..."
• More redundant words: "because of it" (and the word "also" in the following sentence)

Please leave a message on my talkpage if you want to raise any question on this review, or if you would like me to look at it again. It looks a high class effort. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, and the encouraging words. I'll fix these issues over the next day or two. A. Parrot (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Constitution Square State Historic Site

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article just passed a GA review, and I'd love to take it to WP:FAC and net a coveted Four Award. Despite relatively limited information, I think this turned out to be a pretty interesting article about a pretty small park. I know already that there are some problems with my use of the {{convert}} template in a couple of places, so I'd appreciate some help with that as well. Let me know what you think. Does this article have a chance at FAC? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Will review, comments to follow. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• "From 1937 to 2012, it was a part of the Kentucky state park system and operated by the Kentucky Department of Parks." Might want to say "Since 1937, it has been part" to avoid sounding like it was closed in 2012.
  • But it's no longer a part of the state park system nor operated by the Kentucky Department of Parks. They turned it over to the government of Boyle County in March 2012. That's what I'm trying to communicate. Is that not coming across? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • lol, I must have read the first two sentences, written that, walked away, and forgot about that when I read the rest or something. My bad. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• "including the courthouse that housed ten constitutional conventions between 1785 and 1792 and ultimately led to Kentucky's separation from Virginia." Might want to rephrase this, it almost sounds like the courthouse led to the separation of the states.
  • Better now? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yep, looks good. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep in mind, you can use the "adj=on" field on conversion templates, i.e. {{convert|3|acre|sqkm|adj=on}}
  • That's the bit I was looking for about the {{convert}} template. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• In the third paragraph of "History", you start several sentences with "In 18XX, " might want to try for some more variation.
  • Yeah, this is the disadvantage of only having one source for that large chunk of time. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• "The brick courthouse became the main building of the seminary and was used as a hospital to treat wounded soldiers – both Union and Confederate – in the aftermath of the Battle of Perryville" might want to note that this was during the Civil War for people with limited knowledge of U.S. history.
  • Good point. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• "History" is kind of a long section, might want to consider adding subsections.
  • Added one subsection. Is it OK to have just one, or does it need two, as with outlining? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I think this is Ok. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• "With the conclusion of the war and the ban on nonessential construction lifted," When was the ban lifted? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll have to research that a bit. The sources I used don't say. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• In "Presbyterian meetinghouse", you might want to describe the structure earlier in the section--just a thought though.
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• The garden is maintained by the [http://www.thegardenclubofdanville.org/ Garden Club of Danville] and named for one of its long-time members.<ref name=schell /> I don't think you're supposed to put external links in the body like that.
  • Probably not. Another editor came along and dropped that in shortly after my expansion. Probably looking for a little publicity for the club, which I can understand. Wonder if it would be appropriate in the External links section. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• "features a variety of herbs that would have been commonly cultivated" Why not use "were" instead of "would have been"?
  • Good suggestion. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• "One of the few extant references to the Club outside the extensive minutes of its meetings taken by Thomas Speed is an entry in the journal of a U.S. Army paymaster named Major Beatty" Might want to give Speed's minutes their own sentence.
  • Yeah, I wanted to keep Speed's assessment of the membership as close as possible to the list of prominent members, but this just isn't working. Revised. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• "The replica that now stands in Constitution Square presently houses the offices of the Convention and Tourism Bureau and The Great American Brass Band Festival." I'm not sure if you need "now" and "presently" here.
  • Removed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Boyle County now plans to turn the house into a conference center." Not sure you need "now" here.
  • Removed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• A few shot sentences in the "Fisher's Row Houses" section.
  • Combined. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• "These houses lie on Second Street" Is "lie" the best word here? (not sure)
  • It may be "lay". I changed it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Watts-Bell House" Should this use an endash?
  • Probably. I hate dashes. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• "with the museum store remaining there as well." maybe "while retaining the museum store as well"?
  • Reworded. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• You could probably stand to combine a couple of the sentences in the first paragraph of "Events".
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• "The event, conceived just ten weeks prior by a local couple, was very successful, " What do you mean by "successful", how so?*Why was the arts festival discontinued in 2012, lack of funds, I presume? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed to "popular"; I think that's more appropriate. There were no details about why the arts festival was discontinued, but speaking from experience, you draw a bigger crowd with barbecue than art! hehe Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    

---

New York City

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… Since the last reviews, many things are changed and previous problems are addressed. Also the problems in the last failed FA nom are "almost" addressed. I'll be considering a FA nom in 3-4 weeks so I want a review to know that what corrections are to be made in order to make this article of FA level. Happy editing and Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 03:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment from Aircorn

I looked at this article when it was up for GA a while back and one of the major problems I saw then was neutrality. Claims in the infobox of New York's nickname being "The Capital of the World" and "Center of the Universe" are a bit over the top. The lead itself is too full of positive and unattributed claims. It reads more like a tourist brochure than an introduction:

• "A global power city, New York exerts a significant impact upon commerce, finance, media, art, fashion, research, technology, education, and entertainment"
• " As many as 800 languages are spoken in New York, making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world"
• "Many districts and landmarks in New York City have become well known to its approximately 50 million annual visitors. Times Square, iconified as "The Crossroads of the World", is the brightly illuminated hub of the Broadway theater district, one of the world's busiest pedestrian intersections, and a major center of the world's entertainment industry"
• "The city hosts many world renowned bridges, skyscrapers, and parks"
• "New York City's financial district, anchored by Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, functions as the financial capital of the world"
• "Providing continuous 24/7 service, the New York City Subway is one of the most extensive rapid transit systems in the world"
• "Numerous colleges and universities are located in New York, including Columbia University, New York University, and Rockefeller University, which are ranked among the top 50 in the world."

All statements should be supported in the body of the article anyway, which is not the case for many of these. It is doable to fix these up, but from my brief experience there you will encounter a lot of resistance. I would recommend expanding out the overcites from the lead into the body and writing the statements more ambiguously in the lead, something like this. Good luck. AIRcorn (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Peripitus

I'm not really thrilled by the state of the article and don't think it will do well at FA. I echo Aircorn's comments about the lead and have some more.

• The lead is a hagiography full of statements that can be distilled into "NY is really big" and "NY is really wonderful". I get to the end of the lead and know little about the city. Actually through the article it's full of "New York is the xxxxxest", "New York has the most xxxxx" which after a while becomes tiresome to read.
• The lead should certainly not be full of citations—these are for the body—and I note that many of them seem not to be used later in the article. 5 citations for one fact is terribly ugly and smacks of desperation to prove something.
• Don't link common terms that reader's would be expected to understand (see WP:OVERLINKING) like "democracy", "real estate", "commuting", "traffic conjestion" , "London", "Toyko"
• Though there are many citations there are unreferenced sentences that I am not sure are supported by any of the used citations - eg: about 1/4 of the "Early History" paragraphs and some of the trailing sentences in paragraphs.
• What does "has also been published as showcased by the National Library of Australia" mean - did they simply publish the book ? There a quite a lot of textual errors and unnecessary words, I've cherry picked some below. Much polishing is needed.
• "vast mass transit network" - tell them about the system and let reader's decide if it's vast
• "in more than 1,200 separate primary and secondary schools" - all 1200 schools are either primary or secondary and none are both ?
• "ranked 197th in crime among the 216 U.S. cities" - I recognize here the US obsession with numbering and measuring everything but it tells me nothing of importance. Just tell me that it has relatively low crime and I can read elsewhere if the statistical nuances matter.
• "22% of Manhattanites" - how about the simpler "residents"
• "The New York metropolitan area had approximately gross metropolitan product of $1.28 trillion" - grammer issue
• ". Additionally, there have been" - drop the Additionally
• "40 million combined domestic and international tourists visiting each year in the past five years" - until when ?
• References [1], [2] and not reliable sources and I'm not thrilled with "U-S-History.com" when the same facts could be referenced (and perhaps corrected) using more scholarly works (refs [34], [36]). Ref [51] is to Encylopedia Britannica - a secondary source rather than tertiary is better. [342] and [343] do not look like sensible references also.

- Peripitus (Talk) 13:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Chad Griffin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review with an eye towards improving it toward and pursuing GA status after improvements. This is, embarrassingly enough, my first inroad into reviewed content, and I've put a fair bit of work into the article--but it's had little discussion with other editors, it relates to a somewhat controversial topic, and my writing abilities are weak--all of which suggest that there are likely numerous opportunities for improvement.

Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• You need to expand the lead, see our MOS guidelines. In short, it should summarise the whole article. Done
• "Griffin founded the American Foundation..." -> "He founded..."  Done
• "Early Years" -> per WP:HEAD this should be "Early years".  Done
• "Griffin quit college and"... Perhaps it's just my BritEng ears but "quit college" is a little too colloquial. I would even prefer "Griffin dropped out of"  Done, although, perhaps "left college?". I agree that "quit" doesn't ... feel right.
• In the Early Years section, you state Griffin in every sentence. Mix it up a little for more flowing and engaging prose. Done
• In infobox "11 June 2012-" perhaps better to say "11 June 2012 – present"?  Done
• Don't overlink AFER in the infobox.  Done
• "a nonprofit formed" is there a word missing here? Like "organisation"?  Done
• Could consider merging a few of the really short paragraphs, both for style and flow. Done
• Don't use abbreviations unless you've explained them (e.g. ACLU) - I know it's linked but it's better for a global audience to actually read the name rather than have to click the link.  Done
• "Griffin became president of the Human Rights Campaign in 2012." sure but what does that have to do with the image this is the caption for? See WP:CAPTION for some tips on descriptive captions.  Done (although it has me thinking about the Supreme Court image, too)
• New York Times is actually The New York Times.  Done
• Similar comment to Beaver County Times.  Done
• And Boston Globe.  Done
• This is very much a USEng article yet all the dates in refs are BritEng format. Not necessarily a problem, but a bit odd!  Done (Well, changed, in any case, as below.)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'll get on those, I did some of the easy fixes earlier today, but I'll want to a bit of time I can concentrate before attacking the lede. A few specifics: Yeah, my use of BritEng time is a personal quirk, but I intend to remove it, I don't mind being odd for my own sake, but the article doesn't need it. I do hear nonprofit used as a noun (or did, working for a couple of such organizations in the past), but it's jargon, and should be replaced by the full phrase as you suggest. In any case, it's my intent to implement all your suggestions, tomorrow most likely. This is very helpful. Thank you! --j⚛e decker^talk 06:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And again, thanks! Those changes should all be in place. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Los Angeles Kings

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review prior to submitting for GA/FA status. I have edited the Los Angeles Kings article as well as supporting articles during these past few weeks. For inspiration, I used the New Jersey Devils and Calgary Flames, both FA status. Your thoughts and comments are appreciated. Zlit93 (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have some experience in getting an article to FA status (see Manzanar), but I have not had time since then to contribute significantly to this one, other than to keep an eye on it. But from my experience, and as I stated on the article's talk page, many of the edits from, I'm guessing, the last year or so, are largely unsourced. Facts and quotes (if used) must be verifiable and inline citations must be added. This is the weakest par of the article. If I have time, I'll go through it more thoroughly. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion: I haven't gone over the article to look for potential NPOV issues, but you might want to take a step back and read it as someone who isn't a Kings fan, or even a hockey fan. You might see stuff that isn't all that neutral. You'll want to fix that. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Resolute

I don't see this article as being ready for a GA nom, but it is moving in the right direction. This may seem like a lot of complaints, but having written the Flames' FA, I can tell you that getting to that level is a long process filled with a crazy number of little problems to solve. I'll give my opinions on what needs to be dealt with for a GA push:

• Proseline is bad. Especially in the lead. The actual date that something occurs, even winning the Cup, isn't always that important, especially in the lead. I would combine their 1991 division title, Campbell Bowl wins and Stanley Cup into a single paragraph. I would also add a paragraph on their players. I just can't see an article on the Kings that doesn't mention Gretzky or the Triple Crown Line in the lead.
• References. This will be the biggest challenge. The Flames' article is comparable in size, but has twice the inline citations. As Gmatsuda notes, there are several sections of this article that require sourcing. Short rule: cite anything that is not an obvious fact - and when it comes to things like hockey, not much is obvious, especially to someone who isn't necessarily a fan.
• Undue weight in the history section. Your 1992-93 section, for instance, is excessive for an article that means to cover 45 years of history. That level of detail is great for 1992-93 Los Angeles Kings season, but honestly, about two paragraphs would do here: The first on Gretzky's injury, but posting a good record anyway, and the second summarizing the playoff run. Leave the greater detail for the season article.
• Too many subsections and oddly divided. For instance, there is a section covering 1988-1996, then a following section that covers 1992-93, then a section that covers 1993-99. It gives the appearance that the article is jumping around. I think you can merge the 1992-93, 1999-2001 and 2009-2011 sections into the other sections around them and ensure they all work in a logical chronological order to simplify this a little.
• And finally, the big one: Point of view and Weasel words. We need to be writing our artices in encyclopedic tone, which means several words used to "spice" up the text aren't good. Some examples:
  • Even before the Dionne trade the Kings were sent reeling when coach Pat Quinn signed a contract...
  • Despite these shocks, the Kings made the playoffs in the next two seasons...
  • The next chapter after the 1993 playoff run for the Kings was tough for Kings fans. (entire passage is POV)
  • They were forced to trade many of their stronger players, resulting in a roster composed of Gretzky, McSorely, Kurri, Blake, and little else.
  • After all he had done for the game by that time, Gretzky wanted another chance to win an elusive fifth Stanley Cup before retirement. (POV)
  • With a new home, a new coach, a potential 50-goal scorer in the fold and... POV, doubly so since Palffy never scored 50.
  • The 2000–01 season was a controversial one, as fans began to question AEG's commitment to the success of the Kings... If you can source this, it's fine, but otherwise reads as fan POV
  • Adding fuel to the fire was the February 21, 2001, trade of star defenseman Rob Blake...
  • There is more. You'll have to go over the article a couple times to catch and clean it.
• All of the lists at the end need citations. They can all pretty much be cited to the team's media guide, however.
• Writing an article on a team, especially with this much history, can be a challenge as your first GA/FA. It may seem like I'm being quite picky, but the review process tends to be quite picky itself. The article has a good base to start from, but there is a bit of work left to do. However, if you wish to do it, ping me on my talk page when you think it is ready, and I'll give it a full copyedit before you list at WP:GAN. Good luck! Resolute 14:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  

---

National Housing and Planning Advice Unit

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working through (albeit slowly) the list of public bodies that are redlinked on the 2010 UK quango reforms page, having created this and this found that the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit is the first article I've really managed to flesh out a lot. I'm looking to continue working through the list, and to help with both my future articles and in respect to improving this one, would really appreciate some feedback on the article in general, quality of prose/writing, and any areas of possible expansion. I'd also be extremely grateful if someone could assess the class of the article (e.g. Start, C, B etc.) as I am not well versed in the criteria. Many thanks, Acather96 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I can do this review. --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• The article has good citations, so it appears to meet the WP:Verifiability requirements.
• There is a lack of pictures, but there not be any available. Is it possible to find a picture of, say, the chairperson or leader?
• I'd assess this as "B" quality in the quality scale (see Wikipedia:Assessment )
• Overall, the prose is fine, I don't see any huge problems. There are a few small nitpicks, such as:
  • ".. by the Government of the United Kingdom in 2006[1] (formally launched in June 2007[2]) with .." - Recommend avoid parenthetical comments like that in the lead.
  • Hyphens: the Manual of style requires the use of "n dashes" (–) instead of hyphens (-) for parenthetical phrases, as in: "affordable housing - which provides .."
  • ", and also to assist in .." - Remove the word "also" .. it is usually never necessary.
  • "had a new, extended remit .." - Many US readers won't know what "remit" means; either define or use a synonym (charter?) responsibility?)
  • Clarify: "described former house-building targets as "soviet" " - That sounds like a criticism, but I'm not sure what is being criticized. Did the NHPAU design those "targets"?
  • Long sentence: break into two: "Founded in 2006 in response to increasing house prices, lack of affordable housing and as the result of the direct recommendation of Kate Barker’s March 2004 Review of Housing Supply[5], in which it was recommended that a body be created which could offer expert advice on housing matters, particularly that of affordability. "
  • Quote marks: use double quotes " not single: " to step down to 'concentrate on other interests' .."
  • ... more prose issues exist; let me know if you want more pointers.
• You ask about areas for expansion:
  • As someone new to this topic, one thing I'd like to know more about is what circumstances in the UK housing market led to the creation of this Unit. What kind of housing shortages etc. Was there some particular class-related issues? Were there any important documentaries/opinion pieces/polls that showed public viewpoints? or viewpoints of notable commentators?
  • It seems to me that a key piece of information that readers might want is the work product of this entity. Can you create a section called "Published works" or "Publications" and in that have a bulletized list of publications that it produced? It looks like you have 1 or 2 already mentioned in the article, but it would be nice to seem them in a centralized list.
• In conclusion: it seems like a decent article, considering that the topic is so narrow & short-lived. Let me know if you want me to address any other areas.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

---

The Return of Harmony

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish for it to become a good article, and would like to find out what should be done before it can become a good article.

Thanks, Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I know, since I was the editor who made it, that it needs more "mainstream" sources for the reception section. Unfortunately, those aren't out yet.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "Part two aired the next week" the following week?
• "received a household rating of 0.2" outside the US/Canada this is entirely meaningless I'm afraid!
• "making it the highest episode ever broadcast..." highest episode of My Little Pony or any show?
• " In part one of the episode..." actually you said it was two episodes, so perhaps "in the first episode of the pair" or something similar?
• Infobox image caption needs no period.
• Infobox caption: "center" do you mean the big one? Not actually center... would think about rephrasing this with "from top left, clockwise... " so there's no ambiguity.

I've changed this to "front", as the other ponies are in the background. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• "The three Cutie Mark Crusaders - Apple Bloom," not a spaced hyphen, an en-dash per WP:DASH here please.
• "to retrieve the box, however, the box is empty." -> "to retrieve the box, however, it is empty."
• "momentary" -> "momentarily".
• John de Lancie caption needs a period.
• "from We Got This Covered," what is that? If it's a magazine or some kind of work, it should be in italics.
• "A review from Republibot" if this "entity" hasn't got an article, why should we care what the review says? What is its provenance?
• Avoid SHOUTING in the refs.
• Check refs, are you sure they're reliable?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Awake (TV series)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i am interested in ways to improve to article for FA.

Thanks, TBrandley 06:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

M.Mario

"Jeffrey Reiner and Howard Gordon, then continued with Killen, under his Teakwood Lane Productions label. It was largely filmed in Los Angeles, California. "The series is set in Los Angeles, California, and centers on Michael Britten (Jason Isaacs)..."

- Youve mentioned this twice, all though it is not displaying the same info, is hard to read. Maybe;

" Filmed and set in Los Angeles, California...." — M.Mario (T/C) 19:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done

TRLIJC19

• Lead
  • This sentence: "The show's premise originated with Kyle Killen, who is credited as creator, was primarily responsible for the conception of the series." is improper English. It should read: "The show's premise originated with Kyle Killen, who is credited as creator, and is primarily responsible for the conception of the series."
    • ✗ Not done. Please re-read sentence.
      • It's wrong. It would work, if "the show's premise originated with" was gone, because you're saying The show's premise originated with Killen, [...] was primarily responsible.. I recommend removing "the show's premise originated with", because it is a repetition of primarily responsible for conception. Just write: "Kyle Killen, who is credited as creator, was primarily responsible for the conception of the series." TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
        •  Done
  • This sentence: "Critically acclaimed for the most of its run, Awake was praised for its casting performance, particularly Jason Isaacs's performance as Michael Britten from television critics." should only use last names, because you've already said the full names above.
    •  Done
• Infobox
  • Erase "pilot" after David Spade, because infoboxes shouldn't give notes.
    •  Done
  • Erase 'SDTV' after 480i, because Template:Infobox television specifies that it shouldn't be used.
    •  Done
• Conception
  • You use {{cquote}}, but should use {{quote}} instead, because per the documentation at cquote, that template should only be used for pull quotes.
    •  Done
• Development
  • Merge this into 'conception' because the tiny sections detract from readability.
    •  Done
• Main characters
  • In this sentence: "Rex David Britten[30] is Micheal's son, who is featured in Michael's "green reality". He is a teenage school student.", Michael is spelled wrong in the beginning.
    •  Done

It's a well written article. Hope this helps, TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the peer review. If that is it, do you think it is now ready for FA. I think I'll still get a copy-edit. TBrandley 03:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend a copyedit. That is what I am doing for Grey's Anatomy, but I cannot seem to find a copyeditor. Also, do you have any comments/suggestions for Grey's Anatomy? TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It is already at GOCE. I will add suggestions at Talk:Grey's Anatomy#FA Suggestions. Thanks, TBrandley 03:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Conception
  • I do not think the {{see also}} template to the pilot episode is necessary, as the section discusses conception of the series, not the episode. TRLIJC19 (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    •  Done
• Reception
  • Per MOS:NUMBERSIGN, unless in a table, '#' should not be used. I see two occurrences of the usage of '#' under reception. '#' should be changed to 'No.' TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    •  Done

Sofffie7

• My only suggestion would be to place the content of the Setting somewhere else in the article or to move the section in another main one so that it becomes a subsection. To me, a main section with 2 sentences only is 'useless'. --Sofffie7 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done

Thanks. TBrandley 22:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Khanassassin

• The article's looking good, just don't know what N/A in the "Accolades" section? -Should it be pending? -I doubt the award was un-given, but whatever... But, yes, the article's lookin' good. :) -Will add if I spot more issues. --Khanassassin ☪ 11:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Back in the early part of the 19th century, a British army officer who had served in India left a small fortune to Oxford University to create a professorship in Sanskrit. His plan was that the professor would help convert the heathen masses to Christianity by teaching Sanskrit to those would be administering British India or working as missionaries there. The 1860 election (and, yes, it was a proper election, with manifestos, bitching and adverts in newspapers appealing to the 3,700 electors) was a clash of two philosophies: one candidate represented scholarship for the sake of scholarship, the other represented evangelical Christian zeal. The Times supported one, other papers backed his rival. Special trains had to be laid on to cope with the number of graduates returning to cast their ballot. The defeat of the better scholar in the election has been held up as an example of all that was wrong with Oxford at that time. It's a topic about which I knew nothing until I stumbled across it writing Boden Professor of Sanskrit for FLC, but there's a surprising amount of material out there in contemporary sources and modern analyses.

I've listed this article for peer review because I think this has potential to be a FA. Canadian Paul reviewed it for GA with some kind comments and helpful further suggestions, which I've implemented. I'd like further views on (a) prose (b) content (c) anything else that the article could do with.

Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 08:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: A fantastic subject which I will enjoy reviewing. It sort of ties in with an article that I am researching with a view to expanding: Reginald Heber, who was of course one of those in the practical business of converting the heathen masses of British India to Christianity. Enough of him, though, for the moment; this looks like a rare pleasure (I may need a litle time, though). Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Overall an impressive and engaging account. I have only a few relatively minor quibbles and suggestions:-

Lead

• Unnecessary parentheses (while it would assist missionaries). Sort the commas: "...whereas for Müller the work, while it would assist missionaries, was also valuable as an end in itself".
• Should the term "Indian Mutiny" be used to describe the 1857 rebellion? It carries overtones of the colonial era.

Background

• I am very cautious about using Measuringworth updated values without a very substantial health warning. Theirs are theories of current value which, while diverting, often make little practical sense, and often produce absurd results. The assertion that an salary of £1000 a year in 1860 equates in any meaningful way to a present-day annual income of £610,000 is unsustainable. The differences between today's average living standards and those of 1860 make any such comparison futile.
• In a quote we have ""the furtherance of Christian misison..." I think the last word is probably a typo, but with quotations you can never be sure.

Candidates

• "examing" → "examining"
• A small point, but Fellows of All Souls are elected, not "made"
• "chief of British Sanscrit scholars" - spelling deserves a [sic]?
• "Müller announced..." followed by "Williams announced..." Maybe avoid repetition by "Williams declared..."

Rival campaigns

• "Müller set out before Convocation his plans..." How did he do this? Speech, pamphlet, formal election manifesto, etc? What Williams wrote was not strictly speeaking "in reply", since Müller's manifesto was addressed to Convocation, not him.
• Do we know which Bishop of Calcutta is referred to in para 3? The one in office at the time was George Cotton, but there are WP articles on all his predecessors
• 1877 extract: how does this illustrate the text in this section?

Supporters and newspapers

• Overlong sentence, beginning "The Morning Herald said..." Could be split.
• Some overuse of quotes for unmemorable terms, e.g "interesting", "broad", "the academic calibre" etc. As a general rule, direct quotes are best left for occasions when the source's exact meaning cannot otherwise be fully conveyed.

Election day

• Probably not the best section heading, as only the short first paragraph deals with the day itself; the remainde is comment/analysis of the result. I would amend to "Election".
• Watch out for more unnecessary quotes, e.g. the one introducing the section, "Evangelical country clergy", "by most accounts", etc. I also believe that, unless the context makes it obvious who is being quoted, the sources should be attributed in the text.
• "as she puts it" - who is "she"?

Subsequent events

• A KCIE was "appointed" (by the Sovereign), not "made"
• Robinson Ellis has already been defined as a Boden scholar.

Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review; I'm travelling at the moment and will reply later, probably tonight, when I've got the sources to hand. Bencherlite^Talk 10:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, here goes. I've adopted most of your suggestions, or tried to at any rate, leaving just the "sic" point as one I'd welcome other views upon.

• (while it would assist missionaries) - I was trying to avoid too many commas in one sentence, so I've split it into two
• Changed to the title of our article on the subject, Indian Rebellion of 1857, or reworded
• I keep changing my mind about such comparisons; I've not seen them insisted upon at FAC and different people have differing views, so I'll remove it. We have the comparison about it being paid twice the amount as Muller's professorship, which gives us a flavour of the value, and a comment about its handsome pay. (Interestingly, the Marshal Foch Professor of French Literature was established in 1919 with a stipend of only £500, and it was still described as "a first-rate chair"!)
• Typo fixed
• Typo fixed
• Others would say that they're born... reworded, it's the right word after all
• "Sanscrit" is used three times (twice in the article and once in a newspaper article title); I'm not sure it needs a "sic" once or more (although I used a "sic" for "Shanskreet" in Boden Professor of Sanskrit!) but will be open to other views. Would you want it each time or just the first time, and in the newspaper article title as well as the text?
• Changed as you suggest
• Clarified that it was a written communication. Changed "in reply" to "in turn", although I get the impression that they were addressing each other through the Convocation, as it were, in the way that MPs address each other through the Speaker!
• Cotton's name moved from the note to the text
• Replaced it with a longish extract from a handbill issued just before the election, which might give the flavour more.
• Split
• Quotes paraphrased where appropriate and I think I've added attribution to all of them in text where needed; let me know if you spot any I've missed that need doing.
• heading changed as you suggest
• "She" is still (Linda) Dowling, so I've moved the pronoun to the start of the sentence rather than repeat "Dowling"
• changed to "appointed"
• I repeated the fact of his scholarship in case readers forgot it. You didn't (!) so I'll remove it.

Diff of my changes. Many thanks for your very helpful comments; I was delighted when I saw that you would be reviewing this! Bencherlite^Talk 23:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with the changes you've made. Don't worry about the "sic" business - it is clear that "Sanscrit" was an accepted spelling, rather than an error. On Measuringworth updated values, my feeling is that they should only be used in conjunction with a cautionary footnote, but preferably not at all; an observation such as "double the standard professorial salary of the time" gives a far better idea of the extent of the remuneration. At FAC I will strenuously defend the right not to use updated values and there is certainly no requirement to do so, regardless of what some zealots believe.I think this article will do well at FAC, so please drop me a note if/when you decide to nominate. Brianboulton (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your perceptive and helpful comments. See you at FAC sometime soon, I suspect. Right, who's next to suggest improvements?! Bencherlite^Talk 20:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Bahrain

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like a clear and concise review of this page. From the feedback, I hope to improve this article so that it would get an FA rating. I believe the current page is worth more than a C rating, potentially it could be an A class article. I look forward to helpful feedback.

Thanks, Droodkin (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Dana Boomer

OK, sorry it has taken me a couple of days to get to this review. At this point, I think the article is a strong C-class or weak B-class article. It still needs quite a bit of work, however, to get it to even GA-class, much less A- or FA-class. Initial thoughts:

• The lead is short for an article of this length. The number of paragraphs is right, but their size is small.
• Update banner in the Drop of Iranian claim section, which should have been addressed before this PR was initiated.
• There shouldn't be external links in the article text, as there is in the Governorates section.
• There is a lack of referencing in some sections, such as Al Khalifa ascendancy to Bahrain and their treaties with the British, Education and Tourism, that would be a significant issue in a FAC nomination. There are also other bits and pieces (sentences here and there) that are unreferenced.

• This lack of referencing is still prevalent in several areas. For example (not a complete listing) see last two paragraphs of Rise of the Bani Utbah, most of Al Khalifa ascendancy, first paragraph of Early 20th Century reforms, first paragraph of Geography, all of Languages, first two paragraphs of Education,

• Reference formatting needs some work. Web references should have a title, publisher and access date at the very least, and author, publications date, etc. when applicable. All books should have page numbers. Formatting should be identical over all references for FA status.
• Pick a variety of English and standardize the article to that. For instance, I see both neighbor and neighbour.

• Still needs work. -ize vs. -ise, for example.

• Lots of short, choppy paragraphs, especially in the History section. Although the occasionally short paragraph is fine, lots of them make the article read poorly.
• References should come either before or after punctuation. After is the most common, but either is fine, as long as they're consistent.
• 10 dead links, see here. A few of them are already marked, and these should have been dealt with before the PR was opened.

• Better, but still two dead.

• The weighting of the History section could probably use a check. The article spends three paragraphs on the thousands of years covered by the Pre-Islamic period, but then spends 17 paragraphs and a lengthy quote on the less than 200 years covered by the Al Khalifa ascendancy to Bahrain and their treaties with the British section. The latter should probably be better summarized, with any necessary info moved to sub-articles that most likely already exist.

• Better, but still a bit unwieldy. Consolidating paragraphs would probably help in several of the sections, as suggested above.

• A few things that I didn't see mentioned in the article: Healthcare, infrastructure, telecommunications, sports other than auto racing.

• If football is the most popular sport (and this needs a reference, by the way), then why is two-thirds of this section about auto racing?

• In the economy section, "In Bahrain, petroleum production and processing account for about 60% of export receipts," - What accounts for the rest?
• Outdated information (2006 or before) in some sections - this is now six or more years old, a lifetime in financial, economic, etc. areas.
• Governorates section could use additional prose context on the governorates and municipalities. Also, if the municipalities are subdivisions of the governorates (and this should be made explicit), the municipalities should probably come second, not first.
• Military section is generally located near politics/government section, and sometimes even a subsection of this.

At this point, referencing, completeness and weighting are probably the biggest issues to be addressed before this article can progress beyond its current rating. It's quite a good start, though, and I applaud your initiative in jumping into this topic. I would suggest perhaps looking at some of the current GA- and FA-level articles on countries to get an idea for what goes into a topic of this size, what the general layout is, etc. Good luck, and let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead looks much better now. However, I personally would have waited until I was finished with the other issues before working on the lead. This is because there's a good chance that the makeup of the lead is going to change based on the additions/removals I recommended above, if they are completed. However, to each his own. As I said above, I think that the referencing, completeness and weighting issues are the largest problems facing the article right now; the other stuff is more minor, although it does still need to be fixed at some point. If you have questions, you can ask them here, if you wish - I have this page watchlisted. Dana boomer (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've spent the past three days doing some major remodeling of the page and now I'm confident that it's worth more than a C rating. I'd very much appreciate the new feedback (and thank you very much for the previous pointers!) --Droodkin (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's looking quite a bit better, so I have upped the rating to a B. GA-class is gained by nominating at WP:GAN. A-class is given through group review by individual wikiprojects, but none of the projects listed on the talk page appear to use this assessment level. That means that your best bet is GAN, then WP:FAC. However, there's a good bit more work to do before those steps. More detailed comments above, interspersed with my original ones. Dana boomer (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Well that is certainly good news, I'll hopefully edit some more and go for the GA rating. Thank you for all the pointers, once again. --Droodkin (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, did some more edits. I think it's now worth a nomination for Wikipedia:Good articles now ? --Droodkin (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You've done some great work on this article and I think it should do OK at GAN, although there are definitely still areas for improvement, and it would have a hard time at FAC. References need a going-through for formatting (several different formatting methods are currently used), and completeness (I see web refs missing publishers and access dates, books missing page numbers, which is a big no-no at FAC). Overall, though, looking much better! Dana boomer (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Life

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a level 1 vital article. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it reach FA standards for comprehensiveness without getting overwhelmed in detail. (I.e. per WP:SS.) I've been working to get it fully referenced and polished up. It still has a few rough edges remaining, but what I'm really looking for is advice on where to take it as an article. Since I'm not a subject matter expert, knowledgeable input would also be very helpful.

Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, after two weeks this review seems pretty lifeless. RJH (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll contribute some comments. However, I am not a biologist, nor a SME, so I cannot claim to give you feedback that would pass SME muster. --Noleander (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Noleander. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Per your request, I'll focus mostly on comprehensiveness, not prose (I can do more prose if you'd like; just ask).
• [comment added later] BTW: the more I look at the article, the more apparent that a lot of work went into it: sourcing, photos, organization, word-smithing. Good job! Please don't take the following comments as any sort of disparagement.
• It would be good to have a section on "borderline/unconventional" organisms/processes which are in dispute. I'm thinking prions; gaia theory; viruses. Most interesting things happen on the border! You already have a section on viruses: maybe enlarge that to cover these "marginal" or "not uniformly agreed upon" life forms. Not sure what the best over-arching title would be. You already have a start in the Virus section & LivingSystems section: buy the should be consolidated (in my opinion) under a single "Borderline/unconventional" section.
• Extraterrestrial: consider adding a paragraph or subsection on possible life in the Solar System (Mars especially) .. the section seems to jump right to other stars, bypassing neighboring planets.
  • Good idea. I only added a sentence, but it includes links to other articles with discussion of possible life in the Solar System. RJH (talk)
• non-carbon based: There has been lots of speculation about non-carbon based lifeforms (especially silicon-based) ... if any reliable sources touch on that, it is worth a mention. ... Ah, I see you have "Alternative hypothetical types of biochemistry have been proposed ...". Okay, but could you pick one particular alternative type (the most prominent one?) and mention it specifically? Readers absorb specifics better than generalities.
• Lead: terminology switches abruptly: a "process" is introduced in 1st paragr; then 2nd paragraph talks about a "living system" ... need to clarify/connect that transition.
• Range of tolerance: great section. I think readers would really benefit from a brief list of some of the enviroments inhabited by extremophiles: ocean vents, anaerobic, super-hot sulfur, etc etc: Concrete examples will paint a more vivid picture than current text.
• Cloning & Inventing life in the laboratory: Article should include a paragraph or section talking about the possibility of creating life de novo, in the laboratory? There are a couple of aspects of that (1) creating a new individual; or (2) creating a new species. The later is, of course, better covered in articles on genetic engineering but it is worth a mention in this article.
• Cells definitive?" - Form & Function section starts: "Cell theory propounds the concept that cells are the basic unit of structure in every living thing." - You need to decide if this article is going to limit itself to cell-based life or not. If viruses may be a form of life, then you'll need to avoid unqualified sentences like that. In other words, re-word it to something like "The vast majority of living organisms are comprised of cells; the only exceptions are viruses and perhaps prions. Cells are ..."
  • Mmm, I'm not sure. The statement only says what cell theory is proposing. I wouldn't want to include a claim that a virus or prion definitively satisfy the criteria for life, which your alternative seems to do. This should probably be hashed out on the article talk page. Regards, RJH (talk)
• Diversity: A new section that could really make this article top-notch would be "Diversity" or something like that. Describe 10 or 20 examples that occupy the extremes: a large mammal; a bacteria; airborne; ocean going; corals; jellyfish; spiders; moss; algae; etc etc.
• Photo gallery: I'm not a big fan of photo galleries, but this may be an article where they are warranted. You have a small gallery in the Materialism section. But see, for example, the photo montage in the mammal article. If not a gallery, at least scatter some more pics thru the article: each section should have at least one pic ... even if unrelated to that particular section.
• Phrasing: "Life as we know it today synthesizes proteins, ..." - "as we know it today" is a bit hackneyed. Just say "Life synthesizes...". It is understood that all declarative sentences in the article refer to life on earth "as known today" (with the exception of the ET section).
• Chart showing increase in #: It would be really useful to have a chart showing the number of species (vertical axis) vs time (horiz axis). Starts 3.x BYA, then increases rapidly in pre-cambrian era, etc. Perhaps use to accompany a "Diversity" section, showing how diversity has increased over time.
• Death vs. Extinction - It would not be off-topic to consider "Life" also in the generic sense of "existence of a species", so the Death section could perhaps include a subsection mentioning extinguishing a species as a particular kind of "end of life": ending all life-forms of a particular kind vs ending an individual.
• Multiple meanings of life: The lead has an excellent list of various key aspects of life: (1) biological system of an organism; (2) philosophy/religion; (3) soul/afterlife. Following up on the "Extinction" thought above, I'd recommend making more explicit the usage of "life" where it refers to a species or genus. Call this a "life form" ... there is no WP article on life form (that redirects to a list). Not to expand this article's scope too much, but perhaps include the notion that "life can also mean the collective organisms of one more related species" or something like that. So when one speaks of "life began X BYA" it is using that latter sense.
• Cladistics: "Since the 1960s a trend called cladistics has emerged, arranging taxa in an evolutionary or phylogenetic tree. It is unclear, should this be implemented, how the different codes will coexist" - A few points: (1) word "codes" is not used before, so this is confusing; (2) Cladistics are now absolutely the dominant method used for virtually all new classification work.; (3) The Linnean system of Kingdom/phylum/class etc is out-dated but still hanging around because it has so much momentum.
• Pics for Kingdoms/Cladistics: The article has two pics for Linnean classification: the vertical Domain/Phylum figure; and the horizontal table comparing Cavalier/Woese/ etc . Those are interesting, and important historically, but if you could have only one figure, I think most biologists would suggest something like File:Tree of life SVG.svg which is much more comprehensive and modern. The articles emphasis on Kingdoms is a bit out-dated .. they are more or less obsolete in modern taxonomy.
• SeeAlso topics: Some FAC veterans claim that one mark of a "comprehensive" article is that there cannot be any articles in the SeeAlso section, because any relevant article is already linked in the body. If you subscribe to that belief, then all the topics in the SeeAlso section are candidates for inclusion (or at least a brief mention) in the article. Glancing at the SeeAlso list, I find that that approach has some merit: I see at least 3 topics that I independently covered: Mars, Artificial/synthetic Life, non-cellular life.
• Definitions section: that section has lots of good material, but is a bit muddied. Specifically ".. other biological definitions of life have been proposed" - other than what? There was no prior definition, just a list of factors. Can the section be clarified? Try a top-down approach: Name 3 or 4 most prominent definitions. Then state that one of those is really a class of definitions, which test against a list of factors. Point out that there cannot be a simple litmus test. Also, (as mentioned above) convert the Virus section into "borderline/unconventional entities" that may or may not be alive (and make it a 3-equal-sign section, not 4.
• In conclusion: I think this is a really, really good article on a very, very difficult topic. If you ask 10 different editors what "life" is, you will get 10 different answers; so the question is: how to make the article comprehensive without getting overly broad? I think the article is very close to comprehensive already. Speaking as a fairly well-read person in a lot of areas, the omissions listed above are things I, personally, would like to see added, but I'm sure a professional biologist would have a different wish list :-)
  • Let me know when you want a prose review, and I can do that.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent feedback! Thank you, Noleander. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Drama Queen (Ivy Queen album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I want to get the article to GA status. I had two editors review the page and one of them told me to request a PR.

Thanks, DivaKnockouts (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "alongside the help of various" just "with the help of..."
• "Hiram Cruz, Francisco Saldaña" don't have articles, are they notable enough to be included in this list?
• " Francisco Saldaña, Marcos Masis" -> " Francisco Saldaña and Marcos Masis".
• Try to avoid repetition like "The album was.... The album was...".
• Avoid over linking (ie. don't link De La Ghetto twice in two paragraphs for example).
• Is there not a link for Latin Grammy Awards you can use in the lead?
• "a reggaetón version " again, you've already linked reggaeton, but oddly without a diacritic the first time, and with a diacritic the second time.
• " never charted on " -> "failed to chart on".
• "2008-2010" in the infobox, needs an en-dash, not a hyphen per WP:DASH.
• " its 5th year" fifth.
• "Unlike, Drama Queen or" no need for comma.
• "Drama Queen is the first album where Ivy wasn't in a " consistency in italics, and avoid contractions (i.e. "was not" rather than "wasn't").
• "Ivy had this to say:[3]" just "Ivy said:[3]"
• " A studio owned by reggaeton production moguls Luny Tunes." this sentence should be merged with the former somehow because on its own it isn't a complete sentence.
• In fact "A studio owned by reggaeton production moguls Luny Tunes. The album was produced by reggaeton production duo Luny Tunes..." is repetitive and doesn't make much sense to me.
• The "English" in the translated names shouldn't be in italics.
• Check all instances of the album name are in italics.
• "Music and themes" is unreferenced.
• Don't overlink "English" six or seven times in the next section. And again, not in italics.
• In the personnel section "Jose Cotto - Mixer" replace all these spaced hyphens with en-dashes (per WP:DASH).
• Ref titles also need to use en-dashes instead of spaced hyphens where applicable.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

---

MileagePlus

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've worked on this article for quite a while, hoping to create a comprehensive article on the topic and eventually to get it to FA/GA. Would like some feedback on quality/future direction. Thanks, Anti I A (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image caption should not take a period.
• Lead is a little brief, the second para is only one sentence long. Have you checked out WP:LEAD to see what we'd expect?
• Lead could more adequately summarise the article, e.g. cover a little of the history (not just the format of the member IDs), leading members, benefits etc.
• "Frequent flier programs started in their current form" who started the first one?
• " ten million actual flown miles" why "actual", what's wrong with just "ten million flown miles"?
• "United's number one customer" sounds a bit adverty.
• "reaching the ten million mile number" replace number with "landmark" or "mark".
• Check refs are formatted correctly, preferably using a {{cite}} template, and don't just use bare URLs which suffer from linkrot.
• "for prices as low as $69," reads like an advert.
• "even when elites are still being processed on the upgrade wait list." don't even understand this.
• Partner Airline in col heading should just be Partner airline.
• Star Alliance Member -> Star Alliance member.
• Table should comply with MOS:DTT for screen readers by implementing row and col scopes.
• Don't over link articles, e.g. you link United Airlines twice in quick succession in the Award travel section.
• Premier status section could use more references.
• Overall there needs to be some attention applied to making it sound less like an advert for the scheme.
• "Million Miles and Beyond" almost reads like a copy-and-paste from the MileagePlus website.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Rodrigues Solitaire

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to good article status. There is very little info about this bird outside descriptions which are many centuries old, so it's unlikely there'll be enough material to get it featured.

Thanks, FunkMonk (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Well, it seems to have already achieved GA status, and it's an interesting article. So I'm not sure what kind of feedback you'd like at this point. I don't see why it couldn't get to FA...there has to be some more context you could build around it that would help frame the article in a more comprehensive way.

What do you mean by more context?

• Here are some things I'm noticing, in case it's of use.

• In the lead, I like "The closest extant relative" instead of "living relative". I think "extant" is a more precise antonym of "extinct", although perhaps "living" is more accessible. Just a quibble.

Done.

• "with males being much larger than females" should be rephrased. See WP:PLUSING. Probably best is to put a full stop before it and start a new sentence saying males were larger, etc.

Done.

• Rephrase: "with the female being lighter"

Done.

• "bony knobs on their wings, which they used in combat" -> "bony knobs on their wings used in combat"

Done.

• Remove: "The specific name is a reference to the bird's solitary habits." and add its solitary habits as the source of its name on first mention of the "Solitaire". This part is also unsourced.

Done in a moment.

• "erected the new genus name" -> "selected". I've never heard of anyone erecting a name.

I wrote named instead, though taxonomic names are often said to have been "erected". There was an amusing example of this in the Megalosaurus article, in relation to the synonym "Scrotum humanum"...

• "more evidence led Raphidae to be demoted to a subfamily" -> "more evidence led to Raphidae's demotion to a subfamily"

Done.

• "It has also been interpreted" -> "Genetic evidence has also been interpreted"

Done.

• "erection of a new species" -- is this a scientific term?

Changed.

• "The Rodrigues Solitaire was described by one observer as being the size of a swan" -> "One observer described the Rodrigues Solitaire as the size of a swan." (avoids passive voice)

Done.

• "Sexual size dimorphism in this species is perhaps the greatest in any carinate bird" -- well, is it, or is it not?

The source says perhaps.

• Rephrase: "with females being paler than males"

Done.

• "François Leguat's rather crude depiction" -> " François Leguat's depiction" (POV)

The sources actually call it that, I could maybe write "simple" instead?

I hope this is helpful.--Batard0 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, as it's now GA, I think the next goal is FA, so any comments relevant to that process would also be nice. I'll adress your points here soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of your suggestions have been addressed now, apart from the ones I've added questions to. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Stan Coveleski

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see this become an FA, but I feel like there's a bit missing, not sure what. Article isn't too long though I've exhausted all the sources I have on my end. It's now a GA, so hopefully it's at least close to FAC ready.

Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Taking a break from my reviewing/closing/nominating tasks elsewhere to do a peer review of this Hall of Famer's article. Overall, I don't think it looks too bad, but a copy-edit would be helpful.

• The team first names probably don't need repeating in the lead, but this is minor and I wouldn't raise a stink if they remained.
• I don't see the last two sentences of the lead represented anywhere in the body, and what's in the lead should be representative of the article as a whole. It looks like the content would fit well in the Early years section; maybe it could be added there.
• Early years: I assume by "ball-playing brothers", you mean baseball-playing? That seems obvious to us, but I think it could be made clearer for non-baseball fans. Also, the bit about Frank and John also playing is redundant to this sentence.
• Philadelphia Athletics and minor leagues: Redundancy in "called him up to the major leagues, and he made his major league debut for...".
• Cleveland Indians: "On September 19, Coveleski pitched a one-hitter against the New York Yankees, which was broken up by Fritz Maisel in the seventh inning." A no-hitter was what was broken up, not the one-hitter. That could be made more clear, for the non-baseball fans out there.
• More redundant wording: "He won his first seven starting appearances to start off the season".
• And "In the game, Coveleski hit a sacrifice fly to help the Indians win the game". The game ... the game.
• Grammar issue in "Coveleski's efforts led the Indians to the winning the AL pennant...".
• "While he did knock the Yankees from first place in late August after winning an August 23 game against them". Don't think the "late August" is necessary to put in, as August 23 is late August by definition.
• Washington Senators and New York Yankees: "of" is missing from "and two the Senators' four losses."
• What is meant to be supporting the last sentence of this section? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review; will address the comments shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  Issues fixed except for the last one. The stats clearly show that he didn't play another game after that, though there's not a source that says he retired verbatim; the lack of another game merely implies it. Not really sure how to source that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Chennai Super Kings

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am listing this for a PR because we (WikiProject Indian Premier League) want it to reach GA status. Thank you. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

See my comments at the Good article review. If you have any questions or want further input, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Harrias ^talk 10:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead should be three paras, see WP:LEAD.
• Consider restricting the table of contents to just the second heading level.
• " as CSK[2])" put ref outside parenthesis.
• "Mahendra Singh Dhoni [4] " don't have spaces between text and refs.
• " Chennai right next to beach" this isn't grammatically correct in English. "the beach" would be better, but really, is it significant enough for the lead about the cricket team?
• "Chennai Super Kings (CSK) is the most successful team" you've already abbreviated the team name.
• Don't overlink IPL.
• Check "singh" in the infobox for capitals.
• 3-year -> three-year.
• Lots of cricket jargon without linking, this will be inaccessible to normal readers.
• Batting average, bowling average etc, all need links.
• What does * mean?
• Really, you need a non-cricket reader to look at this (I get it but others wouldn't, so keep the PR open until you get a non-cricket fan review!)
• "skipper Dhoni's blistering innings" be careful not to become like a tabloid paper
• Don't use bold for emphasis in the table per WP:BADEMPHASIS.
• Dhoni's salary is referenced but where are all the other's?
• Where is the player list referenced?
• Fixtures and results section is unreferenced as well.
• IPL season, check sorting, it doesn't work at all.
• Tables with a "Total" row, that row should always be at the bottom despite sorting.
• Make sure all references have as many fields as possible, as a minimum publisher, access date, title, author (where available), date of publication (where available) etc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Frederic M. Richards

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first attempt to create an excellent biographical article (it was very minimal when I started). There was quite a lot of good material available - but I'd very much appreciate advice on any ways in which I could make it even better. It is part of developing the new WikiProject Biophysics, but none of us have experience yet in how to formally assess and grade the articles in our own domain by wikipedia-appropriate criteria.

Thanks, Dcrjsr (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you so very much for the useful comments and advising on more wiki-standard ways of formatting and organizing! After I've made these changes, what quality level do you judge it to be?- Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Frederic Middlebrook Richards (August 19, 1925 – January 11, 2009),[1][2][3][4][5][6]" just wonder why we need six refs for this statement?

Moved to end of first sentence, as one of the recommended ways of citing refs general to the entire paragraph & header; hope that helps. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• No need for "(see ribbon drawing below)".

Fixed. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• No link for "ribonuclease S"?
• Ah, there is a link for ribonuclease S, but do it first time.

Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Say it like this -> "... nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) ..."

Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is (Pfizer) actually Pfizer?

Yes, name of the company that sponsored the award. I've now cross-linked the Pfizer page. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• " (paper #7 below)." avoid use of hash for number, and avoid self-reference in the article, just link it to the section or just find a more elegant way of writing it.

Have removed the #s. This type of harvnb ref was recommended by another earlier reviewer; I'm keeping it for now pending any further discussion, since I think the citation should indeed link to the specific paper.

• "separately, RNase A[16]) " put ref outside parenthesis.

Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Link angstrom.

Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• "1RNS in 1973 (PDB 1RNS), " avoid this kind of link, make it a proper ref.

In structural biology, the primary ref is indeed to the database not the journal paper (altho that's cited just previously), so I'm keeping those links here and in the section on his deposited structures. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Second para of "Ribonuclease crystal structure" is unreferenced.

Added 2 refs. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• "The "Richards' box"" -> ""Richards' box"" per WP:HEAD.

Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• And more refs needed in the tail-end of this section.

Those last 2 sentences all refer to or quote from the ref given in the first. I've changed the wording a bit to make that clearer, but would rather not re-ref. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure why you switch to bullet points when prose in good paragraphs would work fine in "Other research areas" section.

Have fixed that. Then needed to add further details, both to avoid criticism for many short paragraphs, and for appearance. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Don't relink and re-abbreviate things like NMR half-way through the article.

Fixed the NMR one and some others. Seems to me that cross-links are needed in a separate section like the one on career events & awards. Is it OK to do them twice? Or if only once, should that be in the header section or the award section? Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Personal Biography" -> "Personal biography".

Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would expect this to be first actually, since this is about him, not his work. Reorganise so we learn about him, then his work.

I've done this switch, and will see what I think and consult others, since of course what he's notable for is the science. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• "100 top places to live in the US.[3] It is a coastal " make [3] a proper citation.

Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• " and had three children - Sarah, Ruth, and George - and four " en-dash (per WP:DASH) not spaced hyphens.

Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Summary of career events" be consistent with year formats.

Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Check refs for compliance with WP:DASH, eg. ref 6.

Done. Hope I didn't miss any. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Check all refs have as many fields as possible, including publisher, access date etc, see refs 42 and 43 for instance.

Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth (and I'm no expert), it may stand a chance as a good article nomination, and if it didn't pass then it probably wouldn't take too much work to fix it up. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

To Ruhrfisch - Thanks for keeping the peer review open. I've now done a GA nomination, after fixing Rambling Man's suggestions. Since you have reasonably related expertise, as well as vast wiki experience, I'd be truly appreciative if you'd consider reviewing the GAN. Dcrjsr (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Jud Süß (1940 film)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to submit it as a Featured Article candidate and would like to get suggestions for getting it to meet the criteria for Featured Articles.

Thanks, Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "...of the most anti-Semitic films ..." why the capital S and hyphen? Opening sentence used "antisemitic", be internally consistent.
• I would link Terra Filmkunst because it's not clear to non-experts that this is a company, not an individual.
• Consider linking Reichsmark.
• "Susan Tegel[who?]" needs to be resolved, I'm guessing it's a case of "who is she and why should her opinion be important?"
• Consider linking Diet (assembly).
• "As his carriage gets into an accident" not particularly elegant. "As his carriage is involved in an accident" perhaps?
• "Duke's bodyguard, opera and ballet as well" the Duke's opera? the Duke's ballet?
• "but also causing " -> "but causes"
• "of Duke Karl Alexander of Württemberg in Stuttgart. As a financial advisor for Duke Karl Alexander, Duke of Württemberg, he " repetitive and overlinked.
• "Court Jew" or "court Jew", and link only the first instance.
• "which he refused to do" just "which he refused" is sufficient.
• "the Nazi takeover" of where?
• "Goebbels was insisting in" Goebbels insisted in.
• Link pogrom.
• "against the Jews. [21][22] " remove the space before the refs.
• No link for Central Rio?
• "the lead role of Joseph Süß Oppenheimer included the title role " lead role... title role...
• René Deltgen has a diacritic.
• Why are Final solution and Jewish question in italics?
• If possible, try to avoid squashing text between images.
• Several short paragraphs, try merging them for a more appealing appearance and flow.
• "The film is available for sale on VHS from Facets" presumably not everywhere though.
• Whitespace before the Analysis section.
• "List of German films 1933-1945" needs an en-dash in that year range.
• Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.
• If you use a source more than twice, make it a general reference and then you can just cite the author name and page number rather than repeat the title, ISBN etc etc each and every time.
• Ref 111 has no access date, publisher etc.
• New York Times is The New York Times. Also that ref has different date format.
• Ref 115 is Spiegelonline but has no link, and has different format date from other refs.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Project MKUltra

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked substantially on it and it was formerly listed as a Featured Article. I'd like to at least see it get GA status. The subject matter is incredibly fascinating, and I'd like to get the knowledge out there, and making the article as good as it can possibly be is one way of achieving that. Farrtj (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "behavioural" is BritEng, if I'm not mistaken this article is probably written in USEng. Done
• "Veterans Administration Hospital " is a dab link. Done
• I would normally suggest using acronyms in their expanded form the first time round, like "Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)". Done
• "other chemicals, hypnosis,[6] sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture." odd referencing methodology here... Done
• "for Operation Paperclip. Operation Paperclip was" for elegant prose, I would try to avoid this quick repetition. Done
• Since you mention "Project BLUEBIRD " why isn't it at least redlinked? Done
• MKUltra section, lots and lots of very short paragraphs, could use some merging to improve the look and flow. Done
• "A very descriptive member of the CIA claims " Do you need "very descriptive"? Done
• It's possibly a personal taste thing (well, almost certainly it is) but I'm not keen on the mass of text under "Goals" which I assume is a copy-and-paste. Isn't there an elegant way of summarising all that?

Ah, I think the numbered points is clearer, personally. Farrtj (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Could the CIA make spies out of tripping Russians—or vice versa?[31]" if this is a quote, put it in quotes. If not, it's not particularly encyclopedic language. Done
• Link World War II the first time its used, not on a subsequent occasion. Done
• "a point was reached where outsiders were zapped " don't know what that means. Done
• "committed suicide or was murdered [35]" missing full stop and I think it would make a difference if he was murdered or if he committed suicide, wouldn't it? Done
• "heroin, morphine, MDMA, mescaline, psilocybin, scopolamine, marijuana, alcohol, sodium pentothal,[39] and ergine (in Subproject 22)." again, odd referencing (i.e. pick one thing in a list of things and reference just that thing...) Done
• No real need to link "Canada" (we tend to avoid linking major geographical entities. Done
• Portrait images should have thumb|upright applied so they are the same size. Done
• Isn't the fifth estate always branded in lower case? Done
• "—[50]" why not just put the ref after the colon introducing the quote? Done
• " United States v. Stanley" aren't court cases usually in italics (as you have for Feres v. United States earlier in the section). Done
• Don't think you need to link prison, hospital, college, university... Done
• Don't put items in the See also section that are already used and linked in the main article (e.g. Gottlieb). Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Your Love (Nicki Minaj song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was just listed as a GA and I would like to improve on it further, eventually being able to nominate it for FA status. Any help and suggestions would be very helpful to me! Thanks, (CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• For a fair use image with the single cover, 1000 x 1000 or so is pretty big, are you sure that's okay?
• "after it was stolen and leaked. After the song " vaguely repetitive "after ... after..."
• "Described as a "rap ballad", " by whom?
• "numbers 14 and four" comparable numbers should either be all text or all numbers.
• "recording artist Annie Lennox (pictured)." actually, I think that's the Eurythmics pictured, so I guess you need to point the reader to Lennox who is on the right of the image.
• "After being mixed differently and some lyrics rewritten" reads awkwardly to me. Suggest a copyedit.
• "with Hot 93.7 radio" context, where is this radio station?
• "also did a remix" never keen on "did" something.
• Maybe "also did a remix to the " should be "also remixed the"?
• Lil' Kim has a '.
• "IThe song peaked " typo.
• "Minaj was interviewed ..." -> "She was..."
• "Onika Maraj Warren "Oak" Felder," comma missing.
• Also worth explaining throughout that Nicki is Onika.
• Ref 1, double period, double hyphen. Remove one period, turn double hyphen into en-dash.
• Ref 9, avoid # for No.
• Ref 19, no accessdate.
• Ref 20, lots of info missing.
• Check for spaced hyphens, replace with en-dash per WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

God of War (series)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like comments and feedback to improve this article towards FA, or at least GA.

Thanks, JDC808 (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments
  • In the fourth paragraph of the first section, you need to use either spaced n-dashes or unspaced m-dashes

 Done

• • I played the first game and the second game years ago, but I believe that there are chests which switches the colour, and if the character grabs the chest in the right time it will stop colorizing

 Done You're right. I forgot about those. Checked the God of War Wikia to confirm which games have them. Only the first two do.

• • You may add that the sex minigame is censored (at least it is so in the first game)

 Done I didn't like the word censored because it makes me think that you can kinda see it, but areas are blurred out or have a black bar across it. I've reworded the mention of it. How is it now?

• • A problem is that you use the brackets too much. Try to avoid them.

 Done I went through the article and removed as many as I could, unless I thought they were necessary. How is it now?

• • Overall I think it is ready for GAN. FLC is not the correct area, but FAC, as it has more prose than list. Similar series are also FAs, eg Age of Empires. Good luck! :)--GoP_T^C_N 10:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

FA is what I meant lol. I had put a Peer Review up for the character page and it used FL which is why I accidentally mentioned it here. Thanks for the comments and looking forward to any other feedback. JDC808 (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

---

59th National Film Awards

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has got potential to become a FL. If reviews goes well, I wish to push this article for WP:FLC. I would appreciate if senior editors can review the article accordingly, considering its goal.

Thanks, - Vivvt^Talk 17:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Isn't the lead supposed to be restricted to four paragraphs? It looks like it needs to be condensed quite a bit before presentation.

 Done - Vivvt^Talk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It also has to be trimmed. The Dadasaheb Phalke award is mentioned thrice in different paragraphs, while it could be made into a single sentence. Adding to that, the sentence "Deool became third Marathi film to win the honour after Shyamchi Aai (1953) and Shwaas (2003)" is heavily WP:UNDUE here. Secret of success (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. My bad earlier. - Vivvt^Talk 13:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Entries of dubbed/revised/copied versions of a film [...] before January 17, 2012." and "For feature and non-feature films sections, films made in any Indian language [...] the Central Board of Film Certification." - The given source does not seem to verify these. Or am I wrong? Secret of success (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Regulations for submission listed under External links: Official websites. Do you want me to put it as a part of references as well? - Vivvt^Talk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if it would find a place in the references, but now that it has been proved to be verifiable, there should not be any issue. Secret of success (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thats Good then. - Vivvt^Talk

I not a specialist of FL, but some observations:

• Awards section is too long. Split [Reworded] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • by award category (prefer): Dadasaheb Phalke, Feature films, non-feature films, best writing
  • jury and awards

Can you elaborate more on this? - Vivvt^Talk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Section is too long. Split into different 4 sections by award category IMO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Vivvt^Talk 13:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Enajori.com incident is not part of selection. Separate into "controversy" or something

 Done - Vivvt^Talk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why is /- needed after all prize money amounts? Remove

 Done - Vivvt^Talk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Awards not given: is it known if entries were suited for each of the categories?

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DFF publishes list of entries submitted for the awards like done earlier for 56th NFA. But this year, it was not published for some reason. Again, till now, they have never published the suitable entries/considerations for the awards. - Vivvt^Talk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments On the first look not bad, but after reading one section I believe it needs a good copyedit. One issue is that you are using repetitions, for example in "Awards not given" (where you use "given" in each sentence and even in the head). In some places the prose is awkward. Check whether it meets WP:IG. Also it is more an article than a list as it has more prose than list, but I am not quite sure either. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 16:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree! Will work on copyediting and rephrasing. However, as Vivvt and i have worked on this article from quite a good time our minds (at least mine) are not able to find any phrasing issues. Will still try, but it would be nice if you all could give more examples. Regarding WP:IG; image accompanied with the text is good. But adding images besides the tables would congest it. Articles like 82nd Academy Awards, 57th Filmfare Awards, Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play are quite spacious even after contextual image usage. Whereas here we don't have space. As to being an article or a list i couldn't find any previous discussions related to awards. There have been similar discussions somewhere for List-of-episodes with no definite conclusion. But still majority of such pages are under lists. I could not find any year-wise award related page under "article". Even if the content has more prose, the basic page is a list of awards. But if consensus is different i am okay with categorizing it that way. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Andranik Ozanian

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to hear others' opinions about this article, so I can improve it.

Thanks, Yerevanci (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• See WP:LEAD for recommendations on numbers of paragraphs for this length of article.
• "In 1912-1913" needs to be an en-dash here per WP:DASH.
• "Andranik in Paris, 1921." no full stop required in this caption as it's not a complete sentence. Check all other captions.
• "which was about to wipe off Armenia from the face of the Earth." true as it may be, this is a somewhat emotive way of putting it. Try to keep the tone neutral.
• "Andranik combated in " -> "Andranik fought in "
• "and died 5 years " 5->five.
• Avoid squashing text between images/infobox etc.
• Some of the early parts of Early life appear unreferenced.
• "which he later leaves" -> "which he would later leave"
• "first name - even " en-dash, not hyphen.
• "gave a signal to the hidden fedayees......" then what?
• Don't overlink articles, e.g. you link Macedonian-Adrianopolitan militia twice in quick succession.
• Early parts of Life in exile appear unreferenced.
• Also, consider merging the first couple of short paras.
• "The New York Times reported," -> "The New York Times reported,"
• Legacy in Armenia section is unreferenced.
• The list of quotes is, well, mildly interesting but the article would be better served by integrating some of these quotes into the main article to provide a good context.
• "Avetis Aharonyan, [48]" (and all the others), no comma needed, not space between the name and the ref.
• Online sources should have publishers, authors (where possible), dates of publication (where possible) and access dates.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Michelson–Morley experiment

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed this GA review due to prose issues. After this peer review, the article should be nominated again for GA.

Thanks, D.H (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RJH:

• The lead doesn't summarize all important aspects of the article. See WP:LEAD.
• Simple, inline math expressions such as $10^{-17}$ and $\lesssim 10^{-17}$ stand out prominently from the text, but it would be preferable that they didn't. You can instead use HTML/unicode characters to write 10^–17 or ≲10^–17.
• The article is fairly weak in the number of citations. For example, I'd expect at least one cite per paragraph in the "Measuring aether" section.
• "...producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference based on the spent time to transit the arms": I understand what this is trying to say, but the wording is a little unclear. I believe the pattern depends on the difference in the travel times, rather than the net time. But it also needs to clarify why there is a transverse pattern since the net time difference is about the same. I.e. it needs to go into some detail about wavelengths of light and incremental differences in travel distances based upon the angle. This explanation seems important to the reader's understanding of the topic, so you could probably add an extra paragraph here and perhaps an illustration.

Regards, RJH (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! D.H and I will work on those points. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the review. I'll add some additional citations. --D.H (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

D.H - I'll try working on a couple of illustrations. One will be a conventional one based on the Pythagorean theorem, the other will be an animation. We'll see what works. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be great! --D.H (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Formation of fringes in a Michelson interferometer

D.H -

I think RJH wanted a figure something like this one. However, I'm not at all sure this image belongs in the Michelson–Morley experiment article. It is something that would fit in Michelson interferometer or Interferometry. However, if you think it fits in Michelson–Morley experiment, by all means add it!

(a) If mirror M₁ and the reflected image M'₂ are parallel but separated by a finite distance, the two reflected sources S'₁ and S'₂ will be centered on the normal to the mirrors, and the interference fringes will be circles. (b) If M₁ and M'₂ are angled with respect to each other, S'₁ and S'₂ will be separated from each other. The interference fringes in general will be hyperbolas, but if M₁ and M'₂ overlap, the fringes near the axis will be perceived as a set of equally spaced straight lines. If S is an extended source rather than a point source as illustrated, the fringes of (a) must be observed with a telescope set at infinity, while the fringes of (b) will be localized on the mirrors.

I'm still working on the animation, by the way. I'm writing a computer program to generate the images, which will be exported to bitmaps that I will then assemble into a GIF. The animation should be cute, but not necessarily something that belongs in the article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's another excellent animation! But I agree with you that Michelson interferometer might be the better article for describing such details of this interferometer. --D.H (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

RJHall -

I added Figure 4 to the article, but wasn't sure if that was what you meant, or a figure like the one I've included on this page. Comments? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Animation

Animated demonstration of the origin of the expected differential phase shift between light traveling the longitudinal versus the transverse arms of the Michelson–Morley apparatus

Well, what do you think? Personally, I think the animation is a bit silly, but RJH did state that "[the article] needs to go into some detail about wavelengths of light and incremental differences in travel distances based upon the angle. This explanation seems important to the reader's understanding of the topic, so you could probably add an extra paragraph here and perhaps an illustration." Even if we never use it, I got to experiment with some tools in C# which I hadn't used before, so it definitely wasn't a waste of my time. It was a fun way to spend a few hours this 4^th of July. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

One way of using the animation might be through a link: "For an animated demonstration explaining the origin of the differential phase shift between light traveling the longitudinal versus the transverse arms of the Michelson–Morley apparatus, click here." That way the main body of the article retains its encyclopedic tone, while those who like cartoons can watch this one. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

One of my pet peeves on Wikipedia are the many pretty, striking, or even beautiful illustrations that are not well integrated with the text and which, after you get through admiring their aesthetic qualities, leaves you wondering what really was being illustrated. Case in point is a Featured Picture that was picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for October 16, 2006: File:Lorentz transform of world line.gif. Beautiful? Yes. Meaningful? Well, I'm reasonably familiar with the subject (very far from being in the same class as D.H, though) but when I look at this picture, I wonder what it is trying to say. I much prefer the simple, straightforward drawings in the article Minkowski diagram.

I'm not against animation per se. In fact I've created others in the past, for instance File:White light interferometric microscope.gif. But animation has to be for a good reason.

What I am trying to say is, if you think it should be displayed in the article, well then, great! But if you think it might best be referred to through a link, well, that's sort of my own feeling. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if perhaps a simple illustration of a double-slit experiment would serve? Mathematically it is the same effect in the sense that a single beam is being used to generate two sources, which then recombine to produce an interference pattern based upon the difference in their path lengths. You could then place the animation directly below to illustrate the comparable behavior of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the equivalence to the double slit is the point of my earlier illustration on this page, which now appears on Michelson interferometer and on Interferometry, but which D.H and I decided probably didn't belong in Michelson–Morley experiment. The articles have different goals: (1) explaining how the Michelson interferometer works, and (2) explaining about the experiment itself and its importance in the history of physics. Trying to do too much in a single article gets us into problems of balance and focus. We could easily double the size of the article just on the 1887 experiment alone. There's lots of fascinating material on how the interferometer pushed the limits of the available technology, human interest material on Michelson, and so on and so forth which we didn't cover and which don't appear even in Michelson's biography on Wikipedia. It's tough picking and choosing what should be the correct things to present in an article, alas! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As you wish then. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I decided to insert the animation and let D.H decide whether it serves a real purpose or not. After all, he's a much more important contributor to the article than I am. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I first misunderstood the image. But now I see that it is correct, thanks. --D.H (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: Animated images like this look quite good in the article. --D.H (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Addendum from RJH: Here are some additional comments:

• What does "...wind at the 10⁻¹⁷ level" mean?
• "Many other experiments ... have been conducted as well as tests of special relativity": Is this sentence trying to say "Many other confirming experiments"? It could use some clarification.
• What does "...effects of first order..." or "...measuring second order effects..." mean? It is unclear from the context.

Regards, RJH (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Philip Smith (criminal)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article concerns a spree killer convicted of three murders in and around Birmingham in 2001, and against who there was an overwhelming amount of evidence. I've listed it for peer review because I want to put it forward for GA and would like someone else to check it through before that. It's already quite comprehensive and covers the topic well and neutrally, but I'm interested to know what else it may need. Some of the references are from sources at HighBeam, so if you don't have access to that let me know and I'll be happy to email copies of the articles. Also, I'm waiting on a map and copy edit, so if anyone can help with those that would be much appreciated too. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Check the details in the fair usage template for the mugshot... ("The image is used to illustrate to a reader the visage of Joanna Yeates, who was murdered in December 2010....")
• "Smith, a former fairground worker who was employed at a pub in the city, killed " -> "A former fairground worker who was employed at a pub in the city, Smith killed .... " (just so you don't have two consecutive sentences starting with his name).
• "overwhelming amount of evidence" just "overwhelming evidence" perhaps?
• "before setting the remains on fire" wouldn't it have been her body rather than remains at this point?
• Never sure, but isn't it "mother-of-two" in this case?
• In the infobox, no reason to capitalise his second/third occupations.
• "He left school at..." last person you mentioned was Smith's father so reiterate Smith here.
• "As well as theft his ..." don't think you need "As well as theft" since you say "also"...
• Could consider linking West Country dialects for those unaware of what a West Country accent means..
• in the lead you link butane gas for "butane gas addict" but in the main article you link all of "butane gas addict", I'd be consistent (I know they link to different articles, but it's odd to have the identical phrase linked differently in my mind at least!)
• "to identify her.[8][1] " would prefer refs in numerical order.
• "said she didn't he said" avoid contractions.
• Put (FSS) in parentheses after the first use of the expanded term.
• "defense" - it's a BritEng article so this should be defence.
• "West Midlands Police Chief Constable Sir Edward Crew" not sure you need to re-introduce him in this way since you did that in the previous section.
• Is "murderpedia.org" really something appropriate for an external link?

Thank you very much for the comments. I'll work on these tomorrow, but for now I've corrected my rather careless error with the image. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention, as it's something I obviously overlooked in using the rationale of another image as a template for this one. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• I'm doing the copy edit requested on the GOCE Requests page now. As to whether mother-of-two is hyphenated: I think it is when it's used adjectivally ("mother-of-two Jane Doe") but not when it's used nominally ("Jane Doe was a mother of two"). Actually, though, Rosemary Corcoran was a mother of three (corrected in the lead today). --Stfg (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I must confess I've never been entirely sure when and when not to apply hyphens, so thanks for the advice on that. Also thank you for taking this on and correcting some of the stuff I've overlooked. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome. It's an interesting, well-presented article. Hyphens are very difficult. The wikipedia article English compound is at least some help, I think. --Stfg (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

---

2011–12 Manchester United F.C. season

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because looking to get it t a featured article. It would also be good for future season articles to have an example to follow.

1. It is rated as a start-class article. Is this an appropriate rating of the article?
2. How well-written (grammer, punctuation etc) is the article?
3. How comprehensive is the article and is there anything missing?
4. Is it well-researched, have reliable sources and consistent citations?
5. Is the lead section good?
6. Is there an appropriate structure to the article?
7. Is there a general critique that you would like to add to the peer review?

Thanks, Kingjeff (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Will take the review and get to it this week itself. Of the top the article is a little long per WP:Article length AS ITS approached 100k. Some split off sections needed.

Its at lesat c-class, but needs much more sources (as indicated by the tags)Lihaas (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm not an editor of the article, I'm going to add a bit. The appropriate structure isn't there. However, it can be easy to restructutre. The writing portion for each of the competition sections should go into a "Review and events" section. You have a section for each competition. Each one of those sections should be a subsection of "Match results". The statistics table for appearances and goals looks good. Transfers section looks good. It would be good to see a section called the "Starting 11". 2011–12 FC Bayern Munich season has a good example. Could also add a "Minutes played" section. Sources is another issue. 56 sources to-date. When sourcing is complete. This will put the article in a very good position. Kingjeff (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Also the lead has a mish-mash of 1 sentence paragraphs. They could be merged with the update for each competition into 1 para.

Also need consistent usage of Manchester United/United (this is not a fan weblog).

Cant think of content thats been missing. Perhaps staff changes, etc. As Kingjeff states a squad info/lineup section would do good.

Big issue is that there is the tag and there are no sources from premier league to the transfrs section (including the stats).

A general cleanup to remove OR and answer the tag should put it in good stead.Lihaas (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSLEAD Lead should be no more than 4 paras. Definitely too much prose for each competition. Using the community shield as an example. It is currently;

As Premier League champions, United began the season against the holders of the FA Cup, local rivals Manchester City in the 2011 FA Community Shield. The match was played at Wembley on 7 August.[7] This was the first time the Shield had been contested by the two clubs in 55 years. United had most of the possession and more shots on goal in the first half, but it was City who took the lead in the 38th minute when Joleon Lescott nodded in a David Silva free-kick. Edin Džeko then doubled City's lead on the stroke of half-time with a low strike from long-distance. However, seven minutes into the second half, Chris Smalling volleyed home an Ashley Young free-kick to reduce the deficit, and then Nani finished off an intricate passing move involving Wayne Rooney and Tom Cleverley in the 58th minute to bring the score back to 2–2. With a penalty shoot-out looming as the game moved into injury time, Nani forced a mistake from City captain Vincent Kompany, outpaced the defence and rounded goalkeeper Joe Hart before sliding the ball into the empty net to seal United's comeback and their 19th FA Community Shield.[8]

But should be more along the lines of

As Premier League champions, United began the season against the holders of the FA Cup, local rivals Manchester City in the 2011 FA Community Shield. The match was played at Wembley on 7 August.[7] This was the first time the Shield had been contested by the two clubs in 55 years. City took the lead in the 38th minute through Joleon Lescott. Edin Dzeko then doubled that before half-time. After 52 minutes Chris Smalling scored for United, Nani then equallised six minutes later and scored the winner towards the end of the match.

(You could add some of what is already there to 2011 FA Community Shield). But as you can see it is roughly half. Overall the prose is way too detailed and there are lots of tabloid phrases used (looming, seal united's comeback, nodded in, stroke of half-time). The Premier League section - there are 33 paragraphs - 33! That's ridiculous, it should be about 5, MAX. I'm assuming its written in largely the same manner as the Community Shield paragraph and every match is covered. So there should be lots of infotmation you can remove. The two sections on Europe also look to be suffering from the same thing. At the moment I can't see much point saying anything else as, IMO, the article needs a complete re-write if it is your intention to get it to GA. Adam4267 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Don Bosco High & Technical School, Liluah

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try to better this article, but I have no idea where to start the clean up. Sorry if the article is bad, but I wanted to know where it can be improved. So please give a brief account on what can be done to better it.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Too many too short paras in the lead. See WP:LEAD for guidance on how may paras to expect here.
• Call it "English language", not "English".
• Should "S.D.B." really be "(SDB)" after the title?
• "The Telegraph Education Foundation" if this is notable, why doesn't it have an article?
• "Telegraph Awards Hall of Fame" ditto.
• History section could use being turned into prose rather than just a list of bullet points.
• "Mgr. Mathias" what is Mgr.?
• Savio is a dab link.
• History has no refs at all.
• Full of trivia like "The first Past Pupils Day was held In October 1955."...
• Don't bold the section titles.
• No idea what ISC and ISCE is, nor what the "School Average" (shouldn't that be "average") is.
• Again, "Extra-curricular" section is unreferenced, and needs work to prose it rather than just be a list of trivia.
• Same with Facilities.

In general it's desperately in need of references. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Tea Peter

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to make this article a good article. I worked on this and tried to expand it as much as I could. Maybe this article's "reception" section needs working on, and also maybe its prose.

Thanks, Koopatrev (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I've not read the article, but I noticed the external links section was missing. This typically includes at least the IMDB and TV.com links. See Portal:Family Guy for other featured and good articles. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Fixed also for You Can't Do That on Television, Peter, Leggo My Meg-O and Mr. and Mrs. Stewie Koopatrev (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox, you have a mix of capitalised and uncapitalised "Girl" and "Silhouette".
  •  Fixed Koopatrev (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• "twenty first" is usually hyphenated.
  •  Fixed Koopatrev (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• "It received mixed to negative reviews from critics for its storyline and cultural references. It was viewed by 4.94 million viewers, according to Nielsen ratings" I'd say something like, "Viewed by ... , it received mixed to negative..."
  • I have to say "according to nielsen ratings" after giving the amount of viewers, so I don't think I know how to reword the whole thing Koopatrev (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Julius Sharpe" is mentioned in the lead as a guest actor but not in the infobox.
  •  Fixed Koopatrev (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• You also call them guest "actor" in the infobox, and guest "star" in the lead. Be consistent.
  •  Fixed Koopatrev (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• "finds he is unsympathetic" just "finds him" is fine.
  •  Fixed Koopatrev (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• "The episode was..." new section, re-iterate "Tea Peter" was...
  •  Fixed
• Three short paras in the Prod/cult. refs section, expand or merge.
• "acquired a 2.4/6 rating share" I'm not sure what this means.
  •  Fixed Koopatrev (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Carter Doston of TV Fanatic gave a 2.7/5 rating." neither the reviewer nor the publication have an article here, why should I care what he thinks?
  • Well we need to have more than one review, it's to provide different opinions. But I guess it's still notable Koopatrev (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• You don't need the succession box at the bottom because you have that info in the infobox.
  •  Fixed Koopatrev (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

---

The Lokpal Bill, 2011

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need this page to be complete in every aspect. I would like to have a valuable feedback for the page.

Thanks, Regards, theTigerKing  04:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would not be able to give a detailed review, but I think honorifics like Shri and Smt can be removed from the "Standing Committee Draft Lokpal Bill" as per WP:HONORIFIC. I will recommend you to request a copyedit here, which will help you while taking the article to GA/FA status. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Please give me a week to analyze the document in detail. I will come up with my review for this article. Regards India maniac (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• First off, is it the "Lokpal Bill" or "The Lokpal Bill"?

 Added Comments : "The Lokpal Bill"

• There are a huge number of citations in the lead for "The journey of this bill has received widespread worldwide coverage.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]", see WP:CITEKILL.

 Done

• Infobox -> "A Bill.." -> "A bill..."

 Done

• "Legislative History" in infobox, just "Legislative history" is fine.

? I could not understand the comment. Did you mean I should remove the text history from the infobox or something else. Please elucidate.

I mean don't have a capital H for history. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done

• "still hasn't reached " avoid contractions.

 Done

• Table should not be overcapitalised, e.g. "Status of Bill"->"Status of bill", "(Recurring)"->"(recurring)".

 Done

• "Rs. 3 lakh" meaningless to most readers, consider an inflation-linked translation into US$ or GBP or similar.

* Need reliable source which convert INR to inflation adjusted USD or any other major currency.

• [40] - avoid floating refs, attach them to something.

 Done Placed them along with table captions.

• "History of The Lokpal Bill, 2011" -> "History".

 Done

• "A Draft Lokpal Bill, 2010,[41][42][43] " draft isn't a proper noun, and why citekill again?

 Partly done Citekill needs to be worked upon

 Done Overkill part done

• "Anna Hazare's hunger strike at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi." no full stop in this caption which isn't a complete sentence.

 Done Updated all the images.

• "For major differences between the Draft Lokpal Bill, 2010 and the Jan Lokpal Bill, click here." we don't do "click here", either link to it suitably or just have a {{see also}} or something.

 Done Put in See Also section

• "The Joint Draft Bill" not sure about the section starting with "The" and no need for the table to be sortable, nor have "Name" capitalised.

 Done

• "was expected to complete its work latest by 30 June 2011" update please.

 Done Redrafted the sentence

• "Kapil Sibal, member of the Joint Drafting Committee of Lokpal." no need for full stop.

 Done Updated all the images.

• A lot of intricate detail about the various meetings. I think you should look to summarise them and create a decent single section rather than all the subsections which remind me of village meeting minutes.

 Added Comments : The sections contain a brief snapshot the official documents of the transcripts of the meetings, what was said by the prominent people of the panel before the media and which later became headlines. I believe we can't remove them and club them into a single section. In such a situation, the proposed section would become unmanageable and unreadable.

• No reason for most, if not all, of the tables to be sortable.

 Added Comments : Two tables are sortable as it help the readers to view the members grouped with the institution they belong to(Lok/Rajya Sabha, Congress,BJP etc.)

• "In an Open Letter To Our Leaders by a group of 14 eminent citizens (G14)" why the bold and bold links? Avoid.

The title of the document was Open Letter To Our Leaders. Hence, the entire text was in bold. The link, open letter, is a part of a bold text. That is why, it is also in bold.

Avoid bold links. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done

• (enough on the prose).
• Refs, make sure date formats are consistent throughout.

 Done Made them uniform

• Eight external links here? Be judicious. Pick the really, honestly, really honestly relevant links.

 Done I could remove two links, one of Parliament of India, as it only contained the links to other websites. Removing others may not be possible as the article contains content referenced from those links. The second was that of constitution of India as it was contained in the VTE separately.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Grey's Anatomy (season 3)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently listed as a good article and I believe that, after months of contributions, the article is close to meeting Featured Article criteria. However, I need to know what this article needs in order to promoted to FA. I would like specific details.

Thank you, Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• One drive-by suggestion: take a thorough look through the article and fix tense-mixing. While the episode summaries can clearly be in the present tense (this is standard practice) the remainder of the article should all be in the past, since it describes a series that took place in the past. So in sentences like: "The season followed the continuation of the surgical residency of five young interns as they experience the difficulties of the competitive careers they have chosen" we should have "experienced" and "chose". A number of other instances of tense-mixing are peppered through the article. They're fairly easy to spot.

• Consider ways to make the prose more concise. Conciseness makes things easier and more inviting to read. In the above sentence, something like "The season followed five young surgical interns as they contended with the difficulties of their competitive careers" might be a little bit better. "Demands" might be better than "difficulties" because it's two syllables instead of four. Every single extra word and syllable burdens the reader.

• Some of the paragraphs further down in the article are too long and should be split up. How to do it is a judgment call, but readers are going to feel overwhelmed seeing these enormous blocks of text.--Batard0 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done, TRLIJC19 (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    

---

Amanita gemmata

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I made many improvements in this and I believe it is well-written. I just wanted a proper review.

Thanks, Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor confusions

The article has a lot of good information and references, but there seem to be some places where it could be made more useful to the reader.

One is that the Toxicity section is confusing - it seems to assume, without saying so, that A gemmata would not be expected to be toxic and A pantherina would. Only two cases are cited, and saying that death is rare - only in severe cases - seems redundant and also odd if toxicity itself is rare. This part could use some expansion and clarification.

A second is that, especially for a potentially poisonous mushroom, the thing people most want to know is what characteristics or geographical distribution distinguish it from near relatives. You describe its characteristics, and what others it can be confused with, but not how to tell them apart. I sympathize with the fact that your references may not really address this important issue either! - Dcrjsr (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "hybridization" is a dab link.
• "Its cap is a more bright color than in the former and more yellow than that of the latter two" this reads a little clumsily for my liking. "Its cap is brighter in color than the former, and more yellow in color than the latter two" perhaps?
• "Yet today it is still " perhaps just "It is often confused with..."
• Don't think a link to Europe is strictly necessary.
• "that shows various symptoms of poisoning after eating" -> "that results in various symptoms of poisoning after consumption".
• Avoid squashing text between images and infoboxes etc.
• "large ribosomal subunit RNA " consider linking some of this for benefit of non-expert readers.
• "A close view of the spores." no period required as this is not a complete sentence.
• "29–55 x 30–70 µm" - use a multiplication sign rather than an x.
• "A. aprica, a species often confused with A. gemmata." again, no need for period.
• "Rod Tulloss " who he?
• "A. gemmata specimen from Commanster, Belgium." no period required.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TRM, I've addressed your points. Sasata (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

---

China–Ethiopia relations

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I really would like to see if it is at the Good Article, or GA level. I personally think it is, but I really would like feedback as to whether others share that opinion.

Thanks alot, Oakley77 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot

As I'm neither an expert on this subject nor on the GA process, I don't think I can say definitively whether the article is GA ready. I'm fairly sure, though, that it needs more work. The article's information is a bit meager; not knowing how much is available, I can't say whether that just reflects a scarcity of sources.

General comments:

• The sources are mostly news articles of various sorts. They're reliable, but news articles don't provide much analysis of broad patterns and consequences. Finding a source that analyzes the broad nature China–Ethiopia relations would help a great deal. The book by Alden listed in the bottom section (I changed the section's name to "Further reading", as the book isn't an external link) may provide some of that analysis. Other such sources may be out there, or they may not.
  • Yes, this would be ideal, but I have extensively checked, and I don't see any. Oakley77 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• It seems odd that the article's title is "China–Ethiopia relations" and then the bolded text in the lead sentence and over the infobox is "Ethiopia–People's Republic of China relations". The changing names for China might have something to do with the interminable PRC-versus-Taiwan issue, but I still think it would be better to be consistent. Putting China first in one case and Ethiopia first in the other makes no sense.
  • Done. Oakley77 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking of Taiwan: the article says Ethiopia's deputy foreign minister expressed support for the One-China policy in 2001, but there's no other indication of where Ethiopia stands on the Taiwan issue. I presume that any interactions between Taiwan and Ethiopia aren't enough to merit their own Wikipedia article, but is there any kind of diplomatic contact, or does Ethiopia ignore Taiwan to please China?
  • Its like Taiwan doesn't even exist. They are in completely incommunicado with Taiwan. Oakley77 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• The article focuses on economic relations, which makes sense, given that they're the most important element in the relationship. But it seems to be missing some things, like the reasons why China is so eager to invest in Ethiopia (the Dominican University of California article looks like it should help with that). The article by Edward Cody includes a factoid near the top, saying that China was Ethiopia's biggest trading partner in 2006; is that still the case?
  • I believe so. China continues their construction projects and infrastructure support, so I believe so. Oakley77 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Are there any major political issues involving China and Ethiopia, or is virtually all their interaction economic?
  • No, not anything really huge, or I would include it. That is, minus the Taiwan issue. Oakley77 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• A link somewhere to Chinese people in Ethiopia is needed. The subject might even justify its own section, depending how much information is out there. And what information is there on Ethiopians in China?
  • Phew, not much. It really is not something deserving of its own article on Wikipedia, not yet at least. And I mentioned your requested article in the See Also section. Oakley77 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Smaller issues:

• The colors of the two countries in the infobox map should be changed to match the green and orange color scheme given immediately below, as with, for example, China–India relations.
  • Has been done. Oakley77 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• The "History" section goes a long way back, but it left me wondering something. Zheng He passed near Ethiopia on his voyages; is there any evidence of contact between the two nations at that time?
  • Information about his journey is pretty sketchy, so I don't believe anything is recorded. Oakley77 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why did China refuse to recognize the Italian occupation of Ethiopia in the 1930s, and why did it support the Eritrean People's Liberation Front in the 1960s? I can guess, but these motivations are worth including in the article.

• I added a link for double taxation in the "Official contacts and treaties" section, but more detail is needed on what type of double taxation the agreement dealt with (personal income, corporate taxes, whatever). The link that supports the statement is dead.

• The article by Edward Cody, from 2007, is credited to the Seattle Times Company and present on its website, but Cody was working for the Washington Post, and the Times version of the article includes "material from the Associated Press". I'm not sure how these copied news articles are supposed to be cited on WP.

• A whole section about the Abole incident seems a bit disproportionate, though there's no other place for the incident in the article's current structure. I wonder if the incident is part of any larger issues in China–Ethiopia relations.

—A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Gangs of Wasseypur

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… i want to improve this article and see the various faults on the article that need to be improved. Thanks, Ayanosh (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Msrag:

Based on my experience on Kahaani, I'll start the Peer review as I've keen interest in the article and the film as well. Since the article is just a "Start-class", I cannot be detail in my review for time being and will be reviewing only at a major level. Minor details cannot be reviewed now and can be taken only when the article is submitted to GA. So here we go.

• Firstly try following a simple Wiki style structure. Look for films like Kahaani and Ra.One for extensive detailed structures and layout. Normally for this article, I would suggest to incorporate the below structure.

1. Lead

2. Plot

3. Cast

4. Production

4.1 Development

4.2 Casting

4.3 Characters

4.4 Filming

4.5 Themes

5. Soundtrack

5.1 Reception

6. Marketing-->Teaser launch-response, Theatrical Trailer launch-response

6.1 Promotions-->Promotional campaigns

7. Release

7.1 Special screenings--> Cannes film festival screenings

7.2 Controversy-->(if any)

7.3 Television and home media-->Not now but can be included later

8. Reception

8.1 Critical response-->India, International

8.2 Box office-->India, International

9 Visuals and motifs

9.1 Allusions, inspirations & Styles

10 Impact-->(if any)

11 Sequel and remakes-->(if any)

• Next, looks like the article needs at least months of copy-editing. You can start working on that.
• Cast section is too long. As said above, try splitting that into Casting and Characters
• Critical reception is too long. Give a reading yourself and try to remove reviews from unreliable or not so reliable sources. Place the highly notable and positive reviews first (eg., media houses, major newspapers etc), followed by response from other personalities and then finish by negative reviews. Arrange all the review in descending order of its ratings.

That's pretty much from me as of now. It should at least take a week or two to bring the article in the suggested shape. Will be back with more. Take care till then. ...Msrag ^talk2me 09:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot agree more ! And, noting your wonderful work on Kahaani, i request you to start your work here. And, i was also thinking of EXACTLY same structure. So please start your work. Bineet Ojha |BINEET| 15:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt

I just took a look at the article after Bineet pinged me, and I am not happy. Firstly, why are there two articles for Part 1 and Part 2? I'd suggest a speedy merge with this article. Second, sources are not of the best quality. Third, the prose is poor and very insufficient; a lot of research is needed, after which a thorough copy-edit is required. These are very broad aspects, which - upon completion - can allow a fine-tooth-comb analysis as well. This has the potential to be a GA, so I'd encourage you towards enlisting the help of editors to check through the article periodically, and to help you out in the research aspect. You could ping me again, or Msrag, or for that matter any editor actively involved in the Indian cinema task force. Good luck! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Gangs 1

As a new article Gangs Of Wasseypur Part 1 has been created;,I feel it would be better to PR that page.Ayanosh (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Who created that article ?! Very 'strong' rejection from my side. As the film was produced at the same time, the article should be same. And the details of release can be provided in the Release section in a new sub-section. Bineet Ojha |BINEET| 15:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, I am not getting one thing. This article is on both parts, right? That is unusual. Usually each part of a movie has separate articles. This articles states the release date, but the release date is actually that of part 1 ( I understand that the part 2 will be released later), right? So first decide what the article is about, both the parts, or just the first part?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Two different pages were created for the two movies Gangs of Wasseypur Part 1 and Gangs of Wasseypur Part 2 but they were merged back by someone.Now there seems to be different views on it which i have listed on the talk page of Gangs of Wasseypur I dont want to start an edit war so i have listed it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force.But so far there seems to be no consensus to have two or one article,which in turn is affecting the PR and the development of the page.I personally am in favour of two articles.Ayanosh (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Megitza

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to the best standard possible. My last peer review on an article recently was archived.

Thanks, ⇒TAP 21:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It was lucky to scrape GA. I can't see how it would ever pass FA. not enough resourceful reliable sources, You're picking the wrong sorts of articles to peer review and take to FAC. You're better off picking articles on subjects which are very notable with masses of sources,♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Happily I did not mention FA on this one. :) I just want to try and get my GAs to a higher standard than they currently are now. ⇒TAP 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is a good candidate for FA (especially because of point 1c in WP:FA?), since, as you wrote, it is well-researched. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 11:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• If you link "Polish", most articles I've seen would link that to Polish people.
• "she began appearing in" why not just "she appeared in"?
• "and promoting Polish" -> if you do the above, then "and where she promoted Polish..."
• "She was introduced to the traditional music of Gorals by her father, and began singing, dancing, and playing the traditional bass instrument in a children folk dance ensemble in her village, Bańska Wyżna." unreferenced.
• "but also experimenting with " experimented.
• " the highest score (126) at the Polish National IQ contest in Chicago" really? Ouch, but perhaps expand IQ before using it as an abbreviation.
• " She has been promoting the culture of..." is she still doing it? If so "She promotes..." if not "She promoted..."
• "a self-taught vocalist and a bass player" so she just taught herself to be a vocalist and not a bassist? Or is she self-taught in both disciplines?
• Odd format with the Singles table, a spare cell in the heading row.
• Discography section is entirely unreferenced.
• Spare row at the end of the Singles table.
• Don't use so many categories, e.g. "Women in music" is far less refined (but in the same thread) as "Polish female singers". Check the others.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done all. Thank you! ⇒TAP 18:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wish you all the best with the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Touro University California

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I had previously recommended the article for good article status (it understandably failed) and I have since expanded the page significantly and think that it can perhaps be upgraded to B class but I would like detailed information on how to further improve the page to good article status or better. I have been told something about the references but did not understand. Additionally, the article was once B class (undeservingly I think) so no idea what happened there.

Thanks, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Is it Touro University-California or Touro University California? Perhaps the article needs to be moved.
• Article of this length probably only needs two paras in the lead per WP:LEAD.
• Touro University is a dablink.
• "The Judaic values of commitment to social justice, intellectual pursuit, and service to humanity are expressed and encouraged, regardless of faith." no offence but this reads a little like it came from the brochure.
• If you abbreviate Touro University-California to TUCA (why the A?) then use the abbreviation to stop the prose becoming overwhelmed with name repetitions.
• What's GPA?
• I think there are, in general, tone issues here, without wishing to cause offence again, it does read a little like an advert.
• You have Touro University Gay-Straight Alliance as a "See also", why isn't it mentioned, at least in passing, in the main article?
• Avoid bare links in the references, these may be subject to linkrot.
• Be consistent with date formats in the refs.
• In ref titles, check for compliance with WP:DASH so avoid the use of spaced hyphens for instance, use an en-dash instead.
• In the infobox, "Non-Profit" can be just "non-profit".
• Also, where are all the elements in the infobox referenced?

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Looking at their website, I guess it should be Touro University California without the hyphen. I can make that correction. I can rearrange the lead, someone else decided to split it up into three paragraphs, it was two. No idea what to do about the disambiguation page. I didn't add the Judaic values part, that has been there since this article was written years ago. It is part of Touro University California's mission and I have seen many articles state the mission. I could always put that in a separate section saying that it is the mission if that would be an improvement. I didn't abbreviate Touro University California to TUCA (someone else did). I can use TUC or TUCA (I don't know why the A-again not me) to shorten the prose if need be, it didn't seem overwhelming to me at all. GPA is grade point average, I thought that was a common enough term that people would understand but I can clarify. I need you to clarify on how the article reads like an advertisement because I do not see it with the exception of what you mentioned before about the mission statement bit. Touro University Gay Straight Alliance has its own wikipedia article and someone else decided to put that under the see also. I have used the reflinks tool to clean up the references, people have been saying there are "bare links" in the references but I do not understand how these are bare links after running them through the reflinks tool. I need more detailed information on what is needed for them. Also don't know what you mean about date formats in the refs being consistent. I have not manually done anything to the refs, just reflinks tool. What is the difference between Non-profit and non-profit? I can cite the infobox stuff, again, not me. Also, no idea what you mean about the spaced dashes in the references, also something I did not do knowingly. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I fixed up the article to address some of your comments, the ones that were easily fixable and that did not require more explanation or that I don't know how to fix. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I also fixed the citations (I think) after asking another editor to explain what the problem was to me. None of them are bare links anymore as far as I can tell now that I have used the cite:web template for them. "Non-profit" has been changed to "non-profit" though I still don't see a difference for that part really. The infobox has citations/references now, I fixed the dashes in the references as well. I just need you to give me more specific feedback regarding how the article reads like an advertisement and whether I should separate the aforementioned line about Judaic values into a Mission statement section or what to do with it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well if you're trying to promote the article yourself, you need to know why it's TUCA, if not, get rid of it. The "someone else did it" thing is fine, and I really don't have much interest in that, if you want the article to get to GA/FA whatever, then you need to take ownership of it (obviously, not WP:OWN but you need to be responsible for its content). "Non-profit" is not a proper noun so where used not at the beginning of sentences or notes, it shouldn't be capitalised. As for advert-style, well the article seems to be trying hard to sell itself on its results. They may be notable, and you may need other people's advice on this, but just smashing me with great results "in recent years" just makes me feel bombarded with "sell, sell, sell" messages. You'd be better off asking someone else as this is just my opinion. If you wish to include the "mission statement", I would directly quote it and directly reference it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No idea why it's "TUCA" as the abbreviation. That has been there for as long as I can remember. The best explanation I can provide is that TUC may be potentially confusing as some people may misread that as an abbreviation for Touro College instead of Touro University California. Otherwise, I'm not sure. I've never heard of ownership of an article until now so that's fine but that was the best answer I had to some of your questions since I wasn't responsible for putting certain things there or lacked the knowledge regarding why they were (or were not) put there. I did have someone else look at the article recently prior to the peer review and they felt the article had a fair, unbiased tone. I'm willing to create a mission statement section regarding your earlier comments about the Judaic values bit. As for the great results, some of them are great but I feel they've been reported in a neutral way, there's no language saying these are fantastic results (some of them, while good results, were not the super highest ranked). I put in the article the information I have access to if I'm being honest. I will seek other editors' opinions on the advertisement aspect of the article but this is the first I'm hearing of it. In the meanwhile I'll work on the mission statement part to further better the article. How do the rest of the updates I made after your recommendations look? Better? Worse? Same? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if TUCA isn't a common abbreviation for it, it should go. If it is a common abbreviation, it should be easy to cite. Other updates, better. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I can get rid of TUCA. What do you recommend I use in place of TUCA for an abbreviation? You had said earlier that you felt overwhelmed or that the article may have a tendency to be overwhelming from saying Touro University California too often. I'm glad to hear the other updates are better. I'm assuming the citation style is fixed and in the correct format now, yes? Also, I just reread the section about the academic programs. Most of the information there is just a description of the matriculant profile of different programs there (an editors on GA review had said this would greatly benefit the article and was information the article really needed) and the pass rates for licensure exams seemed like information prospective and current students would certainly be interested in. If I can reword that part so it seems more neutral in some way I'm open to suggestions on that but I felt that reporting the current information from recent years would be the best way to do this. I also wanted to take a moment to say I'm very appreciative of your help. It has really helped improve the article's quality and it was difficult for me to get feedback for some time. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Upon further review, I'm stuck regarding the abbreviation. Their website has a tab saying TUC News but I see documents that aren't much older when I do a search saying TUCA so I'm afraid I am getting mixed results here. Guidance on this matter would be appreciated. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Miguel Ángel Mancera

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first time I wrote an article about a BLP, any kind of biography, and a non-musical article. I'd like to know what is missing and if there is information that may be removed. I think the article is a WP:GA material, so it may need a c/e (English is not my first language, so there may be gramatical, prose and syntax errors). Any kind of suggestions are welcomed, Thanks, Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• "lawyer and politician that works" --> "lawyer and politician who works"

• "Master": Is this a master's degree? Best to say so.

• "decreased up to 12%" --> "decreased by up to 12%"

• I think the first sentence should include the face that he is the mayor-elect of Mexico City. Also, "Mayor" needn't be capitalized.

• "where he studied the kindergarten" --> "where he went to kindergarten"

• "Secondary number 45" --> "Secondary School 45"?

• "he had a car accident, where another car crashed them and Mancera was the co-pilot.": Was he the passenger? Co-pilot isn't used to describe anyone in a car. Also it should be "another car crashed into his"

• "The public ministry asked Mancera to sign a document, which resulted to be a responsive letter that exempted liabilities for the driver of the car that caused the accident." I think should be: "The public ministry asked Mancera to sign a document that exempted the driver of the car that caused the accident from liability."

• "Mancera asked then-Attorney General of the Federal District, Victoria Adato Green, assisted by Diego Ramudia, to pursue the case, managing to sanction the responsible" i think should be "Mancera asked Victoria Adato Green, then-Attorney General of the Federal District, to pursue the case, assisted by Diego Ramudia, and managed to sanction the responsible driver." Also, who is Diego Ramudia?

• "after he revalidated four subjects": I'm not sure what "revalidated" means here.

• "per the auspices of" --> "under the auspices of"

• "adviser in several law firms" --> "adviser at several law firms"

• "and" needed before "Autonomous University of Baja California"

• "he began working in government after a Marcelo Ebrard invitation as his adviser, who was Mexico City Secretary of Public Security" --> "he began working in government after Marcelo Ebrard, who was Mexico City Secretary of Public Security, invited him to be his adviser"

• "As Andrés Manuel López Obrador" --> "After Andrés Manuel López Obrador"

• "News Divine Bar Incident": Can this be wikilinked?

• "in which a botched police raid nine teenagers and three police officers died" --> "in which nine teenagers and three police officers died in a a botched police raid"

• "decreased 12%" --> "decreased by 12%"

• ""the national crime level rose 10.4%" --> "the national crime rate rose 10.4%"

• "Average annual crime in Mexico City decreased 3.5% annually, on average, from 2007 to 2011": Remove "annually, on average,"

• "179 street gangs were disjoined, with a total of 706 gang members" --> "179 street gangs with 706 members were disbanded"

• "Jesús Rodríguez Almeida took place as Attorny General" --> "Jesús Rodríguez Almeida took his place as Attorny General"

• "Mancera registered him as a precandidate": remove "him" or say "himself"

• "Since then, Mancera's electoral preference increased from 36% in March to 41% in April, in an El Universal daily poll" --> "Electoral preference for Mancera then increased from 36% in March to 41% in April in an El Universal daily poll"

• "In May, Mancera preferences increased to 57.5%" --> "In May, Mancera's favorability increased to 57.5%"

• "in home of Luis Creel": I'm not sure what this means.

• "six million dollars" --> "$6 million"

• "both politicians disassociated the incident" --> "both politicians disassociated themselves from the incident"

• "increase of 13.000 to 20.000 safety cameras" --> "an increase of 13,000 to 20,000 safety cameras"

• "reduce car travel time" --> "a reduction of car travel time"

• "expansion of" --> "the expansion of"

• "review the issue" --> "a review of the issue"

• "the minibuses will be removed from the streets" --> "the removal of minibuses from the streets"

• "18 water purification plants" --> "the construction of 18 water purification plants"

• "replacement of the garbage trucks, to separate it into organic and inorganic wastes" --> "the replacement of garbage trucks to separate organic and inorganic waste"

• "with a percentage of 59.5–64.5%" --> "with a margin of 59.5–64.5%"

• "approximately 40% more votes than the second place, Paredes" --> "and had approximately 40% more votes than the second-place candidate, Paredes"

• "endorsing him with a constancy": I'm not sure what this means.

• "The first time he married a woman" --> "His first marriage was to a woman"

• "in civil union a year": "for a year"

• "and after six years, Mancera married Magnolia": No comma needed.

• "with whom have two children": Better: "with whom he had two children"

• "Mancera has a daughter out of wedlock, and according to him, the child's mother does not want Mancera to seen her" --> "Mancera has a daughter out of wedlock, but he has said the child's mother does not want Mancera to see her"

• "His bodyguard intervened shooting a robber" --> "His bodyguard intervened and shot one of the robbers"

• This is generally an all right article. There are some linguistic issues, but perhaps the most important thing is to put that he's the mayor-elect high up in the lead section.--Batard0 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • All done, excepting for "revalidate". In Spanish it has sense but I don't know how to say it in English. What I'm trying to say is that he had to took 4 new classes to validate his studies from the Faculty of Medicine to the Faculty of Law to make the change. Thank you so much for the review. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    

---

Juwan Howard

Previous peer review

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

The last FAC suggested a PR, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Juwan Howard/archive3.

---

That's Not My Penguin

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

Thanks, TBrandley 05:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: this review has been closed, per the WP:PR rule which limits editors to one open review at any time. Please observe this rule in future. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Oregon (Awake)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see the article at FA soon.

Thanks, TBrandley 05:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: this review has been closed, per the WP:PR rule which limits editors to one open review at any time. Please observe this rule in future. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Kate Is Enough

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in seeing the article at FA.

Thanks, TBrandley 05:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: this review has been closed, per the WP:PR rule which limits editors to one open review at any time. Please observe this rule in future. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Guilty (Awake)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in getting the article to FA.

Thanks, TBrandley 05:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: this review has been closed, per the WP:PR rule which limits editors to one open review at any time. Please observe this rule in future. Brianboulton (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Washington v. Texas

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would love to work with another interested editor in improving both the style and substance of this article for a prospective run at FA. It is a Good Article, but another pair of eyes would certainly be useful in bringing it to the next level.

Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments I'm not that familiar with the intricacies of the laws, but here are a few notes.

• I'm using United States v. Wong Kim Ark as a kind of launching point here.
• There are quite a few words and phrases that are appropriately used, but are not really in plain enough English for Wikipedia. Currently, the article reads like an official legal document (i.e. predicated, reiterated, etc.)
• There are lots of quotes here, and I think it might be appropriate to paraphrase a number of them to use a summary style in the article.
  • Single words especially should not be used as quotes except in some rare cases. If that's the word the opinion used, it's fine to use it here. Using the same lexicon as the law is not plagiarism by any means.
• I would strike the word "landmark", considering it doesn't carry any specific meaning in this context (unless there's a specific legal definition of the word I'm not aware of).
• The first sentence should state what it is (again, this might be my lack of legal skills, but the "decision" would part of the case, right?), the direct thing that the Court held or did not uphold, and then the aspect of the law it regarded.
  • In other words:

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows a defendant the right to have critical witnesses testify in his favor.

• Wikilink Due Process Clause and Fourteenth Amendment the first time.
• Regarding the last sentence in the lede, I'm pretty sure I follow what it means, but I'm not sure it's really as plain as it could be, especially for a lede section.
• I'd add a see also template for Compulsory Process Clause#History underneath "History of Compulsory Process Clause jurisprudence"
• Although the Fourteenth Amendment was passed through Congress in 1866, it was ratified on July 9, 1868, which makes the second sentence seem anachronistic to the first.
• Rather than "he turned away from that Fourteenth Amendment analysis", which seems vague, how about "rather than issuing an analysis based on the Fourteenth Amendment, the opinion reviewed the specific guarantees of the Sixth Amendment..."
• Strike "Indeed,".
• The sentence "This broad right was necessary to explain as ignoring the breadth of the issue would risk making the right to compel witnesses futile," is very breathy and isn't very clear.
• "'relevant' and 'material'" Are these quotes or just important words? Quotes need double marks, single marks shouldn't be used for emphasis.
• ""arbitrary" because of its discrimination between the prosecution and defense served "no rational relationship"" I think striking "of" here will make this sentence clearer.
• Justice Harlan's name needs to be listed in full (Justice John Marshall Harlan II) the first time, and Justice Harlan afterwards.
• The sentence beginning with "Thus," can be moved to the preceding paragraph.
• The lede section and this one are not necessarily contradictory, but they don't quite fit together. If its necessary to expand the lede section, that's fine, but since Harlan's decision was not really a dissent, the word "objection" is awkward in the lede.
• The article is well-referenced, but don't be afraid to use a few sources in layman's terms so that the average person can learn more if desired.

That's all for right now, but feel free to comment back. Runfellow (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for the review! I'll work through your suggestions in the next few days. Feel free to add more idea or areas for improvement. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've worked through your suggestions, so feel free to close the review. Thanks again for your help! Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    

---

List of Texas hurricanes (1980–present)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is almost getting to the status of either a good article or a Featured list, and I would like for suggestions to be made on how to make the article better and more refined before taking it to the next step. I've worked on all sections of the article at least a few times, but the focus sections in my opinion are likely to be 1987-1989, 2000-2004, and 2008-present. These are sections in my opinion that will need the most work, but please also provide comments for the rest of the article as well. Remember to provide constructive feedback.

Thanks, TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - my biggest qualm is that the most damaging storms don't have the longest sections. Ike, Dolly (which caused over $1B in damage), Rita, Allison, Alicia, and Allen should all be longer and have detailed statistics, such as number of houses damaged or destroyed, people without power, crops destroyed, etc. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into that and provide more detail to notable storms. --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 17:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - finished the key storms you listed, and now have a noticeably larger share of the article than before. Cheers, TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 02:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Lede

• Generally speaking, the first sentence of most articles and lists should explicitly define the subject (see List of Maryland hurricanes (1980–present) or List of North Carolina hurricanes (1980–1999). I'd recommend swapping the second paragraph in the introduction with the first, and then bold List of Texas hurricanes and if you want to, the year range.
• Avoid statements like "According to the research conducted by...", because the research can't make explicit statements, but the researcher can. Thus, beginning the sentence with "According to David Roth of the National Weather Service,..." is perfectly fine.
• One of your sources (here) defines how storms are rated the most "intense" (page 5), but I had no way of knowing that (learn something every day, I suppose.) If storms are rated by their intensity, you'll want to include how it is defined.
• Wikipedia's article for wind speed is two words, and that seems to be the common usage. "Windspeeds" doesn't seem right, but I could be wrong.
• Might want to wikilink "Category 4", especially since it's the first mention of the system in the article.

Timeline

• There could possibly be something maybe wrong with the name of the section entitled "1990-1984". Happens to the best of us, man.
• You wrote the first sentence of these timeline entries in present tense, which is fine, but for second sentence and beyond on many entries, it's an awkward transition each time you change from present to past tense. Some entries even begin with past tense. Whichever one you choose, be consistent. This is probably my major concern with the article as it is.
• The spelling out of numbers seems inconsistent. Generally, one through nine are spelled out, but others are not. For a scientific article like this one, there will probably be plenty of exceptions, but things like "twenty-three tornadoes" should almost certainly be "23 tornadoes".
• If cities are obviously located in Texas, or its been established that they're in the state (this will probably be the case most of the time in this article), including the ", Texas" in the wikilink seems redundant. Use a piped link, i.e. Tyler.
• You might want to use Template:Inflation for some of these cost figures, but that's up to you.
• You can remove a lot of phrases like "in total" and it won't change the meaning of the sentence.
• There are many instances of wikilinking to articles that have already been linked to (i.e. South Padre Island, Corpus Christi, South Padre Island, United States Dollar), so you might want to go through and check for any redundant wikilinks.
• There are a number of cool syntax things you can do with Template:Convert that might solve some of your problems here. For example:
  • Add adj=on to use the adjective form (50-mile stretch, 100 mile-per-hour winds, etc.)
  • To get "(1 inch (25 mm)-3 inches (76 mm)" you used {{convert|1|in|mm}}-{{convert|3|in|mm}}, but it's probably better to go with {{convert|1|to(-)|3|in|mm}}, which produces 1 to 3 inches (25–76 mm).
• Any particular reason you used a {{clear}} after four sections? I don't think anybody would mind if an image went into the next section a bit. I have a 24-inch (61 cm) (zing!) monitor and don't see any issues with letting them carry over.
• "in mid-June 1993" seems a bit redundant to me, since the date is at the beginning of the entry.
• "communities" seems awkward in this context, since it can mean a lot of things. Buildings, towns, and settlements are more specific terms than "communities".
• Louisiana/Texas border is probably better as Louisiana–Texas border, or even better, the border between Louisiana and Texas.

Positive notes

• Clearly you've done your research. There's a lot of information here. It's not always exciting, but at least it's clear.
• Along those same lines, there's no jargon or junk writing here. Just the facts, ma'am always works for me.
• I don't doubt that you can get this to Featured List status with a little work, but the main thing here is a consistent style. Get every section on the same page and you'll be in business.

Runfellow (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - After some work with your comments, I have fixed what you've identified. I did a lot of work with your tense issue, but I think I may have left some past tense words in their, or my fixes from past to present may have left grammatical errors. I'll check back for that, but if you see any as well feel free to notify me here or on my talk page. --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 13:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There may be one or two tense issues left to iron out, but from the spot-check I did, it sounds much smoother. I'll leave any further comments for the article's talk page. Thanks for the brisket, clearly we Texans know each other well. Runfellow (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just one question relating to WP:MOSNUM... does 1 inch (25 mm) turn into one inch (25 mm)? --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 15:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't address the issue specifically, but according to MOS:CONVERSIONS, "Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value, so the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, not (236,121 mi). However, small numbers may need to be converted to a greater level of precision where rounding would cause a significant distortion, so one mile (1.6 km), not one mile (2 km)." So even in the "proper" example they used, it is still "one" rather than "1". However, according to WP:ORDINAL:

• "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures."
• "Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer"
• "Do not use spelled-out numbers before symbols for units of measurement: write five minutes, 5 minutes, or 5 min, but not five min."

Of course, it also says that science-related articles should always use SI units primarily, but I'm not going to worry about that, especially considering the two other featured articles don't do that either.

So that doesn't quite answer your question, I suppose. Basically, what I would do is come up with your own set of standards for the page (I would lean more towards using the numeral rather than spelling out), post them on the article's talk page, and use them consistently throughout the article. Runfellow (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not finding a place where a measurement breaks the current page standard (numeral, unit). Is there any place that you're finding an inconsistency specifically? --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 01:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think you should have a Dynamic list warning somewhere in there, or have "at least" instead of "approximately" in the first sentence, to reflect the inherent uncertainty.
• "while November is the least active month with two total storms" - first, the numbering is inconsistent with earlier in the sentence, and surely December through May are less active.
• You should mention Ike's damage/deaths in the lede.
• Everywhere in the article needs better unit consistency. If the second unit is abbreviated, the first should be too. For example, it should be "75 mph (120 km/h)", same with ft (m) and in (mm).
• "A peak of 20.20 inches (513 mm) of rain fell in Kingsville, and heavy rainfall is reported across South Texas." - the clauses should be switched. You should first indicate the heavy rainfall, followed by the peak.
• How many tornadoes with Allen?
• "one causes $250 million (1980 USD)" - the tornado caused the lottery?
• You should indicate somewhere, via a note, that all damage totals are in their original year's USD (see here).
• Is there any estimate for statewide damaged/destroyed houses for Allen?
• "Rainfall peaks at 18.29 inches (465 mm) in Nederland, and other areas are inundated." - that implies Nederland was also flooded. Is that the case?
• How did Danielle cause its deaths?
• "Five died in the town of Shiner due to the flood" - you never mentioned flood before that point for that system.
• "Heavy rain in downtown Hallettsville causes floods reaching a depth of 5 feet (1.5 m). " - is the rain overweight? Also, I think a comma is missing.
• "Hurricane Norma produced up to 21 inches (530 mm) of rain near Dallas-Fort Worth which kills five after making landfall on the Pacific coast of Mexico" - what was the total? It just says "up to 21", but that could be anything from 0 to 21. Also, were the five deaths in Texas?
• "Multiple tornadoes touched" - watch for tense consistency. The entire article should either be present or past tense.
• "Damages from the remnant of Hurricane Norma totals up to 50 million (1983 USD)" - missing dollar sign? Or was that intentional?
• "Tropical Storm Chris makes landfall near Sabine Pass. The storm causes wind damage to Port Arthur. There are no fatalities" - really bland writing. Try combining the three sentences. Perhaps you don't even need the last one, as you don't always mention when there are no fatalities.
• "Hurricane Alicia makes landfall near Galveston as a category 3 hurricane causing $2.6 billion (1983 USD) in damage and 21 fatalities, along with an estimated 5,805 residential structures either heavily damaged or destroyed." - that could probably be split up, considering how significant the storm was. I recommend stopping the sentence after "cat. 3 hurricane".
• "Rainfall totals of at least 7 inches (178 mm) are reported in Southeast Texas with a maximum of 9.5 inches (241 mm) of rain in Liberty." - why even include the "at least 7 inches"?
• Alicia still seems pretty bland. Any power outages? Any notable buildings damaged? All of the meteorological stats just make the section seem like every other storm. The storm produced hurricane force winds in Houston, one of the largest cities in the country! Anything about oil refineries?
• "The storm had an effect on the tourism industry as 4,000 people evacuated South Padre Island" - tense issues aside, most storms do have an affect on tourism, so perhaps mention the 4,000 evacuations in the previous sentence where you mention minimal damage (and nix the no deaths part).
• "The remnants of Hurricane Tico from the Eastern Pacific cause rainfall over much of Texas with the heaviest amounts in North Texas where rainfall amounts of at least 7 inches (178 mm) are reported" - try rewriting, and get the exact rainfall total (and for other storms) from here.
• page 20 - the remnants of Edouard contributed to heavy ranifall in Texas.

That's it for now, up to the end of 1984. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Well, at least for ▲that▲ part. Working on ▼that▼ part eventually. --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 15:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Anything for Juan? 10 inches of rain is a lot. Check the storm data, there might be more.

 Done - Added some stuff.

• "Bonnie kills three people in Texas and heavy rainfall causes street flooding. Texas receives 13 inches (330 mm) of rain and many areas picking up at least 10 inches (254 mm). Bonnie also causes four tornadoes in Texas" - poor writing. Just say the peak rainfall, deaths, and the four tornadoes in one sentence.

 Done - Well, I made it into two sentences, but should be better now.

• "An unnamed tropical depression" - aren't all TD's unnamed?

 Done - correct.

• You don't have to say when there is no damage, as with Newton.

 Done - removed all other instances of no damage as well, except in some few special cases.

• Damage from Paine? Check storm data. Ditto Roslyn.

 Done - Did Roslyn... is there any specific "storm data" you're looking at? I haven't found any Paine-related damage.

Found the Storm Data, doesn't look like there was any Paine-related damage.

• "Tropical Storm Beryl produces heavy rainfall over East Texas with some areas receiving 11.8 inches (299.7 mm) and causing some localized flash flooding" - you shouldn't use the "with... [gerund]" construction. "With" is not a conjunction.

 Done - Made it two sentences.

• More stuff needed for Gilbert. I'm beginning to wonder whether you used storm data at all. You should also mention its winds (Category 4), since you do so in the lede.

 Done - Added stuff.

• "Late-June 1989 – Tropical Storm Allison makes landfall in late June 1989 causing 11 deaths throughout the area" - you say late June 1989 twice, and you don't say what are you're talking about. Allison could also use more damage stats.

 Done - Done with just the first part... will work on expansion later.

Finished with the expansion, added a tidbit.

• "Hurricane Jerry affected the Galveston " - watch for tense consistency. Also, the three sentences in Jerry's section all start with "Jerry". Try switching it up.

 Done

• "left small rainfall in Northern Texas" - try rewriting. I know it gets redundant with so many EPAC storms producing rainfall, but find a way to change it up without it being poorly-written.

 Done - made it to "causes rainfall"

• Check if Diana 90 affected Texas.

 Done - Checked, and Diana did not.

• "The remnants of Hurricane Lester which originated from the East Pacific cause rainfall in North Texas" - extra comma is needed.

 Done - Well, I put two commas.

• For Arlene, was there $55 million worth of beach erosion? That's what it sounds like.

 Done - Fixed

• "Tropical Storm Dean makes landfall early on July 31, 1995 " - you don't need the date since you already listed it.

 Done - Fixed

• "but the storm causes no injuries or deaths" - again, no need to say when things don't happen. Also, do you need to mention the 20 evacuated families? That's really minimal, and you don't go into that little detail for other storms.

 Done - Removed the stuff

• Josephine 96 affected Texas. So did Dolly, IIRC.

 Done - Added them... check if they're all right.

• "Serious inland flooding occurs in and around Val Verde Country and 13 people are killed" -poor sentence construction.

 Done - Fixed

• Frances needs more info, given $500 million is pretty high.

 Done - Added more stuff

• "In 1999, Hurricane Bret" - you don't need to say the year.

 Done - Fixed

• TD 7 99 tense consistency.

 Done - Fixed

• >"Tropical Depression Nine makes landfall near Sabine Pass, with maximum sustained winds of 30 mph (48 km/h)." - unit rounding (and is that even needed? you rarely mention other TD's landfall intensity)

 Done - rounded the unit, left the intensity there in the meantime, may rm later.

• Allison 01 tense consistency, "causes nearly constant flash flooding in the area" (what is that?), you should mention peak rainfall in that first sentence when you say "extreme amounts", dollar signs, and "Tropical Storm Allison causes 23 deaths in Texas alone." (why not just say "in the state"?)

 Done - Fixed

• Fix Fay 02 damage total, and add some more from the storm.

 Done - Fixed, will expand later.

• Grace 03 needs a source for the damage total.

Waiting for that NCDC at the moment.

• Were rains from Marty 03 that heavy?

 Done - Just made it so that it caused rainfall

• Move the 2004 storms into 2000-2004

 Done - Fixed

• Rainfall was more than 1 inch from Javier. Again, use that HPC report to get rainfall totals for every storm listed.

 Done - Javier is not listed.

• "No severe impact from Ivan is reported in Texas." - either source it or get rid of it.

 Done - Got rid of it.

• "Tamaulipas state, Mexico" - you never say the "state" bit earlier in the article.

 Done - Removed state as Tamulipas is fine on its own.

• "bringing much-needed rainfall to parts of southern Texas which had been hit hard by drought conditions" - try rewriting, maybe "producing rainfall to drought-affected areas of southern Texas"

 Done - Changed to your suggestion.

• "In preparation of its landfall, a mass evacuation of portions of the Texas coast turned out to be the largest evacuation in United States history, with over 3 million evacuating inland" - try rewriting a bit so the emphasis is on the 3 million. It's a little clunky

 Done - Revised it... tell me if its better.

• "a million energy customers " - try "1 million"

 Done - Fixed

• "Rita causes as much as 10 inches (250 mm) of rain in East Texas" - again, get a total.

 Done - Got it

• How many deaths in Texas from Rita?

 Done - 59

• "11 deaths in Texas are attributed to the tropical storm" - don't start a sentence with a number... and any damage from Erin?

 Done - Changed sentence, will fetch the damage total later as the NCDC site reporting it is down.

• Edouard and Gustav 08 tense

 Done - Fixed

• Surely more info from Gustav

 Done - Well, actually, there isn't much about Gustav in Texas... For the most part is was actually just more on beach erosion, which I added.

• Find Ike damage total, and any estimates for number of houses damaged/destroyed? Power outages?

 Done - Fixed Ike damage total, didn't find estimates for houses damaged, and already included number of energy customers losing power.

• Did Lee or Arlene 11 affect Texas?

 Done - And yes they did, added them. Check to see if they're all right.

• The death table at the bottom needs to have that data included in each storm's section. Otherwise it's unsourced.

 Done - Added all the stuff and revised some.

That's it for now. Lemme know when you're done with all of this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Partially done... finished most of the minor errors, will get to expansion later. Not sure what you mean by "storm data"... are you looking at a specific data sheet or something? Also looking for other editions of that "STORM DATA" .pdf that you posted in the first part, I can't find any of them. TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 16:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind about the storm data, JasonRees gave me the link. (Thanks JR!) --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 18:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Done with all the comments you pointed out! Thanks for all the input. I'll analyze storm data for each storm as well.--TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 18:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Further Comments
You've clearly done a lot of work here in the last few days, and the list is clearly improved. I thought I'd go over it one more time to see if anything else stood out.

Some tense issues

• Tropical Depression Eight. I think since this covered a few days, it got awkward to write for you. You may want to list it under a date range rather than a specific day.
• The first sentence of the Hurricane Norma section.
• Hurricane Bret, "As it approached landfall" to "approaches".
• "Five tornadoes were caused by Fay, one of which injured three people" to "Fay causes five tornadoes, one of which injures three people."

Compass points

According to the MOS on compass points, you can capitalize compass points if the regain has attained the status of a proper noun (i.e. North Texas), but but names like "Western Texas" and "Northern Texas" should either be "West Texas" or "western Texas" and "North Texas" or "northern texas". You'll want to go through the directional points and make sure you're talking about the correct area and using the correct terms. Some (but not all) examples include:

• Since the proper noun North Texas generally extends from northeast Texas to Abilene, which wouldn't include Quanah, North Texas should be "northern Texas".
• The same goes for Hurricane Raymond, "northern Texas".
• High Island is in Southeast Texas, so capitalizing the region is fine.
• It should be "middle Texas", since that region is not a proper noun (that I know of).

Possible subject-verb agreement issues

• For Hurricane Norma, "damages" and "totals".
• For Tropical Depression Eight, "paid losses" should be "total" since losses are plural.
• For Hurricane Rosilyn, "remnants" produce, not "produces"
• "damages from Bret totals to $15 million to "damages from Bret total $15 million,"
• "Rainfalls associated with the remnants of Marty affects" to either "Rainfall associated with the remnants of Mary affects" or "Rainfalls associated with Marty affect"
• For Emily, "Rainfall peaked at 5.20 in" to "Rainfall peaks at 5.2 in" Same for Javier

Other

• I'm not sure, but uses of "totals to" doesn't seem right.
• "Galveston lost power" to "Galveston loses power".
• "causes tides up to 5 feet (1.5 m) above normal" to "causes tides to rise up to 5 feet (1.5 m) above normal"?
• "29 tornadoes" would be "Twenty-nine tornadoes in this case, because the number begins the sentence.
• "$400 million (1989)" to "$400 million" since you included the note at the top.
• "Just four days after Hurricane Javier" to "Four days after Hurricane Javier"
• Would it be necessary for you to change the article's class to "List-class", or would that be something someone else should do?

Bear with me; I know I'm being picky, but I'm certain that when you nominate it for FL, someone will point these out anyway, and it's better now then later. Great job so far. Runfellow (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Finished fixing all of the comments you provided. On your last comment, regarding whether it should be a list-class article, WikiProject Tropical Cyclones does not use list-class, since it doesn't really tell what the quality of the article really is. Instead list articles go through the same assessments as any other article, with the exception of featured list. TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 22:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

---

First Motion Picture Unit

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am going to eventualy nominate it for FA or FL. I'd like any general advice you have to offer, and specific advice on the following:

1. Would this make a better FA or FL candidate?
2. Should the filmography be split out into its own list?
3. Many of the film entries are redlinks, and may never have articles due to lack of coverage. What do you think about adding a film summary in the Notes column? It may be too small--perhaps add a second dedicated row like you see with episode lists? Skip the summary?
4. Should I make the video thumbs smaller?

Finally I know the sources need work--date, publisher, etc.--so you can dispense with formatting comments on sources. Thanks, – Lionel ^(talk) 23:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Wouldn't look entirely out of place at FLC but there's a heap of prose so it could be FAC too. So that's not very helpful is it?!
• I don't think the filmography should be split off, you'd end up repeating a lot of the main prose in a standalone list, I think it makes a good comprehensive article as is.
• Summaries are good if you can add them.
• Video thumb sizes are fine for me, they're not forced beyond the normal thumb size and I think that's best.
• 6 dab links, Distinguished Flying Cross, Craig Stevens, Frank Thomas, Robert Morgan, Paramount and Arthur Kennedy.

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Check the actors link to the pages you'd expect, e.g. by Vince Evans, you probably don't mean a footballer born 11 years after he appeared in this film.

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's not written in any MOS that I've ever found, but I would expect to see references in numerical order.
• "1,110 men[2]" all men?

• According to this source. Moreover, I don't recall any of the sources mentioning that women served in the unit.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• "and The Last Bomb–all of which " not keen on the style of that unspaced en-dash in this sentence.
• Note, for most if not all modern FACs, there's usually no requirement to provide any refs in the lead because anything there should be expanded upon (and referenced) in the main body of the article.
• How did you select the "selected" Warner Bros. films?

• I added every film I could reliably attribute to FMPU.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• No need for notes column to be sortable.

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Participants, if you wish the col to be sortable, ought to sort by surname.
• Not keen at all on a category in the see also links. At least pipelink it so it doesn't display across a cross-wikispace link.

•  Done – Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Avoid double hyphens in the prose, stick with spaced en-dashes for instance.

• Think I gotr all of them. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick Comment I think this should eventually be two articles - one on the unit itself (potential FA) and one as a filmography (potential FL). If you want an example of a fairly listy FA, see Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park, but I see this as more like an article on a famous director or actor/actress, and then a filmography (list) of that person's films. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Further Comments

First of all, this is a pretty interesting subject, so thanks for spending time on it. Some thoughts and suggestions:

Answering your questions

1. As written, this is definitely an article more than it is a list. I'd keep it that way.
2. Answered below, but the bottom line is that it's basically your choice.
3. I like the notes in the right column, but only to describe the purpose of the film or important details related to the unit, so what you're doing already is fine. Avoid plot details.
4. The size of the video thumbnails seems fine.

Sections

Lede

• I would remove the comma after World War II and strike the phrase "was unique in that it was". I don't think you have to explicitly say it was unique, especially if it was the first of its kind.
• As someone who has a keen interest in film, "created" isn't quite as specific as "produced". I would use the latter.
• You could add some kind of description for "400 films", such as "400 narrative, training, and informational short features and feature-length films".
• Were the films released theatrically in the United States, or internationally? If released elsewhere, any idea on whether the international response was as positive as the domestic?
• I'd strike "famous" before "actors". They're definitely famous, but there's no reason to reiterate that fact.
• Instead of "The unit not only produced training films, but trained combat cameramen." maybe "The unit also produced training films and trained combat cameramen."
• Isn't serving with "distinction" a specific military designation? I'm not very sure, and I think it would be a good idea to wikilink it to the appropriate definition if one exists.
• The final sentence feels a little out of place. Is the documentary where the unit got its name?

Background

• "December 1941" is fine, no "of".
• "Army" needs to be "United States Army" or the more general "army".
• No comma needed in "March 1942"
• Winning Your Wings should be wikilinked the first time, not the second.
• To change the passive sentence to active and eliminate some personal description, I'd change "Winning Your Wings was directed by Owen Crump, and featured James Stewart as a dashing pilot." to "Owen Crump directed Winning Your Wings, which starred James Stewart as a pilot."
• I'd remove (1) and (2) from dual purpose of the unit.
• "Burbank, CA" to "Burbank, California"
• Be sure to remain consistent with putting "the" in front of "FMPU".

Life at Fort Ranch

• I'm very iffy on the "well[-]known film professionals of the day" claim. Clark Gable was definitely at the top of the charts, but William Holden didn't hit the big time until Sunset Boulevard in 1950. The statement is also American-centric, as there were quite a few well-known actors elsewhere (American cinema was not nearly as dominant of the marketplace then as it is today.)
• Was Bare really that established by the time he joined the unit? I have no problem with his inclusion in the article and he was clearly qualified, but it seems as though he had done mostly short promotional films at the time. The same goes for Sturges, as it doesn't appear he directed his first mainstream film until 1946.
• "Cavalry Reserve" and "Captain" in the Reagan sentence don't need to be capitalized, unless referring to "Captain Ronald Reagan", nor does "Personnel Officer" or "Adjutant". See WP:JOBTITLES.
• Regarding the distraction comment, I was a little puzzled, so I looked at your source. It seems as though it was distracting for trainees in training videos. That might need some clarification, as my assumption was that it was distracting general audiences.
• The phrase "ever made it overseas" implies that being sent abroad (presumably for combat) is "making it", thus I would change it to "were ever sent outside the country" or "were sent into combat", whichever is more accurate.
• "but it wasn’t the basic-basic" is a good quote (I smirked) but it's a little vague. Maybe you can find a way to keep the quote but clarify the statement to make it clear they were not conventionally trained.
• I could be wrong, because I'm not familiar with military usage, but "barracks" would normally be plural, and would not have "a" before it.
• I'll admit I didn't know what "billited" meant. You might want to wikilink that to Billet.
• "feature length" to "feature-length"
• "The film was very popular" How popular was it? With whom was it popular? Aviators, or their officers? Maybe even the general public? Was it the popularity that led to the production of more films, or was it the film's effectiveness in dealing with the flying errors?
• "considered to be the "best educational film" produced during the war." By whom?
• Strike "In fact".
• Strike "The production was of the highest quality and in recognition" so the sentence begins with "The feature-length..." I would add that it was nominated for best feature-length documentary in 1944.
• Strike "utilization".
• Perhaps wikilink "gunners" to Air gunner to clarify?
• "pitfalls to avoid" can be just "pitfalls". There's no such thing as a pitfall you don't want to avoid.
• Strike "to use".
• "The Animation department" doesn't need to be capitalized.

Bombing of Japan

• Since the unit did not actually bomb Japan themselves, I don't know if the heading title is appropriate. Perhaps "Reconnaissance for bombing of Japan"?
• Maybe wikilink Gregory Orr?
• Technically, the information would not be "used by B-29 Superfortresses" but rather by their crews.
• "The United States in 1944 was readying its forces..." should be "In 1944, the United States readied its forces..."
• Using the Template:convert with "eighty foot by sixty foot scale model (1 foot = 1 mile)" might make it easier to manage. "80-by-60-foot (24 m × 18 m) (1 foot:1 mile)"
• Names of newspapers, like the New York Sun, are italicized.

Bomb damage in Europe

• I'd change the title to something like "European bomb damage survey"
• The first sentence could probably read "After the end of World War II in Europe, General Arnold ordered Crump..."
• I'd remove "infamous". The fact that they're concentration camps makes them infamous by default.

Combat cameraman training

• I have a pretty good feeling that this needs to be a subsection of "Life at Fort Roach" above. It relates directly to training, and doesn't fit in with the chronological narrative you had established up to that point.
• "from 20 to 30 men" Perhaps "Between 20 and 30 enlisted men"?
• "was due to Fort Roach alumni." to "was filmed by Fort Roach alumni."
• "Alumni of the program were "highly praised and much decorated."" needs to have a source for the quotes.
• Strike "sprang into action and".
• "It was at this time that he" to "He then"
• The syntax in the sentence about Keitel is a bit awkward. Maybe try "Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, field marshal of Germany's armed forces, noted the decisive role played by film production units: [blockquote]"

Films

• Since this section is a filmography of sorts, I'd recommend changing its name to "Filmography" to be more specific.
• I have no problem with video in articles, but the amount of videos here seems stacked and crowded.
• I'd probably just include a couple of videos: for Winning Your Wings, which can be embedded next to that section, and for one of the animated videos, to include next to your paragraph of the subject of animation.
• The videos are approximately 20 minutes each, which doesn't seem to fit in with the style of an article. If you have the time and know-how, I'd even recommend creating a two or three minute montage of some of the most illustrative scenes from these videos. Such a montage would be appropriate for this section.

Source help

You already know this, but you'll need more sources eventually. I've thrown in a few here and linked to their respective pages on Google Books that discuss the FMPU:

• Bare's Confessions of a Hollywood Director
• Duty, Honor, Applause: America's Entertainers in World War II
• The November 1943 issue of Popular Photography
• The Japan/America Film Wars: World War II Propaganda and Its Cultural Contexts
• Governor Reagan: His Rise To Power

Some positive stuff

These reviews can feel like a bear sometimes, like your hard work isn't appreciated, so I wanted to point out some of the good stuff as well:

• There's a lot of really interesting information here, and you do a fine job of illustrating the importance of the unit's accomplishments.
• With the exception of the "Combat cameraman training" section mentioned above, this has a very clear, linear structure that's easy to follow.
• Separating the filmography was probably a good decision, primarily because people often feel the need to create lengthy inline lists for no other reason than to throw in every name and title they can find for the sake of "completeness". Whether you want to create a separate list is up to you; I'm not very familiar with that process.
• With the exception of a few missing commas, the vast majority of the prose is clear and easy to read. This is a fun read, so keep working at it to refine it.

Runfellow (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Pavle Đurišić

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because User:PRODUCER and I have put it through a pretty extensive process of improvement through GA and to A-Class in WP:MILHIST over the last few months, and believe it has potential to be a featured article candidate. In particular, the World War II section would benefit from scrutiny from fresh eyes to make sure it flows well and doesn't miss anything that begs a question. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Given the length of the article, I would suggest a two-paragraph lead Done
• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods Done
• File:Pavle_Durisic.jpg: the "unique historic image" tag requires that the image itself, rather than the subject pictured, is the subject of significant commentary Refactored to more appropriate tag with non-free use in....
• What is "lower secondary school"? Middle school or junior high school I believe is the American equivalent
• When did his father die? What happened to his mother? A specific date isn't given. Mother's fate isn't mentioned.
• What happened to his body - was it buried somewhere, cremated, or is this unknown? Unknown - Done
• Did anything happen between 1945 and 2002? I have been unable to find any sourced material regarding him in that period Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've asked User:PRODUCER (who collaborated on this article) to look into the other comments, and have sought further advice on the image. I'll update this as we address the comments. Thanks again. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

all done now, thanks very much! I'm going to close it off and head for FAC. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Trait du Nord

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Back to the horse breed articles :) This is a collaboration that I have been working on with User:Tsaag Valren, who has taken the article to FA on the French WP. The multiple editors working in foreign languages (me with French and Tsaag with English) has resulted in the finding of more prose niggles than usual on subsequent read-throughs. Due to this, I'd (even more than usual) like to get some additional eyes on this before I take it to FAC. As always, a look-through for jargon and readability would also be appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments great read, lovely breed. (did a review, lost all the comments, thanks Internet Explorer)

• Link studbook in the lead.
• You link mining (reasonably common term) but not the specific varient of driving in the lead, I would link both.
• "The breed is considered to be endangered" does it have any official (e.g. IUCN) status?

• Comment This is a breed, not a species, so I don't think there is an IUCN status. However, there are breed conservancy groups as well as French govt info. Dana, does the FAO keep a worldwide list of endangered breeds? --MTBW

• Not that I know of, Montana, and they're pretty liberal with what they consider a "breed". The French government is the one that has declared it endangered, so I've added in this information. Dana boomer (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Surprised there's no article for "French National Stud".

• We are missing dozens of European state stud articles. There are a few on German ones. Definitely a need --MTBW

• Creating this is on my to-do list, due to the many French breed articles that I'm working on... Dana boomer (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• "large horse of Hainaut" is this what the source says or is there also a French/Flemish initial wording?

• The original wording is "gros trait du Hainaut" which directly translates to "large horse of Hainaut", so I think we're safe here. Dana boomer (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• "The studbook was under the responsibility of the combined studbook group Studbook of Northern Workhorses" bit "studbooky".
• "continued to be introduced to the line" sorry, forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand this.
• "16.1 hands (65 inches, 165 cm) " hand, imperial, metric, but " 850 to 1,000 kilograms (1,900 to 2,200 lb) for stallions" metric, imperial... I know this is picky but I'd prefer consistent ordering.
• "with a stylized "N" brand on " would branding be a better link here?
• "among the those confiscated by Germans " odd "the" and for what purpose why they confiscated?
• "consumption of the Trait du Nord by butchers " this makes it sound like just the butchers consumed the meat!
• Not sure you need to link Sicily and Guadeloupe.
• "The French National Stud backed this degree" wrong National Stud linked...
• Uses section reads a bit muddled for me, starts with "mining" and the beginning of the 20th century, then takes us to the 1950s, then back to the Industrial revolution.

• I've done a bit of reorganizing within individual paragraphs, but left the general structure alone. The current organization of the section, with a general introduction, then a paragraph on farming and one on mining, works well, I think, rather than having farming and mining mixed in together just to get an exact chronological narrative. If you disagree, though, I'm open to other opinions. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• To supplement Dana's comment, WPEQ Horse breeds task force has a standardized format, with both a History and a Uses section. Sometimes it's a fine line as to what goes where, but while history gets written like, well, history, the philosophy beneath the uses section focuses on the horseman's gold standard of "form to function": What can this breed do, especially what do they do particularly well? So the "resume" if you will, is a functional one, not a chronological one. --MTBW

• "generally four to eight to a" -> would "generally between four and eight to a..." be ok?
• Some readers like the use of the format parameter for representing PDFs.
• Ref 12 could use an accessdate for consistency.
• I see whitespace between the two templates at the bottom of the page.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

TRM, thank you very much for the comments, and I apologize for the time I've taken in replying to them (I should have known better than to think I would get anything done on WP over 4th of July week!). I've begun work on the above, and should have the rest of it cleaned up by later today. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed everything above. I only put individual replies in spots where I had questions or comments - the rest I addressed without comment. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all, I've been away too. My comments are pretty amateurish, I know, but girlfriend has nice grey Irish called Flynn so I pretend to be an expert in all thing equestrian these days...!! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hee Hee! Rambling Man, you can pretend with US, but with your gal, the real trick to relationship success is to be her student, not already an expert! You are doing great! Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

---

United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I plan to nominate for FA, and would be grateful for feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: In the main a gripping tale of power politics with a whiff of chicanery. Some of the technical or procedural issues may need clarifying for the benefit of those unfamiliar with US electoral practices past and present;; I have mentioned a few such points in my review.

Lead

• The last phrase raises a couple of issues: " McKisson failed of re-election in 1899." It may be a question of AmEng idiom, though I have never encountered "failed of" in a considerable amount of American prose reading, and it does not sound right. People fail things (examinations, job interviews, to get elected, to get laid – I know of that which I speak) but they do not fail "of" these things. Also, clarify that McKisson's failure was to be re-elected as mayor, which I assume is the case.

Background

• "...on the second Tuesday after the organization of the legislature..." What does "organization" mean in this context?

To elect a speaker or president, and other officers.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• The term "Senator-elect" implies that Foraker had been selected by the legislature; can this be made more specific?
• I'm not fond of the practice of placing key words in parentheses, in this case "(accurate)". Better to integrate the term into the main prose flow, e.g. "did not believe the rumors, later proved accurate,..."
• "Hanna was commissioned by Governor Bushnell..." The term "appointed" rather than "commissioned" has been used previously.
• I'm a little confused as to timings and the reasons for such long delays in the process. Why was Foraker a senator-elect for 13 months, and why, following his appointment on 5 March 1897, did Hanna have to wait nearly a year before he could be elected by the legislature? Dis the legislature have the year 1897 off? A few more exolanations may be necessary for the uninitiated.

At that time, the Ohio legislature was elected every two years. As the term Foraker was elected for began on March 4, 1897, that meant that the legislature which would be in office on that date would get to fill the seat. The 1895 elections went Republican, which meant that Calvin Brice was not re-elected, and the Republican-dominated legislature chose Foraker soon after it convened in January 1896. Ohio switched in even numbered years in 1905, btw, so when Foraker lost re-election after his second term (expiring in 1909), that legislature met in January 1909. According to Bybee, there were legislatures that had four-year terms, and sometimes someone would be a senator-elect for three years! As for the legislature, it met only briefly in the second year of the term, so had adjourned before Hanna was appointed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

1897 state legislative campaign

• The first sentence refers to Hanna's "re-election", but he hadn't at that point been elected, only appointed.
• "Democrats hoped that by defeating Hanna..." But, as I understand it, Hanna wasn't a candidate in the elections for the state legislature. I presume the Democrats were hoping to secure a majority in the legislature so that they could then defeat Hanna, but this is not really clear in the first paragraph.

Contest in Columbus

• "They also tried to negotiate for a Democrat to be elected at least for the short term expiring in 1899". I think it needs to be made explicit, before now, that Hanna's election would only be valid for a year (the balance of Sherman's term) and that he would have to be separately elected for a full term. (I hope I am understanding this correctly).
• "The legislature voted twice, once for the remainder of Sherman's term, once for the new term. There was no requirement the same person be elected for both.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Re the two Cincinnati Silver Republicans who changed sides and supported Hanna. You say taht "by one rumor, each had separately been offered the Senate seat in exchange for switching sides". I can't make any sense of that. How could they be offered the Senate seat in return for supporting Hanna's candidature for the seat?

The main idea was to defeat Hanna, who was the successful candidate was less important to the insurgents. Anyone But Hanna.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "McKisson ran for a third term as mayor in 1899. He was successful after a bitter battle in the Republican primary, but failed of re-election,..." I would reword this slightly. Saying that McKisson ran for a third term followed immediately by "He was successful..." gives the impression that he was re-elected. I'd say: " Although he won the Republican primary after a bitter battle, he failed..." etc
• Dubious "as well" in third paragraph
• "The amount to which money or patronage..." I'd change "amount" to "extent"

Nothing else: fine work. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, very grateful. I will work through these today.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken care of those now, and tried to clarify in the article even where I commented above. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Periodic table

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been told that it is getting close to FA, and I would like to know what improvements could be made.

Thanks, StringTheory¹¹ 18:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comments: File:Atomic number to radius graph.png is hard to read without clocking. Try to change it to lines instead of separate spots. Also, when did the CAS labeling scheme fall into disuse? Nergaal (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The new IUPAC nomenclature was proposed in 1988. The CAS labelling scheme must have fallen into disuse sometime after that. Double sharp (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Second point is  Done, but for the first point, I don't have an image editing software on my computer (the closest thing I have is Autodesk Maya), and I know next to nothing about that sort of stuff. Is anyone else willing to make the image? StringTheory¹¹ 00:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
      • You can use Microsoft Excel to create a line graph with the data already in the picture or that at atomic radii of the elements (data page) (use the "empirical" set). Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
        •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 00:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I had a look through this article and found it to be quite a demanding read, compared to descriptive chemistry. Might partly explain the lack of feedback. Anyway, here are some comments about the lead. I've expressed them as questions and inconsistencies that came to mind as I was going, rather than as suggested changes:

• 'The periodic table is a tabular display of the chemical elements, organized on the basis of their properties.' Which properties?
  •  Done, I think. I hope this is what you meant. StringTheory¹¹ 17:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• 'The main body of the table is a 18 × 7 grid, with gaps included to keep elements with similar properties together, such as the halogens and the noble gases.' How do the gaps keep the halogens together?
  •  Done, that sentence was even somewhat factually inaccurate; the gaps are there to keep elements with the same number of valence electrons together. Thanks! StringTheory¹¹ 17:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• 'The periodic table accurately predicts the properties of various elements and the relations between properties.' As I understand it, accurately is an exaggeration; nor does the periodic table predict all the properties and relations between them.
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 17:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• 'Mendeleev's presentation also predicted some properties of then-unknown elements expected to fill gaps in his arrangement; these predictions were proved correct when those elements were discovered and found to have properties close to the predictions.' Yes, this is so. However, if memory serves, and not to underscore his brilliance, some of his predictions were also found to be incorrect. Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 17:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments a vast article so some spot checks, some focus on the lead, and some other technical issues.

• Link "atomic number" the first time.
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Image captions should have a full stop if they are complete sentences or more than one sentence.
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• What's a "valence electron"?
  •  Done, now linked StringTheory¹¹ 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Per WP:IMAGES, "Lead images should usually be no wider than "300px""...
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• What do you mean in the lead by "isolated"?
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Don't repeatedly link the same article, such as Chemical Society.
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Contents" is an odd section heading.
  •  Done, hopefully this is better. StringTheory¹¹ 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• You know, per WP:ACCESS that colours alone should not be used to denote a specific property.
  • Mousing over one of the cells in the table gives the same info already. StringTheory¹¹ 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Non-English refs should have a language parameter.
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• See also is a bit overkill, Photovoltaic effect for instance, isn't directly relevant to the periodic table.
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think that the Dirac discussion is a bit unclear. I think you can have neutral atoms above 137 or 173, but these atoms don't have electrons in the 1s shell; instead the 1s electrons occupy the next subshell in the with quantum number 6, 7 or 8. Am I correct? Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • According to unsepttrium, a positron would be spontaneously emitted if the 1s orbital were not filled, which would quickly annihilate with an electron, forming an ion. This is referenced, so I have added the fact and the reference to the article. StringTheory¹¹ 00:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• I also think there needs to be a small section on popular culture. The periodic table is ubiquitous in science highschool labs, and I am sure there can be a small section on that. Nergaal (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't get me started on how many times I tried to add a popular culture section to alkali metal (all those parties throwing alkali metals into water), and how many times it was deleted. :-( IMHO, both alkali metal and periodic table deserve a popular culture section. Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Sounds to me that ADOMAH is an acronym. Can you find out what is it supposed to mean? Nergaal (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 00:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• For the origin of word ADOMAH, see V. Tsimmerman. "Perfect Periodic Table". Retrieved 6 July 2012. (at the bottom of the home page). Drova (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Already  Done StringTheory¹¹ 00:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

RJH comments The citations will need plenty of TLC before you successfully take it through FAC. Believe me, they will check every little detail. Here are some examples of concerns I noticed:

• "From elements to atoms: a history of chemical composition": is the bold-faced 92 meant to be a page number?
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• The citation for "Recommendations: 31st meeting, PAC for Nuclear Physics" is pretty sparse. Can more detail be added?
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• These name lists are inconsistent with the format in the other citations:
  • "C. Samanta, P. Roy Chowdhury and D.N. Basu"
    •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Valery Tsimmerman"
    •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "G. Elert"
    •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• These citations are missing the title of the paper:
  • "Bjorken, J. D.; Drell, S. D. (1964)."
    •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Greiner, W.; Schramm, S. (2008)"
    •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can an ISBN be found for the following?
  • "Eisberg, R.; Resnick, R. (1985)"
    •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Mazurs, E.G. (1974)" -- also needs a page number
    •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Periodic Law can be understood in terms of the Tetrahedral Sphere Packing!": publisher?
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Charles Janet: unrecognized genius of the periodic system": a doi link?
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• For citations such as "Gray, p. 6", I'd recommend using {{sfn}}.
• "A Short History of Nearly Everything": this cite lists a location; other book publications do not. That inconsistency will get dinged during FAC.
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Life of the Chemical Society"": double quote.
  •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Painless Learning Placemats: Periodic Table of the Elements": author? ISBN?
  • This fact is really hard to get a good ref for, as it is mostly common knowledge, so it isn't referenced in that many places. I hope the new ref works, although I have to admit it is a stretch.... StringTheory¹¹ 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Understood. Note that I wasn't suggesting that the citation should be replaced; just that it seemed like there should be additional details about the reference in the citation. Regards, RJH(talk) 20:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The footnotes need to be made highly consistent and reasonably thorough, so it's worth going through the list a couple of times to make sure.

• I won't be surprised to see the topic of WP:JARGON arise during the FAC because this article uses a lot of technical terms without explaining them. In some cases I'm not certain that just linking the terms will be sufficient.
• In the lead it says, "These gaps form four distinct rectangular...". No "gaps" were previously mentioned, leaving a gaping hole in the description, as it were.

• •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 02:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• The first use of "quantum shell" needs to be linked because many readers won't have a clue what this means. Ditto with "electron sub-shells" and "electron shell".

• •  Done StringTheory¹¹ 02:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with your FAC. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Huon Peninsula campaign

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded it considerably last week and I am considering taking it to GAN soon. As such, I would like some feedback on its current standard, and any suggestions about possible improvements that I should make before going to GAN. Also, I'd appreciate a few extra sets of eyes to pick up any typos etc. that I might have missed. Thanks, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. I've brightened up the colours on the Dec 1943 map a bit, BTW, as they looked "flat". Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am only going to make some broad comments. Great job! I wanted to write up Lae and Finschhafen myself, but had not yet got around to it.

1. The picture is really bothering me. That's what the War memorial says, but the article is correct; only the 1st Tank Battalion was in the area. The 2/6th Armoured Regiment arrived at Madang in August 1944. Aaaargh.
2. US ships assigned to Rear Admiral Daniel Barbey's naval task force The VII Amphibious Force.
3. Once the landing beach had been prepared by a heavy naval bombardment Ten minutes from five destroyers.
4. Late in the day, a force of over 70 Japanese aircraft attacked Allied shipping, but were turned back by US fighters which inflicted heavy losses. I'm sure that's what the communiqué said, but I think a bit more should be said about the action in which 57 men were killed and LST 471 and 473 had to be towed back to Brisbane for repairs. (You might also mention the loss at LCI 339 at Red Beach.)
5. How about a section on the air campaign?
6. How about a section on logistics?
7. The Australian Army had been the only ground force engaging in combat with the Japanese in the region prior to the completion of the Huon Peninsula campaign as none of the US forces under MacArthur's command were undertaking combat at the time. Of course, the article itself belies this. You need to phrase it better.

Very impressive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I've made a number of changes to deal with the above points. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think? In regards to the sections on logistics and air operations, yes I will see what I can do. As it's not something I'm familiar with, though, it will take a while. I'd hoped to just cover that in the main narrative, but you are right, a separate section is probably the way to go. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The changes are fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Military history of Asian Americans

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am seeking to make edits in order to prepare this article for good article assessment. A new, or multiple, sets of editor may see edits that are required, including (but not limited to) expansions and contractors of sections of the article, in order to meet the criteria as set forth by GA.

Thank you in advance for your efforts, RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC):Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Military history of Asian Americans/archive1.

---

Albertus Soegijapranata

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to try and bring it to FA soon and was wondering what, if anything, is wrong with the article.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've been slowly doing a copyedit of the article for the past few days, might want to check my changes. One comment is that the lead looks a bit too long. Also, some of the sentences are a bit wordy, look for ways to possibly tighten them. I can post more peer review comments later, I guess. The article has been a pleasure to read, quite interesting. No Facepalm-level errors encountered yet :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• On sourcing: looks good for the post part. I'm not sure about citing primary sources for sentences about streets named after him, not a big deal, but might be raised at FAC. As far as possible sources, have you looked at This book? It seems like it probably has some coverage of him in it. There's also a chapter on him here, p. 125 looks like Subnar's 2001 thesis, so there's a good chance that it overlaps with his later works. probably worth a glance though. This just has a brief mention, but it raises an interesting point: that protestants were much better off than Catholics, might be interesting to note that in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, I missed those. You're right, that 2001 book is Subanar's dissertation (the 2005 book is a translation of it). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• I trimmed about 300 characters of prose from the lede. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• And added about 1000 characters of prose from the two sources above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Commments: Ok, starting the peer review. My apologies in advance if my comments are unclear/scattered.
• Is it customary to have coordinates for a deceased person?

• The grave. Template:Infobox person has "resting_place_coordinates", which this infobox lacks. Can't show a current FA with it off the top of my head.

• I think leads are supposed to be 4 paragraphs max, I'd condense the last two paragraphs.

• How's this?

• "On 2 November 1955 he and several other bishops issued a decree denouncing communism, Marxism, and materialism" Should probably link materialism to make it clear which one is being referred to, Economic materialism or philosophical Materialism.

• Linked

• "Soegijapranata Catholic University in Semarang is named after Soegijapranata." Any way around the repetition of his name here?

• Done

• His grave looks very beautiful, can you add anything more about it?
• Repeat link tool is showing Pope Paul VI and Malang (if they're linked several sections back, don't worry).

• Paul VI is linked under his birth name in #Apostolic vicar and under his papal name at #Archbishop of Semarang and death (fair distance, methinks). Malang is linked in #Apostolic vicar and #Legacy

• "although even as a bishop he retained a bit of Javanese mysticism." Do you discuss this later in the article? If not, you might want to do so.

• None of the sources deal with it.

• "While still young, his father made him fast in accordance with Islamic law." While who was still young, him or his father?

• Done

• "When he complained to his teacher, Father L. van Rijckevorsel, that the Dutch priests were like the Dutch merchants in that they only thought of money, the priest replied that they were unpaid and only hoped for the students' good." This feels a little wordy to me, is there a good way to rephrase?

• Done

• " the latter told him that mankind was not meant to understand God with mankind's limited knowledge." repetition of mankind here.

• Done.

• "Although his nuclear family accepted this, and may have eventually supported him" this is very interesting to me, since they previously seemed very opposed to it. Is there any explanation for their change in the sources?

• Added eventually. I guess it was a fait accompli moment

• "during this period one of the teachers taught the Fourth Commandment" might want to note what the commandment is.

• Done.

• "On another occasion, a visit by a Capuchin missionary – who was physically quite different than the Jesuit teachers – led Soegija to consider becoming a priest, an idea which his parents accepted." What's the significance of the parenthetical comment here?

• Subanar suggests that the Capuchin's beard and darker skin, juxtaposed against the paleness of the Jesuits, made Soegija realise that he could become a priest.

• The above is a few points that occurred to me when reading it earlier, and focused comments on the first two sections. I'll try not to make you wait too long, but I am a slow reviewer sometimes :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Soegija and his classmates sailed to Uden, in the Netherlands, to further their studies in 1919, departing from Tanjung Priok in Batavia." Is the "departing from..." part necessary?

• Not really

• "After joining the Jesuits Soegija spent another year in Mariëndaal in juniorate. Beginning in 1923 he studied philosophy at Berchmann College in Oudenbosch.[22] During this time he examined the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Soegija began writing on Christianity." There are some short sentences here, maybe try to combine some?

• Done

• "and further writings were published in St. Claverbond, Berichten uit Java." further writings "of his"?

• Done.

• "Swaratama, which circulated mainly among Xaverius alumni" Might want to explain that at the magazine's first mention.

• Done.

• " He also travelled during his studies" I'd consider removing this, kinda trivial. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Was meant as an introduction to the next sentence, but I see your point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Starting up again, sorry for the delay. A few more comments, mainly focused on wording that might be raised by FAC reviewers.
• "Soegijapranata opposed marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics,[43] and began counselling young Catholic couples before marriage; he believed that these unions helped unite the Catholic families in the city." You mention two types of unions before the semicolon, so I think the "these unions" might be ambiguous.

• Done.

• "On 1 August 1940 Willekens received a telegram from Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini ordering that Soegijapranata be put in charge of the newly established apostolic vicariate." & "From the older priest Soegijapranata learned how to better address the needs of his parish, while van Driessche likely used Soegijapranata to preach to the city's growing native Catholic population" Suggest rephrasing these, i.e. "On 1 August 1940 Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini sent" & "The older (or is it elder?) priest taught"

• 1st one: Not done: he could have sent / written it another day
• 2nd one: Done

• "Soegijapranata left for Semarang on 30 September 1940 and was consecrated by Willekens on 6 October at the Holy Rosary Church in Randusari, which later became his seat.[48][50] The ceremony was attended by numerous political figures and sultans, from Batavia, Semarang, Yogyakarta, and Surakarta, as well as clergy from Malang and Lampung;[48] this consecration made Soegijapranata the first native Indonesian bishop." I suggest combining the second part of the second sentence with the first sentence.

• Agree. Done.

• "There were also several Catholic groups, mostly working in education." Were these lay groups?

• The source doesn't explicitly state it, but there was the Catholic-backed Kanisius Foundation (mostly lay, although there may have been a few clergy; Sindhunata, who wrote the book I analysed for my undergraduate degree, is ordained and works there) and there were numerous ordained ministers serving as teachers.

• "After the Japanese occupied the Indies in early 1942, against which the colonial military could do little to resist, on 9 March 1942 Governor-General Tjarda van Starkenborgh Stachouwer and head of the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army General Hein ter Poorten capitulated. " Is the portion inside the commas needed?

• Not particularly, unless you want to know why Stachouwer gave up so easily.

• "Despite this, the Catholic Church remained among the most independent religious institution in the country." This reads somewhat awkwardly to me.

• Can't think of a way to reword it, hidden

• "Soegijapranata was unable to prevent Japanese torture of prisoners of war, including the clergy,[j][69] but was himself well-treated by the Japanese forces; he was often invited to Japanese ceremonies, but never attended, sending bouquets in his stead.[70] He used this position of respect to ensure fair treatment of those interred." The mention of torture in the first sentence seems to contradict the claim that he ensured fair treatment in the second. Maybe, "He used this position of respect to lobby for fair treatment of those interred"

• Right, right, done.

• "He successfully petitioned the Japanese overlords to allow nuns to work at hospitals and to not participate in the paramilitary draft." I'd suggest "He successfully petitioned the Japanese overlords to exempt nuns from the paramilitary draft and to allow them to work at hospitals."

• Done

• "Soegijapranata kept in contact with the prisoners, supplying them with news and other information" I'd end the sentence after news or be more specific about the other information.

• How's this? Reread it, appears he received news too.

• Not sure if the date of Father Hardjawasita's ordination is really relevant.

• That he was still green is probably worth mentioning, as it shows how desperate Soegijapranata was

• " In May 1942 he became the first non-Caucasian person to consecrate a European bishop." This is very interesting, can you say more about it? Also, it doesn't really flow with the surrounding sentences. Maybe give it its own paragraph. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd love to find more about it. I'll have to open Google, because non of the Indonesian biographies mention it.

• Nothing else to verify this, hidden — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• "proclamation of Indonesian independence in August 1945,[78] the Japanese began withdrawing from the newly proclaimed Indonesia." Repetition of "proclamation... proclaimed"

• Done.

• "he did not formally recognise the nation's independence." Do we know why not?

• Done.

• "Meanwhile, inter-religious strife led to the burning of several mission buildings and the murder of some clergymen." Which religion(s) was doing the burning and murdering?

• Done.

• "In Semarang, this led to a conflict between Japanese forces and Indonesian rebels, beginning on 15 October; the Indonesians aimed to confiscate the Japanese weapons." I'd suggest "that began" for clarity.

• Done

• " despite Indonesian forces' firing at the Gurkha soldiers posted out front." Out front of what?

• Of the church at Gedangan

• "The city's government was, however, still unable to cope," Is there a more specific way to say this than "unable to cope"?

• How's this?

• "However, in early 1947 he moved to Yogyakarta, allowing easy communication with the political leadership." Who is "he" here and in the next sentence? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Done.

• Thanks for looking! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Watch for repetition of "also began" (and possible overuse of "also" in general).

• Got rid of eight or so.

• Might want to briefly note the nature of "Pancasila" here.

• How's this?

• This almost starts to read like a list of accomplishments in parts. I guess that's hard to avoid, but try to keep an eye on neutrality.

• Anywhere particularly egregious? I'm limited by the sources, of course.

• "wrote that the Indonesian people continued to suffer and blamed the Netherlands' Catholic National Party for souring relations between the two countries" What's the relevance of the Indonesian's suffering here? Was that contributed to by the Dutch in West Papua?

• How's this?

• Also, who is John Galt Mr. Kasimo?

• He's noted above as being a leader in the Catholic Party

• "When this happened, Soegijapranata was in Europe to attend the Second Vatican Council, beginning with its plenary sessions, as part of the Central Preparatory Commission;" Is the bit about it beginning with Plenary sessions needed here?

• Not especially

• "He then returned to Indonesia, but his health quickly declined; his strength had been weakening since the late 1950s." I'm trying to think of a tighter way to say "his strength had been weakening since the late 1950s" nothing's coming to me though

• "He then returned to Indonesia, but his health, poor since the late 1950s, quickly declined."?

• Where is the Elisabeth Candi Hospital?

• Done

• "written by Catholic author Ayu Utami in two weeks" Is the two weeks bit too much detail here?

• Not especially

• "The writer Anhar Gonggong described Soegijapranata as not just a bishop," Is he a Catholic writer or a historian?

• Historian (went to the same university I will go to, apparently)

• " Van Klinken writes that Soegijapranata eventually became like a priyayi, or Javanese nobleman, within the church, as "committed to hierarchy and the status quo as to the God who created them",[120] and that by coming to the nascent republic Soegijapranata had been willing to see "the coming Javanese paradise" at a great personal risk" This sentence is a bit long, I'd try to break it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Done

• I think that's it, thanks for looking this over. Hope Chinese Indonesians hurries up :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Arsène Wenger

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take this to FAC in the coming weeks. Since its last peer review, it has passed a GA nomination and many areas have been restructured and/or expanded. I would really appreciate if someone can have a thorough look at it from top to bottom, or through speed reading suggest if the article needs much copyediting. Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Per request on my talk page. I'm not into sports at all, so I can't give you much more than a few general comments

• Lists and statistics are generally near the bottom of the article. You may want to consider refactoring a bit
• Is there any reason the links in "further reading" are not used as sources? This would be asked at FAC.

They are profiles, written at a time when he was making the news. I don't think they need to be cited, then again I would be happy to remove them if required.

• I'd suggest trying to avoid one-paragraph sections like "Nancy-Lorraine: 1984–1987"

Merged with Monaco career

• "Shōsha no Spirit (勝者のエスプリ Shōsha no Esupuri?, lit. The Spirit of Conquest in English and L'esprit conquérant in French" - Do you really need the French title?

Removed French title

• File:Arsène Wenger 2008.jpg needs categories
• File:In Arsene We Trust.jpg looks fine
• File:Arsene Wenger.jpg looks fine
• File:Arsène Wenger statue.jpg should have {{FoP-UK}} as well
• File:Arsene-Wenger.jpg looks okay, although the license states that it requires attribution in the thumbnail (may be a hurdle)

• Sorry I can't do more, but I wouldn't have the topical knowledge to get very far. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

BigDom comments: I have a few queries about his playing career.

• Firstly, where did you get the stats for Mulhouse and Vauban Strasbourg from, because they're not referenced? Mulhouse were in Division 2 in those days so they're probably available somewhere but I find it hard to believe that the apps/goals for the French DH and DHR (these are both regional leagues, not administered by the FFF) would have been recorded in the 1970s when you can't even find them for that level now. And it seems dubious that a sweeper would have a 1-in-4 scoring record.

Have addressed this now, in his career table and infobox and cited where appropriate.

• In fact the body of the article doesn't even mention either Mulhouse or Vauban as far as I can see and I think it definitely should.

Added content and cited.

• Does AS Mutzig really count as a youth team if he was 20 when he joined? The club played in Division 3 back then which is a senior level. BigDom 16:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Placed it in senior level. Thank you for your comments. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

After copyediting the "Early life and playing career" section (hope you don't mind) I have a couple more questions:

• Regarding the compensation, how can there be 130,000 families in a village of less than 3,000 people? Should it say Alsace rather than Duttlenheim? Also, what does this have to do with Arsène Wenger; did he benefit from this money (if he even personally received any of it)?

Removed it, given that it has not much bearing in his life.

• Wenger didn't really follow Hild to Vauban in 1975; Hild had already been appointed as the manager there the previous year, so this probably needs rewording.

Reworded

• "In 1978, Wenger turned professional" - According to the book The Professor (page 11), he remained an amateur during his time at Strasbourg so he could continue at university. In any case, players don't turn professional by being selected for their first match, professionality simply describes what kind of contract the player has.

Rephrased to playing in the top-flight for the first time. Feel free to tinker with the intro's "...began his professional playing career" bit.

I have to go out now, but I'll try and look through the rest of the article later. BigDom 10:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "Duttlenheim were paid DM 250 million" would link the currency you are using
• "...once in the UEFA Cup" Link UEFA Cup
• "...than in the previous campaign"
• "Striker Mark Hateley joined from Milan..." would link Milan
• You have Milan and A.C. Milan in different paragraphs be consistent
• Any chance you could expand the Grampus eight, its a bit lacking in comparison to the other section

Conisdering he was only there for the best part of a season and a half, it's very hard to find any new information.

• "By then Wenger had become a close friend of David Dein..." no mention of a date before so starting the section of with this sentence is confusing
• "...bought in" should be brought in
• Quite a few instances of refs not coming after punctuation would try and address this, as I think this may be picked up on at FAC
• Would also link double to Double (association football) so our friends across the pond understand what is being referred to
• "The team remarkably scored..." remarkably is a bit sensationalist would remove it
• "...scoreless final" -> goalless final
• "Arsenal finished third in the league in 2009-10..." dash should be an en dash
• " Arsenal sold star talents Cesc Fàbregas and Samir Nasri." would remove star bit POV perhaps key? or something similar?
• Quite a few instances of items that could be linked for example Bolton and Birmingham in philosophies section, generally if it has not been linked beforehand then I would link it
• "The sale also funded the club its new training centre at London Colney," typo in this sentence
• "...in February 2011, Arsenal announced a £46.1m profit, largely due to the departures of Fábregas, Nasri and Clichy." if i'm not mistaken these three players were sold after february 2011 and as the referencing article was published in feb 2012 I think you've made a typo here
• "has consigned with Wenger forecasting..." consigned should be coincided
• Fergie and Mourinho can be linked in relations with others section
• make sure refs use en dashes instead of hyphens I see one instant at the moment with ref 223

NapHit (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Have addressed all points, unless stated. Thank you for the comments. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Any idea what Wenger's full name is?

Have searched high and low and still can't find it.

Yeah, I'd stop looking if I was you. Because of French privacy regulations only birth records more than 100 years old are available (unless you're a direct descendant of the person) and I don't know where else you'd find that kind of information. Hardly any French players on Wiki have their full names in the article. BigDom 12:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Height needs citing.
• I think it would make sense for footnote [a] to be located beside "Various" in the playing position parameter, in addition to it being in the lead.
• Since his Mutzig and ASPV Strasbourg stats are unknown the apps/goals parameters should be left blank or have question marks, rather than displaying zeros.
• I don't think the OBE part in the opening sentence needs citing since it's referenced later in the article. Same goes for ref 2, since the sentence's contents are cited later on.
• The sentence beginning "The nickname Le Professeur" should either be removed or moved/duplicated in the main body of the article as content should not be exclusively in the lead.
• "he has recently faced criticism" - I'm not sure about the use of recently, as it'll become out of date as time passes.
• There's quite a few uncited sentences, such as those beginning "He only made twelve appearances for the team", "At the end of the 1984–85 season" and "Wenger won the league in his debut season at Monaco". If this is to pass FAC I think just about every sentence will need citing.
• Some missing wikilinks - reserve needs linking to reserve team, substitute needs linking to substitute (association football) and Chelsea needs linking to Chelsea F.C. Also, Robin van Persie, Kolo Touré, José Mourinho and Gérard Houllier need linking.
• "It was there he hired as his assistant, former Valenciennes manager Boro Primorac" - maybe reword to "It was there he hired former Valenciennes manager Boro Primorac as his assistant"?
• "where his former protégé Dragan Stojković" -> "when his former protégé Dragan Stojković".
• "winning 13 and drawing five" - before this you've written numbers 10 or larger in words, but here you've used digits. For consistency I'd stick to one style to apply throughout the article.
• "becoming the first manager since Keith Burkinshaw to retain the trophy" - maybe you could say when this was, to add some historical context?
• "an accomplishment last achieved by Preston North End 115 years ago" - might be worth mentioning it was the Football League then, not the Premier League.
• There are a few mentions of appearances in finals without any wikilinks to the relevant articles; e.g. sentences starting "Consolation again came in the FA Cup in 2005", "The club however reached their first Champions League" and "The club reached the League Cup final in February 2007".
• "In the summer of 2006, Arsenal relocated to the Emirates Stadium, which Wenger said was "vital to our future"" - does he explain why?
• "defeat to Birmingham City in the 2011 Football League Cup Final following a mix-up in the Arsenal defence" - could be expanded so as to make it clear that this mix-up is referring to the decisive goal.
• "they made exits in FA Cup and Champions League" -> "they made exits in the FA Cup and the Champions League".
• Cesc Fàbregas doesn't need linking twice.
• I'm not quite sure what "Birmingham City had kicked his team" means?
• sportsman -> sportsmen.
• "France national football team" - perhaps pipe to "France national team"?
• "Training sessions, "timed scientifically" lasted no more than 45 minutes" -> "Training sessions, "timed scientifically", lasted no more than 45 minutes"?
• "largely due to the departures of Fábregas, Nasri and Clichy" - we need Clichy's first name and with a wikilink.
• Some cases of WP:OVERLINK, e.g. Real Madrid in "He has criticised the long term approach of other clubs, namely Chelsea, Manchester City and Real Madrid", Manchester City in "'Wenger Day' was held on his 56th birthday on 22 October 2005, in a league match against Manchester City" and Patrick Vieira in "most notably from Alex Ferguson, Pep Guardiola, Patrick Vieira and Brian Clough".
• "Jermaine Pennant, Matthew Upson" -> "Jermaine Pennant and Matthew Upson".
• "and Jack Wilshere, are still building" - this comma seems superfluous.
• "Arsenal fielded a 16-man squad that featured no British players—the first time in the club's history" -> "Arsenal fielded a 16-man squad that featured no British players for the first time in the club's history".
• Which is right, "The Football Association" or "the Football Association"? There's some inconsistency here.
• "In an joint-interview" -> "In a joint-interview".
• "when decisions do not go in his team's way" -> "when decisions have not gone his team's way".
• £2500 -> £2,500.
• "OBE's" doesn't need an apostrophe.
• The Soccerbase ref for the "Manager" table only covers his Arsenal stats, meaning his Nancy-Lorraine, Monaco and Nagoya Grampus Eight stats need citing.
• Some work needed on refs. Newspapers ought to use the location parameter when the location is not part of the paper's title. There also seems to be an overuse of the work parameter; for instance, I don't see why Sky Sports and Arsenal.com need this, when publisher would be sufficient.

An interesting read with good quality prose, with some fine-tuning I'm sure it'll have every chance of success at FAC. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Believe I have addressed all the comments now, thanks for the feedback. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

---

2011–12 Real Madrid C.F. season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it listed as a B-Class article and it would be good to get a critique. It would also be good to have some good example of how to write a club season article.

1. Is the article well-written (ie grammer, punctuation etc)?
2. How comprehensive is the article and is there anything missing?
3. Is the article well-researched and well-sourced?
4. Is the lead section good?
5. Is the structure appopriate?
6. What else do you think the article needs?

Thanks, Kingjeff (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Part 1

Lede

• Since the season is now technically over, should the first sentence now say "was" instead of "is"?
• Since you already wikilinked to La Liga, the second link seems redundant until you find out that it goes to the specific season. I would find a way to put the season year in the context so it's apparent to readers that it's two different links.
• Since the first part of the sentence states that the team set a number of records, the separate clauses don't need to include "record" as well.
• "last season" should read "the previous season" since this will probably be around for a while.
• Regarding the clause "the most prominent being maximum goals in a season, previously held by the Real Madrid team which scored 107 goals during the 1989–90 season":
  • "maximum" implies that they hit a limit of some kind.
  • "previously held by the Real Madrid team which scored 107 goals during the 1989–90 season" is a little awkward.
  • The next sentence, which mentions the season in present tense, can be merged with this one.
  • Thus, it might be clearer as "the most notable of which was the record for goals in a season with 121, breaking the record of 107 held by the 1989–1990 Real Madrid team."

Season overview

Preseason

• "commenced" to "began" Simple English whenever possible.
• Unless the fact is in doubt, you don't have to say "reported to be worth". Just "worth" will do fine, so long as it's from a reliable source.
• Might want to add "Club" before "President Florentino Pérez" (which would then mean "president" wouldn't be capitalized) to clarify.
• Maybe wikilink "friendlies" to Exhibition game to clarify?
• "atop the table" is linked to the 2011 World Football Challenge, which you already linked to earlier.
• The sentence beginning with "José Mourinho's five-game touchline ban" is a little awkward. I'd switch the second sentence in that paragraph with the first.

August

• "at home" meaning their home stadium? Since it hasn't been mentioned before then, might want to wikilink it here.
• My knowledge of football isn't very good, admittedly, but I had to look up what "against the run of play" meant.
• "Corner sequence" might best be termed a corner kick.
• May want to change the wikilink for "Offside trap" to use the anchor for that term.
• Maybe wikilink "assist"
• "from a year ago" to "a year earlier".

September

• "with a man down" implies someone was injured. Might want to clarify.
• Wikilink "backpass" to Back-pass rule?

October

• The syntax of the second sentence is a little unclear because the game comes at the end. Perhaps "In a 4–1 victory over Real Betis," should start it.
• "recent goalscoring form" seems odd.
• wikilink "clean sheet"

I'll get to the rest of the article later today. Runfellow (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Part 2 (General Notes)

Since I'm running a little short on time, I'm just going to stick to general notes here.

• It would appear as though you're not one of the major editors of the article (at least under that username,) so read anything that says "you" as "an editor".
• As of this writing, this is the 45th largest article on the English Wikipedia. Technically, the amount of readable prose does not mean that it should be divided according to WP:SIZERULE, but there's a reason it's massive, and I'll get to that in a bit.
• There is a lot of specific information about games, and almost every goal (or so it seems) is described in detail. This creates large, hard-to-read chunks of text. Use summary style, rather than a goal-by-goal description of everything that happens in the game. The overall significance of the games are more important than the exact situation in which each goal was scored.
• As a result of above, the references section has some major issues, and it looks like it has been cut off. The page is simply too large, and that's what happens when there's a reference for almost every few words on a large article. This means probably cutting the sources by at least a third, probably a half. If something is controversial, use multiple sources if needed, but this:

Benzema scored twenty-one seconds after kickoff,[203] the fastest goal in El Clásico history,[204] following a Víctor Valdés giveaway,[205] but an Alexis Sánchez strike, a deflected goal by Xavi,[206] and a Fàbregas header condemned Real Madrid to a 3–1 defeat.[207]

has got to go, especially considering the final source here, the BBC article here, has all of that information in the first four paragraphs. If this were something that could be debated, I could see having multiple verifiable sources, but millions watched the game, so it's not as if these details are in doubt. To fix this, it's going to take a lot of work:

• • Eliminate play-by-play information, summarize the importance rather than explain the goals.
  • Where only one reference will do for a sentence, eliminate the others. Just because a source exists for it doesn't mean it needs to be included. Many sentences are referenced so heavily that the prose is very difficult to read.
  • Many of the references themselves could use some added information other than the URL, the title, and the publisher.
• The WikiProject Football Club seasons Manual of Style suggests an award section, which would probably be appropriate here, but I would work on cutting stuff down first.
• Since the first statistics table is sortable and includes goals, the Goals subsection seems redundant.
• A "see also" section generally only has links that haven't been used in the article already. The four league links here have already been used multiple times in the article, so you can probably delete this section.
• In the "External links" section, the first line reads "Template:Official website Template:Ar icon Template:En icon Template:Ja icon Template:Es icon" and the last reads "Template:Real Madrid C.F. Template:Real Madrid C.F. seasons Template:2011–12 in Spanish football Template:Use dmy dates" so there's some kind of template issue there.

Your questions answered

1. Is the article well-written? There are a number of minor issues that could be solved by getting a copyedit (I'm sure they're looking forward to that one), but generally speaking, the article does not suffer from many of the faults that sports articles tend to include.
2. How comprehensive is the article and is there anything missing? Since the lede is about records, awards, etc., there could be a summary (not simply a list) of that information somewhere in the article. Otherwise it is too large overall (see above).
3. Is the article well-researched and well-sourced? There are a number of reference issues I mentioned above, but I suppose its better to start off with too many and cut down rather than the other way around. There are a number of sources that are in Spanish. While that's fine from time to time, given that the team is in Spain, there should be enough English sources for such a famous group that using foreign language sources should be held to a minimum.
4. Is the lead section good? It's fair, but see my notes above.
5. Is the structure appopriate? Generally, yes. It follows a clear path that makes sense to the reader.
6. What else do you think the article needs? In short, massive cuts and summary. It may be that almost every goal scored by every player is mentioned explicitly. For an article about a team that set a record for goals, that's a lot.

If you're planning on editing this and making any of the major changes I've suggested, I'd recommend sending it in for another peer review. Put a notice of that on my talk page and I'll throw in a few more comments. Runfellow (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment why are the scorelines spaced in the table but nowhere else? I'd prefer to see internal consistency on the presentation of similar information. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Battle of Gao and Timbuktu

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as the major contributor to the page a second set of eyes would be great both for itself and a potential GA. Its also a current topic with several thousand hits a day, possibly mentioned in the media soon too. Would particualrly like to check for grammar and overlink. I think refs are fine, but if the reviewer sees something else id be glad to crrect it.

Thanks, Lihaas (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to get a picture from the conflict. That would help to illustrate it. And add a section detailing the conclusion, and aftermath if possible. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 18:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No free image yet, all on media outlets.

Nothing affirmed that its ended...just slowed in the last week.Lihaas (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Would suggest lengthening the lead a bit
• Don't use bare URLs as references
• Don't duplicate the article title in a section heading
• End of days is a dab link
• In general, the article is a bit hard to follow as someone who is unfamiliar with this conflict. Is there any way to make it a bit more accessible?
• Long quote in Reactions should be a block quote. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

wIll add to the lead. I guess the raction controversy should do, bit of background too

willreflinks

usually we differentiate it, but should we just remove "battle of"?

will correct.

more bacground? we do have the link. What part confuses and well be glad to assist. Would need that second eye.

Good pt. will doLihaas (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Coming at this without any real background knowledge, even if the links exist to explain more, it's a lot easier if we at least have the basics here. For example, in what country is Gao? The first sentence is structured rather oddly, kind of hard to follow. What are OIC and ICC? Neither are linked in the lead. You say the ICC was "following Mali's lead", but it's not clear what Mali's response was. Are MNLA and MLNA the same thing? Did the territory secede before or after it was captured? You begin the Battle section with "Fighting began in the morning" - which day? What is MUJAO? etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The name of the country would be helpful somewhere in the lead's first paragraph. I don't have any knowledge about the topic. So here are a few questions. In the background section, there is only mention of events in 2012. Is this only the instant cause of this battle and is there a longer history to why this battle took place? Another question is this part of a larger war? If yes, it could go into the lead section. Kingjeff (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

better?Lihaas (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Underground rocket

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Did a lot of research on the topic and decided that the article deserves to be translated for en:WP. The invention is rather old, but severely underused and definitely notable, judging even by the number of English language references alone. "Tsiferov's underground rocket" is the term preferentially used in Russian literature, while in English sources it's mostly referred to as "Rocket drill".

I could certainly use the suggestions for categories, too, as I'm pretty much drawing a blank here.

Thanks, Wesha (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll do this review. --Noleander (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: I added a couple of categories. --Noleander (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wesha: What specifically do you want the review to focus on (besides categories)? Do you want the article to reach WP:Good article status? Or do you just want to have another editor review it and provide feedback? --Noleander (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to go for good status, but I'm not sure it's achievable. -- Wesha (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• The article has good footnotes & sources, so the WP:Verifiability requirement appears to be satisfied.
• The article does not appear to have any bias issues, so WP:NPOV is okay.
• Pictures are highly desirable. Check again to see if any are available that meet WP copyright guidelines.
• If no picture is available, consider drawing a diagram/schematic. If you don't know how to draw diagrams for WP use, post a query on Wikipedia:Graphic Lab and a volunteer may help.

  None with free license available. Request for free replacement has been submitted. -- Wesha (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comprehensive? There seem to be several sources listed in the Sources section which are not yet mentioned in the footnotes (e.g. "Rockets for Drilling". The Chartered mechanical engineer ..). Because the article is a bit short now, I suggest that all those sources be consulted, and detail from them be incorporated into the article (unless they are all repeating each other).

  The sources that have not been mentioned in the article pretty much repeat the same information that others already have. -- Wesha (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sections: It is customary to have a 1 or 2 paragraph "lead" at the top, which is a summary of the whole article. THen have "sections" below which give more detail. For example, look at Drilling riser article.

  I cannot think of any good section titles. Everything is sorta intertwined, both history and design, since it describes three different designs as they've grown out of each other. -- Wesha (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wording: "The runtime of the solid fuel .." - "runtime" is a rare word that readers may not understand ... recommend state it in plainer terms.

  Reworded, see if it's any better. -- Wesha (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Clarify if this device has ever actually been used for a real, practical application (vs only for experiments/prototypes).

  No data, other than quite a few "practical/test runs" (according to the article, dug a bunch of wells for a Kolhoz.) -- Wesha (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Recent years? The article has events up to 1980, then stops. Conclude the article by either adding more material from after 1980, or some kind of statement that "No experiments have been conducted since 1980" or something like that.
• Citation needed: This cluster of sentences needs a footnote: "Most of the energy contained in the propellant (5 to 100 thousand hp) was spent on the actual digging, while the device was lowering itself deeper into the well under its own weight. Tsiferov's device was capable of drilling the well tens meters deep and 250-1000 mm in diameter, depending on the type of soil. Experiments have shown that the device is able to drill holes not only in regular soil, but is also able to travel through solid rock, permafrost, ice and aquifers."
• Wording: "the inventor was promoted to receive the ..." - should be " the inventor received the .."

  That's what the source says; it does not clearly state if he actually *received* it. He was clearly one of the finalists for the medal, but no idea if he was the actual winner. -- Wesha (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Title: "According to professor L. Derbenev, .." - Remove "professor", titles like that are discouraged.
• See Also: The article does not have a "See Also" section. (WP:SEE ALSO). Those are not required, but if there are any related articles that may interest readers, consider creating one.
• The article has a box with 2 external images ... those images are great, but boxes like that are supposed to go down at the bottom of the article, below the Sources/footnotes. The idea is that anything "external" to WP goes at the bottom. For example, see Rockwell B-1 Lancer
• I suggest that you implement all the above suggestions (especially (1) photo/diagram; and (2) more material from the unused sources) then nominate the article for Good Article status at WP:GAN.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

RJH comments – it's an interesting topic, albeit rather brief. I took the liberty of performing some copy edits since there seemed to have a few issues with article usage and tense matching. Hopefully that looks okay.

• The first paragraph says it could achieve speeds nearing one meter per second. A subsequent paragraph says it reached drilling speed of 5 meters per minute. There's a vast discrepancy between these two rates. Was the first just an optimistic forecast? Or is it the modern drilling rate?

  If you read carefully, "The initial design [...] could achieve drilling speed of 5 meters per minute", that design was scraped later in the favor of the subsequent one which was tested and has shown 1 m/s. -- Wesha (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• As mentioned by Noleander above, it would be beneficial to include some type of illustration, such as a line drawing, so that it is clearer to a non-Engineering reader what is going on.

  There's no illustration with a suitable license. The request has been submitted to the Graphics section of Russian Wikipedia, no response yet. -- Wesha (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Since this has international patents, I'd assume that it has been put to some productive use. Are there any commercial examples it could describe? (I'm going to guess probably not because of the control issues.)

  I was not able to locate any references regarding production usage. In USSR, it is understandable due to the bureaucracy (and those issues are discussed in the Russian articles provided in Sources). Why it's not being used abroad? I have no idea, probably because nobody knows about it / is afraid to use it / etc? -- Wesha (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is this source of any use? What's strange is the date on this publication; barely two years after the drill was invented and well before the first Russian prototype. Can that be explained?
  • Apparently the jet-piercing machine (JPM-1) was produced by The Linde Air Products Co. and was in active use by the Erie Mining Co. in 1949.[4] As best I can tell, the primary difference seems to be that the American design uses steam while the Soviet model uses hot gas. Some discussion of the similarities and differences may be beneficial. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Finally, in order to establish his credentials, it would be good to clarify who is professor L. Derbenev. Is he a Russian engineer?

  Soviet/Russian geologist. Updated. -- Wesha (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Ricardo Arjona

The following discussion 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.

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was copyedited, reached GA status, and want it peer reviewed before going ahed with FA.

Thanks, —Hahc21 06:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• "interracial racism" seems redundant. Can't it be just "racism"?

• "He lived most of his childhood and began his musical instruction in Guatemala City": This may read a bit better as: "He spent most of his childhood in Guatemala City, where he began his musical instruction."

• "Although he initially enrolled in architecture and engineering, he graduated with a degree from the School of Communication Sciences at the Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala (USAC).": Enrolled where? And what was his degree in? Communications?

• In the career section, I recommend putting the year ranges after the section subheadings, i.e. "Beginnings and early breakthrough (1980s)" and so forth. I think it reads a little easier this way.

• "stereotypical Latin-lover" should be "stereotypical Latin lover" unless we're saying he loved Latin.

• "received moderate critical success, with Allmusic awarding it 3 stars out of five": I recommend saying "praise from critics" instead of "critical success". It's slightly easier to parse. Also, I recommend rephrasing the last part (or putting it in a new sentence) per WP:PLUSING.

• "At age 24, Arjona reversed himself": "reversed himself" is awkward here. How about "reversed course"?

• "on the OTI Festival": "in" instead of "on" I think is better.

• "commercial and critical success over Latin America": "across", not "over"

• "Arjona started the new decade known throughout Latin America.": This is worded somewhat ambiguously. Readers may expect the sentence to continue "known throughout Latin America as a competent singer" or something of that nature. Thus I'd recommend rephrasing it to say something like, "By the 1990s, Arjona was popular throughout Latin America."

• "After joining Sony Music in 1990 he released Del Otro Lado del Sol,[7] one of his least successful.": Least successful what? Albums?

• "carried him to fame/": Should be a period here, not a slash.

• "Alcanzar Una Estrella, showcased": No comma needed.

• "The album contained the hit singles "Mujeres" (#6 on Latin Songs) and "Primera Vez" (#6 on Latin Songs)[19] and received thirteen platinum and one diamond certifications.": this presumably refers to Animal Nocturno, but the sentence before it is about a telenovela. I don't get how these things are related.

• "Terry Jenkins Allmusic review awarded the album 4 stars stating": I think we need a comma after "stars" here; the same is the case for other descriptions of reviews. I would also recommend saying "writing that" instead of "stating", since these aren't really statements and "writing" is a little more precise.

• "before starting, "he had more friends."": Is he really referring to himself in the third person here?

• "Approximately, two million people": No comma needed.

• Advise making this into a new sentence: "with a positive Birchmeier review, who commented that" and rephrasing as "Birchmeier gave it a positive review, commenting that". Then a new sentence here: "It reached double Platinum in Argentina[21] and the United States,[28] and Platinum in Mexico."

• "Iñigo Zabala, chairman of Warner Music Latin America commented.": This period shouldn't be there. It needs a comma after "America" too. And I'd recommend "said" instead of "commented" (conciseness)

• "He moved approximately 200,000 copies in the first month at retail and went Platinum in Mexico": I think we need to say "He moved approximately 200,000 copies of the album" here since the previous sentence is about singles. And I recommend saying "retail, and it went Platinum" (grammar)

• "The album received critical positive response." --> "positive critical response"

• "past few, [...], ": There are two commas here, and no brackets are needed around the ellipsis, I think.

• "culminates with "Cómo Duele",": Single quotes around Cómo Duele (quote within a quote)

• "The album marked a change in Arjona's sound, which himself called a "stripped-down version" of his music": "he", not "himself"

• "yet considering it "impressive"": "considered", not "considering"

• "recently dead" --> "recently deceased"

• "auto-biographical" --> "autobiographical"

• In the quote box, the introductory "In a discussion regarding theme of "Puente", Arjona commented:" is unnecessary. This should be included after the attribution at the end. Also, we don't need quotation marks in the quote box.

• "Although many believe is a treshed topic": Not sure what this means.

• "occasionated"?

• "It became his fourth number-one set on Top Latin Albums when it debuted atop the chart": Remove "set" and "atop the chart" (redundant)

• "As of February 2012, the song reached the top 20 on Latin Songs, and #1 on the Latin Pop Songs": Can we have a more up-to-date description?

• "United States, [...], but": Two commas.

• "Arjona toured Guatemala as part of world tour": "part of a world tour"?

• "The two concerts he presented in the Mateo Flores stadium were both sellouts": "two" and "both" are redundant. Recommend removing "both"

• "and then showing it to his mother" --> "and then shows it to his mother"

• "As of 16 April 2012, the Metamorfosis World Tour had reached more than 400,000 fans, from which about 160,000 were just from his Buenos Aires tour dates on April 12–15": Can we have an update? Also, "of which" instead of "from which" and remove "just".

• "Mainly, he sings without the help of featured or additional singers" --> "He usually sings without the help of featured or additional singers"

• "Arjona showed the confidence to take risks to keep his music" --> "Arjona took risks to keep his music" (concise)

• "In contrast to the ballad-laden Déjame Decir Que Te Amo, on the latter two albums Arjona experimented with a range of pop/rock styles.": What latter two albums? The two following albums?

• Generally it looks ok. I'd say it's comprehensive and well-sourced. The main area for improvement is language, as discussed above. Best luck with this.--Batard0 (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

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.

---

Scorched Earth (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made several major changes to the article since it passed its GA nomination, and I would like to make sure that the article is still up to standards.

Also, I would like to know if this article has any chance of making it to FA status. If so, what changes/improvements should be made before I consider an FA nomination.

Thanks, Davejohnsan (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Three paras in the lead for an article of this brevity is too much. See WP:LEAD.

 Done. Davejohnsan (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Where do I find out it's the 273rd episode?

If there were a specific field in infobox for overall episode number, I'd love to use it. However, the only way is to go to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 13). Davejohnsan (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• "the aftermath of the squad room shooting." I don't understand the wikiilnk here.

It's to give readers context without explicitly mentioning that it was from the twelfth season finale. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• " by 7.63 viewers and received a 2.4/6% share" not many viewers (!) and I don't understand what 2.4/6% share means.

Will elaborate on this. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Infobox - is "Medical Examiner" really capitalised like that?

Yes, it's a job title and should be capitalized as a proper noun. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• You could probably get away with linking "previous season premiere".

The only problem with this is that there's currently no article for that episode. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• "A hotel maid,..." don't need "A " here.

 Done. Davejohnsan (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• "his DNA matches the DNA recovered" rephrase so you don't repeat DNA so quickly.

 Done, but let me know if the rephrased version needs improvement. Davejohnsan (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Production section, first para is two short sentences, can you merge this or expand it, it's rather odd-looking!

 Done. Davejohnsan (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• "French presidential election" link the relevant article.

 Done. Davejohnsan (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• "most watched" hyphenate.

 Done. Davejohnsan (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Last external link could use en-dashes rather than spaced hyphens.

Are you also suggesting that the en-dashes not be spaced? Davejohnsan (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Davejohnsan (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Battle of Corunna

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been greatly improved and expanded and I would like to bring this article up to GA standard.

Thanks, Tttom1 (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments: good work with this one. I have just focused on copy editing suggestions:

• there a mixture of English variation. For instance "centre" (British) and "center" (US);

I think the consensus a couple years back was to follow British spelling. Unable, myself, to pick up the conflicts.Tttom1 (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes in this regard. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• in the Background: "In early October 1808 Sir John Moore, following the scandal in Britain of the Convention of Cintra and the recall of the generals Dalrymple, Burrard and Wellesley, took command of the 30,000 man British force in Portugal". --> "In early October 1808, following the scandal in Britain of the Convention of Cintra and the recall of the generals Dalrymple, Burrard and Wellesley, Sir John Moore took command of the 30,000 man British force in Portugal";
• "convoyed by H.M.S. Louie, Amelia and Champion" --> "convoyed by H.M.S. Louie, Amelia and Champion";
• per WP:DATESNO "the 13th October" --> "13 October";
• 70 miles (and elsewhere that you have distances) --> if you add a convert template here, it will improve understanding for readers that are not familiar with miles. For instance: "{{convert|70|mi|km}}" will produce 70 miles (110 km);
• overlinked: "A junction with General David Baird on 20 December" (as David Baird has already been linked, there is no need to do it here);
• this sentence seems like it needs some commas in it: "With the Spanish defeated and no longer an organized threat, his army generally concentrated while the enemy was dispersed and the initiative firmly in his grasp Napoleon seized the chance to destroy Britain's only field army";
• "he opened his attack with a successful raid by Paget's cavalry on the French piquets" --> wikilink for Paget and add rank and full name on first mention;
• comma splice: "retreat began on 25 December, one at Benavente before";
• "corps of Marshal Soult" --> "Soult's corps";
• "Over 2 days Soult concentrated " --> "Over two days Soult concentrated...";
• "26 transports and 2 warships at Corunna" --> "26 transports and two warships at Corunna";
• "there was not time enough for Lieutenant-General Paget, commander of the British rear guard" --> "there was not time enough for Paget, commander of the British rear guard" (remove wikilink and rank);
• this sentence seems like it needs to be broken up a little: "Rain storms and confusion caused the British main body to partially lose order and break up with thousands straggling and 500 captured by pursuing French dragoons with hundreds more stragglers captured by Franceschi's cavalry on the 10th and several hundred more on the 11th."
• "but shortly after, at 2pm" --> "but shortly after, at 2:00 pm" per WP:MOSTIME;
• "At around 9 PM the" --> "At around 9:00 pm";
• inconsistent caps: "the Ships of the Line" --> "ships of the line"
• commas: "Moore's second in command Sir David Baird was" (before and after Sir David Baird);
• the punctuation in this paragraph probably needs work: "Chandler states, the British army had been "... compelled to conduct..." (full stops followed by commas; double full stops etc). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that when paraphrasing 3 dots ( ... ) indicates not a full stop but that an excerpt of the sentence is being used. A full stop appearing at the end of the original quoted sentence should be followed by quote marks and then a full stop if indicating the end of the overall sentence containing the quote - if the sentence hasn't ended and the quoted sentence has ended the quote has a full stop within the quote marks followed by the normal punctuation mark required (there must be an easier way to explain this). To avoid comma, I added the conjunction 'and'. Tttom1 (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

G'day, in the case you mention above, I think it would be more than acceptable to close the quotes without the full stop so that you avoid the double full stops. Also there would be no need to use a full stop within a sentence that is continuing after the quotation mark. It's probably not a major issue, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your advice and assistance, its great to get another pair of eyes on this. Tttom1 (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help. You've done a good job getting this up to scratch. With a few more tweaks, I think it could be successful at GA and higher. I will go through it again a couple of times this weekend (it's Saturday here) with a view to focusing on some of the "nitpick" items that might be brought up at higher review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Additional comments: I made a few tweaks. Please check that you are happy with these and adjust as you see fit. As promised above, some nitpicks:
  • "Starting in October 1808 Napoleon led the French on a brilliant[29] offensive" --> the word brilliant, here, is it an opinion/quote? I think in the interests of not having it raised as a POV concern, it would be best to put in quotes, or attribute it. For instance, "Starting in October 1808 Napoleon led the French on what historian John Smith described as a "brilliant"[29] offensive..."
  • currently the citation style seems a bit inconsistent. For instance compare # 83 "Knight, Charles, The Popular History of England, London, 1861, p. 506" with # 82 "Oman. p. 588". Also compare # 1 and 2 with 3, and # 99 with # 100, etc.
  • It might be an idea to split the notes that are just citations (references) from those which have text. An example of an article that does this is SMS Prinzregent Luitpold, which is a GA-rated article that is currently undergoing a Military History project A-class review;
  • At GA and higher, the licences/descriptions of the images will be reviewed for compliance with policy. As such it might pay to check that all is in order in that regard. Its not really my area of expertise, but I had a look at a couple, and they might need work:

Are the others OK?

• • • "File:Batalla de Elviña.jpg": lacks source, artist and title details. Additionally it uses a "life of author plus 70 years" licence, but doesn't specify the artist. This is problematic and would need to be fixed for a successful GA review;

Ran down this image, not Corunna 1809 but 1823. Created 1828. No good for this article. I knew the painting was later by style of some uniforms but thought it was just an anachronism - its not, so image has to go from article. I added & corrected some info to commons page about it.Tttom1 (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Found new image has same problems of source. Can correct, except user claims copyright - what to do?Tttom1 (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

G'day, good work with replacing the image. Sorry, I didn't spot that. Regarding the licence on the new image, yes that seems wrong to me. The current licence/information is essentially saying that the painting was created in 2011, which is wrong. The details should be about the painting itself, not the scan of the painting. My suggestion is to change the description and licence page accordingly if you know the correct details. It is probably just that the uploader was confused and made an honest mistake. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Put in the correct details, does that look sufficient? Tttom1 (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks right. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure if it is just an issue on my screen, but the text shouldn't usually be sandwiched between images. For instance in the Battle and Analysis sections, you have two images on either side of the text. One of these should probably be offset;

Moved image.

• • not sure about this: "Fortescue, p. 393. Oman, p.596, actually has the effrontery to criticize Alcedo". I think using words like "effrontery" could be seen to be adding an opinion or a point of view. Perhaps just say "criticize Alcedo for not putting up a fight";

I believe there's a bit more leeway in a footnote than the body, but I made it more neutral.Tttom1 (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• • the References use slightly different styles. For instance compare Gates with Hamilton;</ref>
  • in the References, the works without ISBN could have OCLC numbers added. Additionally, publishers and locations, could also be added for the works by Neale, Oman, Pococke, Richardson and Sarrazin, etc. These details can usually be found at www.worldcat.org. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    

---

Falkirk F.C.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing the article significantly and would like the opinion of others as to how it should be classed on the quality scale. As well as any improvements that can be made.

Thanks, Cal Umbra (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Remove the word "currently" from the second sentence of the lead. It doesn't add to the meaning.

• In the first sentence of the second para, it should be "returned to" instead of "plays in" (although when precisely did the team return?). Also, remove the comma after "2010".

• "it was runners-up" -> "runner-up"

• "major cup success is" -> "major cup success was"

• These sorts of issues persist through the article. I would advise concentrating on tense and agreement. Falkirk were runners-up, but the club (singular) was runner-up.

• "coming runners-up on two occasions" -> "coming in second on two occasions" (use of "runners-up" gets tired)

• I don't think citation 3 is supported by the source. Where's the debate described?

• The history section seems short for a club with such a long history. Is there a separate history article (not just a list of seasons) that can be linked as a "for more about..." entry? If not, you might consider creating it.

• The layout is pretty good. But I think the prose needs a significant amount of work before it's ready even for GA status. Consider a submission to WP:GOCE for a copyedit before proceeding.--Batard0 (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• As for your question about where it fits on the quality scale, I'd put it at B. Decent, but not quite GA.--Batard0 (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Batard0. I'll see to the things you've mentioned. Cal Umbra (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Selena singles discography

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to submit it to FLC. It just received a c/e by a GOCE member

Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 11:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Generally it looks pretty solid. The lead section is quite long - it's longer than Madonna's singles discography, and Madonna has had exactly the same number of singles. You might consider ways to edit it down to three paragraphs, although you're probably a better judge than me about what could be summarized and made more succinct. One way to do this could be to use numbers of songs instead of listing them individually, i.e. "Selena's "x" was among X number of singles that charted after her death." Or something of that nature.

• Are there no free images that could illustrate the article? If not, is there a valid fair-use claim for a primary illustration, given that she's dead?

• The subheading "non-singles" seems jarring, given that the article is about Selena's singles. Would it be more accurate to call this section "Other appearances" or something like that?

• Note number 4 should probably be placed after the song title "I'm Getting Used to You" instead of at the top of the chart.

• I noticed that the Madonna article has informative notes about release dates and other nuances/tidbits at the bottom of the Singles section. You might consider including some similar information in this one.

• Consider archiving the links in the references with webcitation.org.--Batard0 (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Otto Graham

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to prepare it for an FA review. I'd be especially interested in knowing where it's lacking. I'm unsure, for example, whether it would be wise to expand upon Graham's career as the head coach of the Washington Redskins, or whether that would constitute unnecessary detail. I'm also curious whether it would be advisable to add a section with a table showing his year-by-year statistics. And of course any other criticisms and suggestions would be much appreciated. Are the fair-use rationales for the images sufficient? What about the reliability of the sources?

Thanks, Batard0 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I don't know much about football, though I have reviewed a few articles. This one looks pretty tidy and well presented. In regard to the specific questions you raise:-

• I don't think it is necessary to add more detail about Graham's unsuccessful time with the Redskins, a relatively minor hiccup in an otherwise successful career. It might be a good idea, though, to add any further information you can glean on the 15-year period that followed his return to the Coast Guard Academy in 1969.
  • I've added more detail on what happened after he returned to Coast Guard in 1969 up until his retirement in 1984.
• If you can prepare a statistical summary of Graham's career, that would be good (many people prefer to glance at lists rather than read articles). Be sure that the information in the table is accompanied by clear column headings and/or a key.
  • I'll put in a stat box with the appropriate headings and see where that goes.
    • I put in a stat box with full headings and a key, plus a coaching record. I'm not sure if this'll be seen as too much detail, but I threw it in there at the end in case it works.--Batard0 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Of the two non-free images, I'd say the second is OK. I'm less sure that the first can be justified, bearing in mind that Graham is not identified; even if he can be, how does this picture help demonstrate his effectiveness as a passer or runner?
  • OK, I'll take the first out. He can be identified from his jersey number; the source also says it's him. I suppose it's hard to say how this demonstrates his effectiveness other than that it simply shows him running.

Other than these points I have numerous prose issues, some of which you should treat as suggestions rather than criticisms.

• British readers would appreciate links on terms such as sophomore, which are not used in the UK. Also "intramural fraternity" could do with a bit of explanation.
  • freshman, sophomore and senior are wikilinked now.
• Is "first-tem" a typo ("first-term")?
  • Indeed a typo. Thanks for the spot.
• The association between Northwestern and the Wildcats football team should be made explicit, not left to a link. Otherwise readers have to leave the article to discover who the wildcats are.
  • Called it the Northwestern Wildcats football team; would Northwestern's Wildcats football team be better?
• Care has to be taken in encyclopedia articles to maintain a neutral tone, hence the language has to be more formal than one would find in a sports journal. Thus I am a little wary of the use of terms such as "rout" to describe a heavy defeat. I will draw attention to other instances as they occur.
  • Called it "victory" instead.
• "Graham threw for two touchdowns in an upset of an Ohio State team coached by Paul Brown, handing the school its only loss of the 1941 season." Be a bit more specific than "the school".
  • Repeating "Ohio State" for clarity's sake.
• "signed up for the service" - I'd delete "the"
  • Better. Done.
• "But the Wildcats..." In encyclopedic prose it is generally inadvisable to begin sentences with "But..", which adds nothing here.
  • Deleted.
• What is "MVP"?
  • Americanism. Spelled out Most Valuable Player where it occurs and linked on first instance.
• "Big Ten Conference" linked in successive paragraphs
  • Second instance unlinked.
• $7500 a year and a monthly stipend of $250 makes the contract worth $10,500 a year; wouldn't this be simpler? You later say that the stipend was a large amount of money at the time - is that Referring to just the monthly amount? If so, £7,500 a year was absolutely huge.
  • Hmm...maybe the language isn't clear enough. The idea was he'd get $250 a month for the remainder of the war until he started playing for the team, at which point he'd make a salary of $7,500. Basically he was getting $3,000 a year during the war for doing nothing (although the sources don't put it this way, so I can't) and then would get $7,500 a year when he started playing. I've attempted to make this more explicit.
• "February of 1944": "of" seems superfluous
  • Yep. Removed.
• What was the Navy;s V5 cadet program?
  • Described in text as a pilot training course.
• "The war, however, did not last forever..." Indeed, but no literary flourishes, please. Likewise "droves of athletes streamed home...". Perhaps: "Towards the end of the war large numbers of serving athletes arrived home as the conflict..." etc
  • Changed to simply "Large numbers of athletes arrived home as the conflict..."
• I imagine that a perfect season means winning every game, but it might be as well to make this explicit.
  • It does. Tried to clear it up.
• "Graham became the team's uncontested leader..." As this is a fresh paragraph, identify the team; "the Browns'"
  • Did this.
• Link "interception". Does "He also threw three interceptions" mean that three of his throws were intercepted?
  • Linked. And yes, it does mean three throws were intercepted. It's football jargon Americans will likely know, but I'll try to word it more simply so everyone can understand.
• Link "shutout"
  • I changed it to "win" since 27-0 shutout in my view is redundant. It's like saying they won 27-0, holding their opponents scoreless.
• "...soon made mandatory". Can you be more specific, e.g. give the year masks became mandatory?
  • The source says "before long became mandatory". I'll look for a source that gives a specific year.
• "infamous" is POV/peacock, should be removed.
  • Removed.
• "When Brown pulled Graham..." Needs rewording in plain (non-football) prose).
  • Rephrased to say "When Brown took Graham out of the game..."
• "Graham's record as a starter was 114–20–4, including a 9–3 mark in the playoffs." Needs translating for us non-football people.
  • Rephrased to say the Browns' record with Graham as the starting quarterback ... including a 9-3 record in the playoffs..."
• "to focus on managing insurance and appliance businesses he owned." Needs a "the" after "managing"
  • Added.
• "With Graham at the helm in 1958, the all-stars beat the Detroit Lions 35–19". Clarify that this refers to the 1958 All-Stars game.
  • Rephrased.

I wish you every success with the article. If you wish to raise any point with me, or would like me to look again, please ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with this. People less familiar with the game always have the freshest eyes.--Batard0 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

AltaVista

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's very close to GA and I'd like to know exactly what needs to be done to get it there.

Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• It's a fine start, but I think this article needs substantial work before it's ready for GA. Namely, I think it should be expanded.

• The lead is too short. It should be a concise summary of the article, not a two-sentence definition. Aim for two or three paragraphs.

• To be appropriately broad in its coverage, I think the article needs to situate AltaVista in the context of its influence on search engines after it and on Google in particular. There should also be a discussion of what exactly was available before it and how people found things on the Web.

• We need to explain in more detail in the main text (in plain English, mind you) what the purpose of the crawler and indexer was and how these things interacted to make AltaVista work.

• It would be nice to have more detail on why AltaVista failed and how it was supplanted by other search engines. Was it just the dot-com bubble bursting, or were there other factors that led to its demise?

• If AltaVista doesn't exist, how can it provide BabelFish?

• I wish I had more specific suggestions. The prose is a bit choppy in places, but I think that given the amount of expansion I think the article needs, it's probably most efficient to do that first.--Batard0 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Gods Eater Burst

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like comments and feedback to improve this article.

Thanks, Ivan530Talk 13:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Teancum

• In the lead, God Eater 2 should be in italics
  •  Done
• The "Development" and "Related Media" sections are small--they can be merged into one section called "Development and marketing". Additionally the sections "Trading card game", "Miniatures" and "Soundtrack" can all be merged into one paragraph with the soundtrack listing following. This is per WP:LAYOUT
• The Reception section should be expanded. Template:Video game reviews can be added as an infobox, aggregate score information from sites like GameRankings and Metacritic can be added, and additional reviews can be listed/added to the prose. See WP:VG/S for a list of reliable sources that can be used.
• There is one disambig link
  •  Done Changed to Cohesion (chemistry)
• Other than general expansion take a quick look at the automated tips for other info

--Teancum (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

---

José Rizal

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have opened this page for an IP editor Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm worried about the article's readability and its structure. Some users want it to be arranged in chronological order but it doesn't seem to be working out well. So we need help and guidance on how this article can be improved into these good examples: Ferdinand Marcos and Napoleon Bonaparte.119.224.27.62 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• No need to cite his name, I think.

• "which would start the Philippine Revolution" -> "which later started" or "which started" or "later led to"

• "the dignity of the people, saying "Why independence" Comma after "saying".

• "prosperous farmers that were" -> "who were"

• "Rizal was the seventh child of their eleven children namely" Comma after "children"

• "then Governor-General of the Philippines Narciso Clavería, issued a Decree" No comma needed.

• "My family never paid much attention [to our second surname Rizal], but now I had to use it, thus giving me the appearance of an illegitimate child!" Why is this in italics?

• "poetry writing contests" -> "poetry-writing contests" or "poetry contests"

• "as he writes to another friend" -> "wrote" Also the quote that follows is inexplicably italicized.

• "As to his father's request" -> "At his father's request"

• "the 25-year-old Rizal, completed" No comma.

• "being himself a regular diarist and prolific letter writer, much of the material having survived." is awkward. Try a new sentence. "He was a regular diarist and prolific letter writer, and much of the material has survived."

• "Among his earliest writings are El Consejo de los Dioses, A la juventud filipina, Canto del viajero, Canto de María Clara, Me piden versos, Por la educación, Junto al Pasig, A Las Flores de Heidelberg, El Cautiverio y el Triunfo: Batalla de Lucena y Prision de Boadbil, Alianza Intima Entre la Religion y la Buena Educacion, La Entrada Triunfal de los reyes Catolice en Granada, Sobre la Nueva Ortografia de la Lengua de Tagala, etc." Just list a few of these not the whole lot. It interrupts the flow of the text.

• "On his early writings" -> "In his"

• The Writings section needs a lot more citation.

• "The core of his writings centers" Centered.

• " the Philippines is battling" "was", not "is".

• "a double-faced Goliath"--corrupt friars": spaced en dash or unspaced em dash here.

• The list in the writings section should be converted into prose and cited. No need for bullet points here.

• First part of the Persecution section is uncited.

• Exile section needs citations.

• Last days section needs many more citations. It's almost entirely uncited.

• Legacy section also needs citations.

• So does Other works.

• Generally speaking, the organization of the article leaves something to be desired. I would suggest making it into a strict chronology of his life directly following the lead, from early years to time in Europe, back to the Philippines, into exile and then execution. Once that's dispensed with, talk in further detail about his relationships, literary works, etc. (these will already be in the other sections, but you can go into further detail in dedicated sections). I'd recommend doing a reorganization of this kind before going much further.--Batard0 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  

---

List of awards and nominations received by Casting Crowns

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this to FL status and I already have an article being reviewed there. Hopefully this can get most of the kinks out before any eventual FL nomination. Toa Nidhiki05 23:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Looking at other featured lists of awards and nominations, it seems that the citations are generally grouped after the introductory sentence(s) for each section. Thus I would think about moving the citations from the end of each award result to the end of the prose that introduces each section. See List of awards and nominations received by 50 Cent or List of awards and nominations received by Aerosmith, etc.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 19:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would recommend archiving all the links in the references using webcitation.org. Not all FLs seem to have this, but it can't hurt.

• I would replace the "and" between Juan DeVevo (guitars) and Hector Cervantes (guitars) in the lede with a comma. The sentence is harder to parse with multiple "and" constructions, and I don't think you lose any of the meaning with this change.
  • Done; I'm not sure why I wrote it like that. Toa Nidhiki05 18:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than these things, it looks up to FL standard, as far as I can tell.--Batard0 (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Sind Valley

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I want to list this article at FAC, for that the article needs a revision at the hands of experts and possible expansion if needed. I‘ve worked hard on it but still it requires cleanup from an expert. Thanks,  MehrajMir ' ^(Talk) 06:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The article does not seem comprehensive. There are needed details left out. For example, one would like to know more about the settlements (villages and towns) in the valley. Information on flora and fauna need to be more ( no information on flora is present as of now). Climate (or, the variations in climate in different parts of the valley) could be added. It seems the valley is economically productive. Some more details (such as the names of the hydroelectric projects) would be welcome. A section on culture of the region would be good. After all these are done, a good lead with summery of the article will be needed. As of now, the article looks premature to aspire to be a featured article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I echo these sentiments. The article is substantially underdeveloped. It needs a lot of work before it's near ready for FA, let alone GA. I would consider closing this review, spending time expanding and improving all aspects of the article and then nominating it for GA. At that point, I'd bring it back to PR for a review before submitting it for consideration as an FA. It needs a lot of attention. The history section needs an expansion, as do the lead, Geology and Ecology sections. I'd suggest looking at Chew Valley and other geography FAs and using them as a model to expand this one.--Batard0 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  

---