Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Eazy-Duz-It[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA and feel it should be reviewed first. I usually just nominate it for GA without a review, but I feel this one was kinda slopped it together. Also, it'd be awesome if one of the reviewers would tell me where i could get some background info (hopefully enough for a section), but if not, that's fine… Thanks, CrowzRSA 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought the personnel tab was interesting and helpful. Many rap/hip hop albums contain references to other artists and it was nice to see the referenced artists in the album. --Taekyukim91 (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The basics are here, but I see quite a few prose and style problems. Sorry, I can't help add more content; I know little about rap music. Here are a few suggestions:

  • Nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked. The first example of this kind of linking occurs in the second sentence of the lead, where funky is linked. Quite a few other links inside quotations appear further down in the article. They should all be removed. If any of those links are really important, it may be necessary to paraphrase rather than quote, or to link them elsewhere.
  • When citing a source for a claim, make sure that the source really supports the claim. The second sentence of the lead says, "whose production was deemed by critics as 'dense' and 'funky' ", but the source supports only "critic", not "critics". You need to say something like "whose production was deemed dense and funky by critic Jason Birchmeier".
  • The prose needs more careful copyediting in places. The first sentence repeats the word "released". The second sentence uses "produced" and "production", another repetition. The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a comma after "California". The second sentence of the second paragraph does not make sense as written: "Four singles were released from the album, three of which charting in the United States (US)." These are not huge errors, but they all occur in the lead and will annoy or confuse readers.
  • In the "Composition" section, what does "specialized in gankin" mean? Should that be "ganging"?
  • I would not link common terms like "radio" and "television", which are linked in the "Commercial performance" section. I don't see a lot of overlinking, but it's probably not necessary to link terms more than once in the lead and perhaps once in the main text. For example, I would not link "Compton, California" three times, just once on first use.

References

  • Often the publisher is not the same as the web-site URL. In citation 2, for example, the publisher is Rolling Stone rather than "rollingstone.com". Citation 4, which also cites Rolling Stone, is correct. For another example, the publisher for citation 6 is Technorati, I believe, rather than Blogcritics. You can often find the publisher's name at the bottom of web sites, next to the copyright information.
  • Is the Blogcritics page a reliable source? Does it meet the WP:RS guidelines? Blogs usually don't.
  • Citations, such as #7, to books should include the place of publication, if possible. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.
  • When single and double quotation marks bump against each other, as they do in citation 9, they should be separated by a no-break code, explained at WP:NBSP.
  • The date of most recent access is missing from some of the citations. Examples are citations 21 through 24.

Other

  • The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments. CrowzRSA 00:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Parker (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it's important to meet the high standards that Wikipedia promotes, especially in the context that this article is based on a politician, and high standards ought to be achieved for any public figure.

Thanks, Jamiemoeller (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While your sentiment is admirable, this article is a stub which carries a proposed deletion notice on notability grounds. Unfortunately, in no way does it meet the broad criterion for a peer review: "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". Regretfully, I am deleting it from the PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Borough of Croydon[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because since previous GA reviews the article has improved a lot. What was said in the previous reviews of the article have been taken on board. Images have been deleted, lists removed, lead extended etc. I personally believe that the article is good enough for GA status but of course want a second opinion on this. I would like to see how you react to the lead section and the public services part in particular. If you think anything needs to be improved for GA status please just say.

Thanks, Pafcool2 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article. It is generally well-written in the sense that the sentences are well-formed and make sense. It is reasonably well-illustrated, and I like the maps. It's certainly broad in coverage. However, problems with sourcing alone prevent it from being, at the moment, a viable GA candidate. What follows is a fairly skimpy review but lists the things that jumped out at me.

  • The article includes unnecessary detail in places. Readers from all over the world are reading the article, but they probably do not need to know the details of a pilot scheme encouraging more off-peak travel on the local rail system, or the names and playing fields of all the football teams. I'd try to trim some of this, not throw it out completely, but find ways to summarize more succinctly. Something like "X football teams, including A, B, and C, play matches in Croydon. B won the Z championship in 2005." Or something like that. Be more selective, is what I mean.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find eight dead urls in the citations and three links in the text that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
  • Some of the citations are incomplete, #53, #54, and #57, for example.
  • Are the sources reliable? Do they meet the guidelines of WP:RS? For example, what makes Croydon Online reliable? Its disclaimer says in part, "Croydon Council uses reasonable efforts to include and up-date information on this website, it does not however, make any representation as to its accuracy or completeness." That doesn't necessarily mean that it is unreliable for some kinds of information, but it would be better to find carefully edited sources (history books, for example) where possible.

Politics of Croydon Council

  • Everything looks pretty good before this section, but here things deteriorate. Three of the four paragraphs are without support by reliable sources. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph, as well as every direct quotation, every set of statistics, and every unusual claim. In this section, even the paragraph with sources does not provide a source or sources for the last three sentences even though they contain information that is not common knowledge. This leaves the impression that they represent original research as discussed at WP:NOR.
  • "Thirty-seven Labour and 31 Conservative councillors were elected in the 2002 elections, plus a lone Liberal Democrat, bolstered by a subsequent defection of a councillor who had originally been elected as a Conservative, defected to Labour, went back to the Conservatives and spent some time as an independent." - This sentence is too complex. In what sense was the lone Liberal Democrat bolstered by a subsequent defection?

Civic history

  • No sources.

Government buildings

  • Much of the section lacks citations to reliable sources.

Geography and climate

  • The paragraph appears to be sourced, but it really isn't since the source only applies to the claims in the last sentence. I'll stop commenting section by section on sourcing except to say that similar problems occur further down in the article.

Landmarks

  • I'd break the giant paragraph into three or four paragraphs for ease of reading.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I began the last peer review by saying: "The article, with 9,500 words of text (excluding tables and images) is way, way too long", and I ended: "Please give careful consideration to how you can slim the article down." In fact, in the two-and-a-half years since that review, the article has expanded by another 700 words. So when you say that "what was said in the previous reviews of the article have been taken on board", this is true only up to a point. To put things in perspective, this WP article is longer than that for the United States. The massive overdetailing is a critical issue, and if the article is to progress, this aspect has to be addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Interstate Highways in Ohio[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in bringing this to featured list status. I think I have everything in place, and I would like somebody to look over it to make sure that it meets the criteria for a featured list before I actually nominate it. I am especially interested in:

  1. Whether the prose is repetitive (and some suggestions on changes if it is! ;).
  2. If I am missing any proposed/redesignated interstates. (I have many old Ohio maps, and I added all I found.)
  3. Whether I really need all those wikilinks in the table.
  4. Anything else you have to say!

Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first thing that jumps out at me is the use of "interstate highway" vs. "Interstate Highway". An "interstate highway" is just any highway that enters two or more states, whereas an "Interstate Highway" is a highway that's part of the Interstate Highway System. Since this is a list about the latter, the latter should be used. – TMF 17:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Imzadi1979

Some basic things that jump out at me at first glance:

  1. Get rid of the maps. They're too small to be useful.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's {{infobox state highway system}} that combined with the links used at the bottom of {{infobox road}} makes that navbox/sidebar template unneeded. On the same note, all your links in the "See also" section duplicate that template and should be removed per MOS:LAYOUT.
    I am not certain that infobox should be used, since this is not a state highway system, but rather a portion of the interstate highway system. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at List of Interstate Highways in Michigan to see how I did the infobox there. It lists the length, formation date for just the Interstates in Michigan as well as all of the abbreviation conventions for the different highway types. It even includes examples of the shields for the Interstates. Compare that to Michigan Highway System which has a map as well. The style of navbox you have in the list has been deprecated by updates to the infobox made in the last year to so. Imzadi 1979 → 03:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Your lengths aren't all stated to the same level of precision. Since the ODOT SLDs are given to 2 decimal places, your tables should as well.
    They are spelled out, but apparently {{convert}} eats trailing zeros. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never known it to do that.
    I tried using the rounding and |sigfig=# parameters, but it still didn't work. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - Now it has fixed itself when I used table display. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Spell out "References".
    It already is spelled out, right at the bottom ;> . Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In your table headers, smartass. The abbreviated form there does not look professional. Imzadi 1979 → 03:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. References that link to PDFs should have the format parameter in the citation specified.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Google Maps citations should all be formatted using {{google maps}}.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fn 44 (1962 Rand McNally atlas) should have section numbers and a page number specified.
  8. Fn 46 could be linked better. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/Innovation/prod_services/Documents/StateMaps/otm1969a.sid is the direct link to the map from the ODOT archive. Additionally, the citation is wrong, as it wasn't ODOT at the time, nor is that the correct title for the map. The citation should look something like:
    Official Ohio Highway Map and Economic Digest (MrSID) (Map). Ohio Department of Highways. 1969. Cleveland inset.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ✗ Not done. You changed fn 45 (which wasn't the Cleveland inset), but left fn 46 unchanged. That graphic on that SPS/roadgeek website is the Cleveland inset. Audit your older map references, to make sure that the agency's name is period appropriate. Most state departments of transportation were renamed as departments of transportation in the mid to late 1970s. Before that time period, most (all?) of them were "highway departments" with various different name schemes. In Michigan, it went from the Michigan State Highways Department (MSHD) to the Michigan Department of State Highways (MDSH) to the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation (MDSHT) finally to the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) from the mid-1960s to c. 1978. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/Innovation/prod_services/Pages/TransportMap.aspx has the full list of all old state maps, all in MrSID format. You'll need to use a plug-in or a program that can read MrSID format, but they're all there.Imzadi 1979 → 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Is there any reason why DD Month YYY format is being used instead of the usual Month DD, YYYY format used in the US?
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ✗ Not done Some of the references have not be converted. Audit them. Imzadi 1979 → 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. {{Convert}} has a format for tables where it separates the mileage from the metric value into separate columns. I think that would streamline the display of the lengths in the tables.
     Done - Wow, thanks! I didn't know that existed! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Your descriptions, if kept, are all written backwards. USRD standards are to start at the south or west and proceed northerly or easterly to follow the direction of the mileposts. Personally, I'd drop the paragraphs completely in favor of a more streamlined approach.
  12. The "Location" and "Major cities" are kinda redundant. I'd drop both in favor of columns for the termini.
    Do you mean the termini in Ohio or the termini in other states, since many of the highways pass out of Ohio into other states? Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Ohio termini. Look at the Michigan list for an example.
  13. "This is a list of the interstate highways in Ohio..." that style of lead sentence for a list has been deprecated. You'll need to change that before FLC.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. "state of Ohio" capitalize "state" as you're referring indirectly to the government of the state, which is the State of Ohio.
  15. "There are a total of twenty-one interstates in Ohio..." numbers greater than ten should be rendered in numerals, not words.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "with route miles adding up to a total of 1,726.4 miles (2,778.37 km)" Why bother giving the cumulative total of all of the Interstates when the overlaps make that number totally inaccurate? Just express the actual total with a brief explanation that some sections carry two numbers.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Link to concurrency (road) the first time you discuss overlaps/concurrencies/etc.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. "tarmac"? Do you mean pavement? To me, tarmac is the name for the approaches to and from a runway at the airport. Either way, it's a specific type of paving material and not commonly used as a generic term except in British or Canadian English.
     Done - Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ✗ Not done Double check, I still find three usages of the word. Imzadi 1979 → 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. "then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower " drop the "then-" and unlink "President". The link is low-value (it's assumed that a president mentioned in a US article is the US President unless specified otherwise) and it's a link next to a link, which is a no-no in terms of the MOS.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. "Of that, up to 1,500 miles (2,400 km) was to be built in Ohio". "miles" is plural, so you don't have subject–verb agreement.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. "originally-planned" Adverbs that end in "-ly" are not hyphenated into their adjective.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. You should use {{jct}} to generate the shield/link groupings in the table. That will fix the alt text issues for that part of the tables.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. You should provide alt text for the other remaining images. While it's not required, it is recommended.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let me partially retract this comment. It seems that the <gallery> tag can't use alt text. Imzadi 1979 → 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. The photos used should be geotagged. Again, not a requirement, but something recommended. File:Interstate 80 over the Cuyahoga River.jpg is geotagged.
  25. The map, File:Ohio Interstates.svg, should have a creation date and a GIS source added to the file description page.
  26. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table3.htm and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/maps/oh/ came up with connection time-out errors using the external link tool above.
    The government site seems to have been flakey earlier, but it seems to be fine now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - They are working fine now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. You should add the portal box with links to the U.S. Roads and Ohio portals. {{portal|Ohio|U.S. Roads}} will generate the box, and should be added to the "See also" section (if it still exists with non-duplicative links) or the top of the "References" section.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Another suggestion is to add {{Commons category|Interstate Highways in Ohio}} to the "External links" section to produce a link a link to the category on Commons. {{Commons category-inline|Interstate Highways in Ohio}} will do the same, but as a single line for inclusion in a bulleted list.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I'd look at including links to the reputable roadgeek websites in the External links section. Just because you can't use them as references doesn't mean you can't direct readers there.

Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fredddie
  1. I agree with Imzadi1979 about the maps. They're more distracting than anything.
     Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not so sure the table format is the best way to present the information. Tables should be for quick glances, not for reading paragraphs of text.
  3. The SR 18 shield looks way out of place in the infobox.
     Done - Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have more comments later. –Fredddie™ 22:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I agree with Fredddie on his second point. In the List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, I've dropped the commentary in favor of making everything a cell in the table. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about this?

Before I go to all the work of rewriting the table, does this format look good? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Junctions Termini Major cities served Length (mi) Length (km) Notes References
I-70 I-75 north of Dayton
I-675 northeast of Dayton
I-270 west of Columbus
I-670 in Columbus
I-71 in Columbus
I-71 in Columbus
I-270 east of Columbus
I-77 west of Wheeling 		West of Dayton in Preble County
At Wheeling in Belmont 		Columbus, Dayton, Springfield, and Wheeling 225.60 363.07 Major east-west corridor. [1][2]
  • It looks worse. The junction list should not be used here. Leave that for the article itself. I'd split the termini into two columns: south/west terminus and north/east terminus. I would drop the major cities completely, as the definition of what's "major" is inherently subjective, and it's not needed. Imzadi 1979 → 18:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! You mean something like this? And then all the descriptions and junction lists would be used in the individual articles on the interstates? Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highway South/West terminus North/East terminus Length (mi) Length (km) Notes References
I-70 West of Dayton in Preble County At Wheeling in Belmont County 225.60 363.07 Southernmost major east-west corridor. [1][2]

Personally, I was hoping for something like this – no table at all. –Fredddie™ 13:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This table is better. The format that Fredddie likes is our Rockland County Scenario, and I don't think is appropriate since the articles aren't being merged together to form this list. Some suggestions for the sample I-70 line though are:
  1. Get the actual Ohio locations for the termini. "West of Dayton" isn't very specific but either Jackson Township or Jefferson Township in Preble County is. (You'll need to consult a copy of an atlas that shows the township or other municipal names to determine which township it is.) Wheeling is not in Ohio, so it's not in Belmont County. Bridgeport should be the municipality on the border where I-70 crosses into WV. DanTheMan474 (talk · contribs) uses a copy of a state altas by Delorme that's great for determining township names, which he's done for the many articles on shorter state highways he's revised and expanded.
  2. Notes like "Southernmost major east-west corridor" are sentence fragments, and like captions, they should not have terminal punctuation.
  3. Drop the |sortable=yes from the {{jct}} usages. It's not needed when using |disp=table, and it left justifies the miles but right justifies the kilometers. Removing it right justifies both so that the decimal points line up, and yet the table still sorts correctly.
I hope this helps. Imzadi 1979 → 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries with Burger King franchises[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need to make it a featured list and have never worked on one. I need help.

Thanks, Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm having trouble with the table content and criteria you've set up. Seeing that there is a significant scarcity of information under the notes and, depending on the region, proprietary owners, perhaps you should reconstruct the categories. Maybe you also want to add which major cities house the franchise as well. --EbenezerScruz (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is very choppy, with lots of short sentences and paragraphs. I'm also concerned with the incompleteness of the tables. If they can't be filled in completely, perhaps they should be replaced or omitted. The referencing seems incomplete as well. Canada Hky (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still filling them in, you can see where I've been and what still needs to be done. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs to be expanded somewhat, but I suppose that will come. Just a note on maps, some of them are choppy and unappealing, Europe obviously not done. I'd redo them in an .svg format rather than a .png, and combine the current Caribbean and North American sections. You can make svg's using Inkscape, or if you can't figure out how but still think it'd be worth it, I could easily do it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-harm[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get an idea of how much work would be required to get this article up to FA status. It is currently a GA and has not been seriously peer reviewed before, it would therefore be very useful to have other editors opinion on the article. There are several editors that are willing to address any issues that may arise / make the necessary alterations to improve the quality of this article which addresses an important area of modern clinical psychology. cheers, Guerillero | My Talk 03:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support this request for peer review, it would be very useful to know what needs to be done to improve the quality of this article. Polyamorph (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is very good, seems comprehensive to a non-expert (me), and well-supported. I see some overlinking and some problems with pronouns but otherwise not much to grumble about. Here are my suggestions:

Overlinking

  • Linking a term once per article is often sufficient. Linking once in the lead and once again in the main text is sometimes useful. More than that is usually too much. For example, there's no reason to link "eating disorders" three times in the lead or "substance abuse" twice, "suicide" twice, or "burning" at all. More overlinking occurs in the main text, but I have not identified each instance.

Heads and subheads

  • To avoid repeating the main words of the article title, I'd be inclined to shorten "Self-harm awareness" to "Awareness".

Lead

  • Link Spell out the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders text revision" known as DSM-IV-TR on first use? It's linked in the second paragraph, but first use is generally better.
  • "Captive non-human animals are also known to participate in self-mutilation, such as captive birds and monkeys." - To avoid repeating "captive" and to move the modifying phrase snug against the thing modified, this might be better: "Captive non-human animals such as birds and monkeys are also known to participate in self-mutilation."

Classification

  • "An example of self-harm/self-injury is cutting" - It's generally best to avoid the front slash in constructions like this because it's ambiguous. In this case, I think you could simply delete "/self-injury" without altering the meaning.
  • "is the second most common form of self-harm in the UK" - What is the most common?
  • "A person who self-harms is not usually seeking to end their own life;" - "Person" is singular, but "their" is plural. Maybe "people" rather than "a person".
  • "For many individuals self-harm is often an attempt to communicate one's distress." - Delete "one's", which is not used as a pronoun in Wikipedia articles and can simply be removed from this sentence without altering the meaning.
  • "they harbor a desire to feel real and/or to fit in to society's rules" - The front slash is almost always a weasel best avoided. Which is correct, "and" or "or"? Or are "feel real" and "fit in to society's rules" mean the same thing?

Signs and symptoms

  • "an individual's inventiveness and their determination to harm themselves" - Subject-verb agreement. "Individual" is singular; "themselves" is plural.
  • "As well as defining self-harm in terms of the act of damaging one's own body" - Recast to avoid using "one" as a pronoun.

Mental illness

  • "There are parallels between self-harm and Münchausen syndrome, a psychiatric disorder where those affected feign illness or trauma." - Maybe "involving feigned illness or trauma" rather than "where those affected feign illness or trauma"?

Pathophysiology

  • "earlier in the sufferer's life (e.g. through abuse) over which they had no control" - Subject-verb agreement problem.
  • The two-line quotation is a bit short for a blockquote, and the Manual of Style deprecates fancy quotation marks. I'd recommend inserting the quote in the main text with ordinary quotation marks.
  • "For some people harming oneself... " - "Themselves" rather than "oneself".
  • "it enables him/her to deal with intense stress" - I'd use "or" instead of the front slash.

Self-harm awareness

  • Is Self-injury Awareness Day observed in many nations or just in the UK?

Avoidance techniques

  • "when the sufferer has the urge to harm themselves" - Subject-verb agreement problem.

Images

  • It's generally best to place directional images so that they face into the page instead of out. For this reason, I'd move the Murzi woman to the right side of the page, and the cockatoo to the left.

References

  • I'd remove the titles such as "Mr.", "Miss", "Dr., and so on from citation 50, and list the authors by their last name first.
  • Citation 47 should use "p." rather than "pp." for a single page.
  • Citation 95 is incomplete. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of these can be found.

Further reading

  • Book data should include place of publication. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.

Other

  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find one dead URL in the citations and one link (to "flow diagram") that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shapley–Folkman lemma[edit]

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

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

  • Several reviewers have commented (during GA) review that the article was nearly FA status. Since then, I have revised the lead and the applications to make the article more accessible and self-contained (and accurate). The economic applications section was extensively expanded, in particular.
  • Also, the referencing has been standardized and improved, to nearly FA status imho.
  • To reach FA status, concerns about reasonable accessiblity must be addressed in the review process. The previous PR and GA processes were conducted by the participants in the Mathematics Project; perhaps the social-science (economics) project(s) could best address the accessibility issues.

This is the only article that I have developed to GA status, and I'd like it to reach FA status: Thus I am unfamiliar with the next steps, and would like guidance. (Would it be helpful to apply for A-status?) Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Geometry guy[edit]

  • As an initial remark (hoping that I will have time to comment further), it seems to me that this article is crying out to have separate (Foot)notes and citations sections, where the footnotes provide further explanations, and the citations link to the sources. Already in the lead there are two parenthetical references, which could be footnotes, and then expanded. The use of set builder notation in the second sentence limits the accessibility of the article dramatically: non-math-majors may not understand it. This is a pity, as the article could and should reach a broader audience than that.
The current formatting of citations could run into trouble at FAC, as some of the citations are parenthetical references, and some are footnotes. Geometry guy 23:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I simplified the lead paragraph, providing the example of {0,1}+{0,1} and its average.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an improvement. Geometry guy 22:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re Citations: The article emulates the referencing of the FA-status Tulip Mania article, following the advice of the GA review, during which I raised the concern about mixing footnotes and harvard-citations. I shall focus on content and accessibility before implementing consensus reformatting.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the referencing style of Tulip Mania (and contributed to popularizing it 2-3 years ago!) but the article does not entirely follow it. The text of the article should not contain parenthetical (Harvard style) references, but it does: "Guesnerie (1989, p. 138)" in the lead and "Contemporary economics", "Arrow & Hahn (1980), Cassels (1975), Ekeland (1999), Artstein (1980), and Schneider (1993)" in the section on "Proofs and computations", "Wold (1943b, p. 243)" in "Non-convex preferences", and "Starr (1969, pp. 35–38)" in "Starr's 1969 paper".
I agree with you though that content and accessibility is a more important issue. Geometry guy 19:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the next month, I shall replace the in-text harvard-style hypertext references with footnotes, following the Tulip Mania example, as suggested by both reviewers. I am glad that we can keep the references for the most important sources, and leave other sources in the footnotes, where each is used (at most) a few times among nearby footnotes.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For "month", read "few hours"! Geometry guy 22:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three other interrelated issues. These are in addition to the issue mentioned already: making the article more widely accessible.
    1. The lead should serve both as a summary of the article and a concise introduction to the topic. There is a (hopefully creative) tension between the need to be accessible and explain, and the need to summarize and be encyclopedic.
      Unless examples are given exemplifying convex sets and convex functions, the lead will be understandable only by those with mathematical background like advanced U.S. undergraduates in economics (perhaps those considering graduate M.A. study).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Several sections lack citations: most of the "Preliminaries" section, and the opening of the "Statements", "Economics" and "Mathematical optimization" sections. A lot of this material is "well-known": the Scientific citation guidelines provide advice on how to source such material using a few general references.
      Okay, I'll look for guidance.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I added references to the background sections. Rockafellar is the bible of convex analysis, and his early exposition is accessible. I added references to mathematical economics books, upon which a mathematician may glance "without a shudder" (in Cassels's words).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Wikipedia is not a textbook, and original exposition should be minimal, as no original research is allowed, including synthesis. I notice that the "griffin" has been discussed below. Is the eagle/lion example your own, or can you provide a source? If not, are there similar examples in the literature that you can use?
      The griffin example is mine. All the writers on concavities in consumer preferences discuss less memorable examples, e.g. pickles and cotton candy: Their problem is that they allow some convexity, where the lion & eagle don't. Others discuss indivisibilities (integral programming constraints), but I don't remember any living commodities, off hand.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any (or all!) of these issues could cause you problems at FAC. The lead is getting long, and is turning into an expository introduction to the article, rather than a summary. One approach would be to create a new first section called something like "Idea of the Shapley-Folkman lemma", which gives the gist of the result. However, this plays into the other two issues: are there some expository sources you can use as references for such introductory material? Geometry guy 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In his "math for economists" book, CARTER (page 94) has an example of adding Conv({0,1}^{1000}) [where exponentiation implies homogeneous sumset (semigroup) addition 1000 times] which is more complicated than mine. Mine is the most obvious example (minimal Diophantine complexity!).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think an introductory section would help you handle the dual roles of the lead, as some material could be moved from the lead to the introductory section. Exposition doesn't need to be entirely based on existing text books: there is some editorial leeway in presenting facts and using simple examples, as long as you are not deviating significantly from published work. Geometry guy 21:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you think of an exemplary article that has an introductory section, following the lead?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it is exemplary, but take a look at Vector space. Geometry guy 00:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Vector space and the discussion at its FA-nomination, where you made the same suggestion, which seems not to have been acted upon (at Vector space) however.
Nobody should confuse the WP article Shapley-Folkman lemma for a textbook, which should have both more examples and also some exercises (and proofs). I suppose that Starr's New Palgrave article "Shapley Folkman theorem" and Green & Heller's Handbooks of Economics article on "convexity. analysis, and economics" could serve as benchmarks---both of those sources are written for an economic student preparing to write an M.A. or Ph.D. thesis, so that they assume more knowledge. The WP article Shapley-Folkman lemma should be accessible to students in a first course in linear algebra or enrolled in a course in microeconomics, and the lead should be accessible to motivated high-school students.
I shall try to consult an old edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica; I vaguely remember that Harold Kuhn may have contributed to its article(s) on game theory or linear programming or mathematical economics, any of which should provide inspiration.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) In the vector space FAC, I suggested spinning out an entire "Introduction to..." article, whereas here I am just proposing a section. The purpose is to take stress out of the lead. I disagree with "the lead should be accessible to motivated high-school students", as the lead has an additional role. Instead I would say that "the introductory section and most of the lead should be accessible to motivated high-school students". Otherwise, I am quite in agreement with you that WP is not a textbook. Geometry guy 21:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. (I didn't understand what you were suggesting before.)
I did a bit of work on the lead, addressing accessibility concerns, following TCO's suggestions. It shall be 2 weeks before I can resume intensive editing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm unlikely to have time to make any further peer review comments in the interim. Geometry guy 22:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following your suggestion, I moved part of the introduction/lead to to an "introductory example" example. Now the lead has only the examples exemplifying Minkowski addition and convex sets, which are needed for public understanding of the problem. The examples illustrating ideas of the lemma and theorem don't appear in the lead.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SunCreator[edit]

  • Inconsistency in references. Date: (3 November 1979) and 2011–01–15
I'll try to re-do the access dates for consistency.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with page numbers. experiments on page 373, (1993, p. 131), pp. 1–5, pages 306–310. Some of the references start with page numbers i.e Pages 93–94. I wonder if these are suppose to be notes, but anyhow the page should not be at the beginning of any reference and the reference want to be consistent about whether they are in brackets are not and starting "p." or "page"
Fixed, I think. I tried to use templates everywhere, and I removed commentary, which might have been OR, also.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some bare links in the references. Ref 60(Vind, Karl) has one.
DONE!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some journals don't seem to be indicated as such. Use {{cite journal}}?
The article consistently misuses the cite_article template. I should switch to the cite_journal template. THANKS!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DONE!
  • Some websites links don't have access dates.
Are you referring to on-line editions of journals?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striked, my mistake Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above points suggests a review of the method of referencing to get consistency.
As noted above (replying to GG), the current referencing implements the suggestions from the GA review, and emulates the article "Tulip Mania", which has FA status.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the clean-up of prosaic page references has begun.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DONE! There may be minutia remaining to be corrected, e.g., using the template field for translations (and using either () or [] elsewhere consistently), giving page numbers for the whole book (or not), formatting of original-edition information in reprint editions, etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 'nonnegative' a word? Maybe non-negative
I replaced "nonnegative" with "non-negative" in the alternative text for a picture. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maths is heavy in this article can some thing be made easier for the general reader. Some of the words I'm not sure of the meaning, consider linking them if there is some suitable links. Possible words summand-set, circumradius, convexified sum. Is sumset the same as summand-set? Both are used.
The operated set is the output from the operation on the operands. The sumset is the output of Minkowski addition on the summand-sets (or summands). I'll say more later.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to say the year and page number in the prose like (1989, p. 138) and (1989, p. 138). Such info goes in the references.
The clean-up of prosaic page references has begun.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. ~~
  • The use of "(or a griffin)!" is interesting. I'm not sure it's encyclopedic, but get others opinion because I maybe wrong on that.
Prose doesn't need to be boring. In this example, the "contemporary" qualification is necessary to exclude medieval beast-masters and apothecaries who would have purchased a griffin. Explicitly mentioning a griffin makes this example memorable. (It is not necessary, though. I did restrain myself from adding an image of a griffin!)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • brackets are used a lot in prose "then (for some prices) ", "baskets (maximally preferred and meeting their budget constraints).", "set (with respect to Starr's measurement)". Prose is normally written in such a way to remove them.
Usually. However, mathematical sentences require more parsing and re-reading than other forms of prose. The parentheses are intended to help on the first reading. However, you are correct: I agree that many and perhaps all can be removed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy words, "some" re-occurs again and again "some prices", "some regions", "some discontinuous", "some allocation", the prose should be tightened on that, either to specify what or removal of "some" if used in a redundant fashion.
The existential quantifier "some" explicitly signals existence but makes no claim of uniqueness; in this article, "some" is used where multiple discontinuities, etc., do exist (for some examples). Many readers misread the default elided "some" as "the" or "every", which confuses them, unfortunately. (For example, I misread a sentence without an explicit some as having an elided "every" on my mathematics GRE!) Thus, "some" is used frequently in mathematics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of small sections, consider combining some.
A matter of taste, perhaps?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I combined two sections in economics, per your suggestion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The downside of little sections is a larger TOC and associated white space right of TOC which in this case is not filled by an infobox, another downside is the inflexibility of images as moving them to the left on small sections looks awkward. Consider {{TOC limit}} with limit=3 as a method to shorten the TOC. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DONE! The TOC looks better following your suggestion. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Shapley–Folkman_lemma image is used twice. Not a good idea in my view.
The caption differs in each case. The image is unusually rich, and was previously used to explain the inner-radius and circumradius, before David added his new picture.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many images don't have WP:ALT. The alt on the main image is long.
I'll add alt to the new pictures.
DONE!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the main image is unusually rich, and the alt's details are needed to explain the image to a blind person. Some repeated wording exists to help a blind person keep track of the 5 images.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of images on right and together, consider moving some to the left.
I tried experiments, and they all looked funny or weird imho.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top image was a reference on the caption. That is unusual. Maybe acceptable but just a second opinion on it.
I was trying to document all claims. It can go, imho.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a suitable infobox. Some editors like them.
There are many images now. There is no suitable infobox, imho, and any additional one would distract or exclude informative images. (The economics sidebar was removed from its position with the footnotes.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some terms are linked more then once. This is unusual even when linked from different words. A reader would be surprised to click and find the same page? Perhaps prose can be changed to the same wording? convex function, Convex optimization, convex hull are examples. I didn't make a detailed check for more.
"Convex minimization" is correct, while the ambiguous "convex optimization" is misused at Wikipedia. (Convex maximization is NP hard, I believe.) However, sometimes the correct "minimization" sounds stiff and pedantic. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why so much in "See also", if these are important to the topic then consider bringing them into the prose somehow. If they are related but different terms consider making a navigation template for them.
Good suggestion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the see also section, most of whose items are linked from other articles linked here, e.g. convex hull, etc.
  • I know nothing about the topic so make so comment regarding it's contents or completeness.
This WP article is much more comprehensive than any source known to me. Including a proof or two would be useful.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions, which will occupy me for some weeks. I shall first work on content and readability questions. Later, I shall work on citation style questions. Thanks again for great help. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I emboldened your suggestions that still require work, to help me plan future clean-up. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. One thing I just noticed. You have a full URL linking to wikisource.org, I imagine there is a neat way to make that link to the book, but I confess I don't know how. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that you are referring to my location of the Milton quote, from Arrow & Hahn (whose mis-capitalization I corrected; they didn't cite the lines, btw, but this is trivial OR)?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not checking for original research. H:IW says how to link to wikisource. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sourced Milton, my hero! Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kiefer.Wolfowitz[edit]

  • I simplified the lead further, creating an introductory example section, following a suggestion of Geometry Guy. I simplified the caption, following TCO's suggestion.
  • I suggest moving the material on the metric theorems of Shapley-Folkman and Shapley-Folkman-Starr to its own article. This would make the lead less intimidating and simplify everything.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be good use of Summary style. Geometry guy 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Australian Open[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get this to FAC although it needs to become a GA first (It is waiting at the moment) and I want some feedback. particually I want to know whether the day by day summeries fit in here although there is a deletion arguement going on which has been closed as merge, it seems to not fit in here plus this article is already very long. I've removed it for now.

Thanks, KnowIG (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shouldn't the title indicate that this refers to a tennis tournament? After all, we have Australian Open (golf). Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably but then the AO is more likely to refer to tennis than anything else can move at a later point. Although the accademic Deb Stevenson states the 1999 Australian Tennis Open all the way through her piece. KnowIG (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General points
  • The uninformative title is still an issue, and should be resolved without delay
  • There are five dead links: refs 46, 47, 103, 151, 174. The last four are all to the ita.org site (other links to this site seem to be working).
  • The long reference list should be in at least 3, preferably four columns, to shorten scroll-down time.
  • In the Prize money section the edit links have become displaced. This happens elsewhere, too, where you have adopted a columnar format.
  • The term "viewership" refers to TV audiences. Attendance at the actual tournament should not be discussed as a subdivision of Viewership.
Prose

The prose overall is very weak and needs a good deal of attention to bring it to FAC level. The following list relates only to the lead and first short section. A full and careful copyedit is essential before this article proceeds.

  • The first line refers to "a men's and women's tennis tournament", but later we have references to "the professional tournaments", "the junior tournaments" etc. The first line needs to be harmonised with these plurals.
  • values such as "two thousand" and "four hundred and fourth" should be represented numerically. MOS recommends this for all values above 10.(You are using "99th" and "ninety-ninth")
  • "who both award" → "which each award"
  • "whilst" is a deprecated WP word. Recommend use "while".
  • As you refer to "women's doubles" you should also say "men's doubles"
  • "leaving her one away from a career Grand Slam". What does this mean?
  • "the titles were whitewashed" This is slangy and non-encyclopedic. Rephrase is more formal language.
  • "their first titles in both singles and doubles play" → "their first singles and doubles titles".
  • "The wheelchair titles saw..." Titles don't "see" - needs rephrasing
  • What are "Quad events"?
  • "The tournament was an event ran by" → "The tournament was run by..."
  • "that was part of" → "as part of". Comma required after "calendars"
  • "The tournament consisted of both men's and women's singles and doubles draws..." The word "both" is redundant, as it is in the next line ("both boys and girls")
  • The words "which is" are also redundant
  • Do not begin sentences with "Plus..." The word is unnecessary: "There were [not 'was'] also...", and again "which was" should be "as"
  • NEC should be explained and linked at first mention

I've done all of the prose points apart from NEC tour as I assume you want me to explain/link to it. The page doesn't exist right now, but I am working on it. KnowIG (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

A couple of points:-

  • The need for so many tables is questionable. Listing, for example, the wild card and qualifier entries takes a lot of space and provides very marginal information, particularly in the cases of the boys' and girls' tournaments. The seeds tables are useful, but perhaps overcrowded with information - the points movements, for instance. I also wonder about the usefulness of indicating players' nationalities with unexplained flags; how many people can identify the countries from these?
  • The large amount of table information means that it takes an age to get to anything related to the actual tournament. You could consider placing the essential tables after the descriptive material.

I hope you find these points useful. As I am not able to watch all my peer reviews, please use my talkpage if you want to raise ant issues with me, or if you would like me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1906 French Grand Prix[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm intending to take the article to FAC soon and would like some feedback, particular on its prose and jargon, and anything else which needs work. The classification table is still a work in progress. Apterygial 04:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is very good, and I enjoyed reading it. It is well-written and well-illustrated. Most of my suggestions are nitpicks that should not take long to address. A few, such as questions about the red links, may take a bit longer, but I don't see any really big problems. Nice job.

Background

  • "... by 1903 the Gordon Bennett races became some of the most prestigious in Europe; its formula of closed-road racing and among similar cars replaced the previous model of unregulated vehicles racing between distant towns, over open roads." - Should "its" be changed to "their" to match "races"? Also, delete "and" so that the sentence reads "... their formula of closed-road racing among similar cars replaced the previous model of unregulated vehicles racing... "?
  • File:Gordon Bennett 1904.jpg is an excellent image. A tag on its license page suggests copying it to the Commons. That would be a good thing to do before taking the article to FAC.
  • Done (and properly, I hope). Apterygial 09:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under the ACF's proposal, France was allowed fifteen entries, Germany and Britain six, and the remaining countries—Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria and the United States—could enter three cars each." - Tighten by two words by deleting "could enter" since "allowed" already provides the verb.
  • I would not redlink any terms twice in the same article. In this case, I'd unlink Léon Théry in the image caption. Alternatively, you could create a Léon Théry article and make the links blue.
  • I've unlinked it. I think it might be possible to create an article on Théry (I think he named the Michelin man, of all things) but I don't have the resources at the moment. Apterygial 09:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Track

  • This is a helpful map. A question may arise about the source of the information for the map. How did the author, Alexander Jones, know what the track looked like? It would be good to track down an answer to that question and add the information to the image description page.
  • Added the source information (I originally emailed scans from the book to him and he designed the map from them). Apterygial 09:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entries and cars

  • "each team entered three cars, to make for a total field of thirty-four entries... " - Tighten by one word by deleting "for"?
  • "No British nor American manufacturers entered the Grand Prix." - "Or" rather than "nor"?

Race

  • "A draw took place between the thirteen teams to determine the starting order... " - "Among" rather than "between"?
  • Each of the cars in each team were given a letter, either 'A', 'B', or 'C'. - Double quotation marks are generally preferred to single except in the case of nested quotations. Thus, these would become "A", "B", or "C". Ditto for the later instances such as 'Burton' ("Burton") in the article.
  • "Cars assigned the letter 'C', which would be the last away, formed a single line at the side of the track, to allow any cars which would complete the circuit before all competitors had started the chance to pass." - A bit awkward. Perhaps "... to allow any cars to pass that completed the circuit before the "C" group started."
  • "Itala driver Maurice Fabry started the quickest of the competitors... " - Maybe "Itala driver Maurice Fabry started most quickly... "?
  • I think the original in this case is a little clearer. Apterygial 09:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The seventeen cars which completed the first day were covered by two and a half hours;" - I'm uncertain what is meant by "were covered"? Would it be more clear to say that the remaining 16 cars finished within two and a half hours of Szisz?
  • I combined with the remaining part of the sentence to read: "Seventeen cars completed the first day; Henri Rougier's Lorraine-Dietrich finished last with a time of 8:15:55.0, two and a half hours behind Szisz." Hopefully this is clearer. Apterygial 09:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cars set off the following morning at the time they had logged the day before," - Maybe "at intervals they had logged the day before"?
  • The key here is that Szisz finished the first day in 5 hours and 45 minutes, and so began at 5:45. The time they set on the first day determined their starting time. I've expanded this explanation to hopefully make it a little clearer. Apterygial 09:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is clear now. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This method would ensure that positions on the road would directly reflect the race standings." - Change to straight past tense; i.e., "This method ensured that positions on the road directly reflected the race standings"?
  • "Clément completed his stop more quickly than Szisz, and Nazzaro did not stop at all, and so both closed the time gap to those in front." - Maybe "... and both gained on the leaders"?
  • I changed it to "Clément completed his stop more quickly than Szisz, and Nazzaro did not stop at all, and so Clément closed his time gap to Szisz and Nazzaro closed on Clément." Apterygial 09:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As planned, 'Burton' took over Jenatzy's car, but Lancia was forced to resume in his everyday clothes when his replacement driver could not be found at the time the car was due to start." - I'm not sure what "everyday clothes" refers to. It usually means "street clothes", but I think that is not the intended meaning here.
  • That is the intended meaning. Perhaps it should be changed to "street clothes"? Apterygial 09:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have understood "street clothes" right away even though it may be a bit slangy. I thought "everyday clothes" might mean something special related to racing garments. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "street clothes". Apterygial 09:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-race and legacy

  • "The ACF decided that too much pressure had been put on drivers and riding mechanics by the regulation forbidding work on car to be done by others in the team." - More smooth might be "The ACF decided that too much pressure had been put on drivers and riding mechanics by forbidding others to work on the cars during the race."

Classification

  • Nothing should be red-linked twice in the same article.
  • The number of red links in the article is unusually large. I recommend linking only those names or terms that are likely to have articles about them in the future. If you are planning to create articles for some or all of them, you might consider doing at least some of them before nominating at FAC.
  • I removed those redlinks that I determined were unlikely to have an article created for them, and left a list of them on the talk page for possible re-linking later. The others are notable enough to have articles created for them, but as I don't have the resources at the moment and WP:REDLINK recommends I should leave them "alone rather than create a minimal stub article that has no useful information", I'm leaving them red for now. Apterygial 12:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double-bolding should be avoided whenever possible. Since the links create automatic bolding, it is not necessary to add another layer of bolding. WP:MOSBOLD has details.

Other

  • The dab checker at the top of this review page finds one link, to "floodlight" that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comment: After posting replies above and a note to your talk page, I glanced at the article again and noticed that there are still some duplicate red links. Elliott Shepard, for example, is red-linked three times (in the infobox, main text, and table). I'd unlink two of them; maybe just linking the first instance is the best approach. Finetooth (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to Shepard in the top image, but I've kept the other ones, as they don't seem overly excessive and will make it easier when (or if) their articles are created. Thanks for the peer review and the encouraging words. Apterygial 09:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A330[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been promoted to GA status just a few hours ago. During the next few days, I'll be going over the article to locate any discrepancies and any other mistakes, as well as adding more info. Comments about the article are welcome, and with them, I hope this article could be listed for WP:FAC.

Thanks, Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 07:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:-

General
  •  Done Ref 141 is a dead link
  •  Done Reference formatting: retrieval dates are necessary for all online non-print sources. Also, non-print sources should not be italisized.
  • The article is very informative, but frankly, I found the extent of techincal information and use of acronyms made it very hard to read. I am not a particularly technical guy, and maybe these facts, figures and jargon are what the techhies like to read. But Wikipedia has to cater for a broader audience, and I think the prose needs some rethinking, to make it more friendly for the non-specialist reader. My remarks are confined to the lead, Background and Design effort sections, but they can be taken as generally applicable throughout the article.
  • What don't you understand, because you are just the person I needed since (I assume) you are unfamiliar with the aviation industry. What other areas do I need to improve? Also, I'm not that technical a guy. I prefer easy-to-understand texts. But because aeronautics is a hard field to understand, I've managed to find out the definitions and applied them to this article.
Lead
  •  Done The phrase "adopt a common flight deck of the A320" needs clarifying.
  • It's very self-explanatory, really - the A320, A330 and A340 have the same cockpit layouts.
  • So do the references to "-200F" and "-200".
  • Could you please clarify your request?
  •  Done Overall, there are rather too many reference numbers of one kind or another in the second paragraph, and I'm not sure that this level of detail is required in the lead.
  • I moved one source.
Background
  •  Done "From the moment of formation, Airbus had begun studies into derivatives of the Airbus A300B..." Can you put this more clearly. For example, what was the "Airbus A300B" (not previously mentioned)?
  •  Done "As the single-aisle studies underwent development to challenge the Boeing 737 and Douglas DC-9 in the narrow-body airliner market, Airbus turned its focus back to the wide-body aircraft market." I can't make sense of this, but it appears to be saying that while Airbus was challenging Boeing and Douglas in the narrow-body market, it suddenly switched its focus to the wide body market. This wording implies that it abandon iits narrow-body venture? Ift did so, why? What factors prompted this decision. Also, the sentence begins in the passive voice, which is never a good idea.
  • What's a passive voice? The sentence means that, while the A320 undergoes development, Airbus simultaneously plans the A330/A340. I don't know how to rephrase the sentence.
  •  Done The passive voice recurs in "The B9 was therefore considered the replacement for the DC-10, and Lockheed L-1011 Tristar." Considered by whom?
  •  Done Same problem, later, with "which was deemed the replacement...", and "the decision were [sic] taken"
  • What is "bending relief"?
Design effort
  •  Done Second sentence: too much information, needs breaking down and making more digestible.
  •  Done "In 1985, Jean Pierson was appointed managing director of Airbus Industries". Since there are no other mentions of this person in the article, I wonder what the purpose of this sentence is.
  • Removed
  • "barrel sections"?
  • A plug. Each aircraft fuselage is made up of many cylindrical sections, called plugs, or barrel sections.
  •  Done Pipe-link "modular" to modular design?
  •  Done "The plan was later abandoned, which Airbus cited as being too expensive and difficult, given the risk involved, to develop." Grammatically unsound, and also confusing; what was the "risk"? Rephrase for clarity.
  • Removed the last phrase.
  •  Done "...the first for an Airbus airliner". I think you mean "a first". The rest of this paragraph, I'm afraid, fried my brain.
  •  Done Link Franz-Josef Strauss (and drop the "Dr." - he was pretty well-known without that.
  • What did Strauuss mean by "with potential launch customer airlines"? Are there some words missing?
  • Airlines that are willing to be the first to order the type, hence the "launch".
  •  Done "The designations were originally reversed, however". What does this mean? Do you mean "originally" or should this be a different word, e.g. "subsequently"? And by "reversed" do you mean "cancelled", or do you mean exchanged? I'm guessing the former, but it needs to be clarified.
  • The A330 was originally called the Airbus A340 and vice versa for the A340. The airlines thought this was confusing, because a twin-engine airliner has a "4" in it, while a quadjet doesn't.
  • "The decision to redesignate them was because airlines could not overcome the fact that a two-engine jet airliner would have a "4" in its name, while a quad would not." Clumsy and verbose; I would combine this with the previous sentence to give, perhaps: "The designations were subsequently cancelled, because of the problem that a two-engine jet airliner would have a "4" in its name, while a quad would not."
  • The last sentence seems unconnected to the paragraph.
How? Do you mean "Then on 12 May, Airbus sent new sale proposals to five prospective airlines, which included Lufthansa and Swissair."

That's as far as I can go with detailed prose checking. I think you will find that the rest needs similar careful attention. Considerably more work will be necessary to bring this to FAC standard, but in view of the work that has already been done, this need not deter you. Please contact me via my talkpage if you have further queries, or if you want me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 70 in West Virginia[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for some feedback on the article before I send it to FAC. The article has previously passed GA, and USRD A-Class Review, and has been copyedited by the GoCE, but I want to make sure I have my ducks in a row first. f

Thanks, AdmrBoltz 19:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: thanks for your work on this article - I have been on this highway and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would include the length in the lead and perhaps the fact that it is the shortest section of 1-70 in any one state.
    • Whoops, usually do that.  Done --AdmrBoltz 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most difficult criterion for most articles to pass at WP:FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. There are several reviewers at FAC who do not like verb + ing constructions. Just in the lead there are "linking", "traveling", "crossing", "entering", and "exiting"
  • Despite the fact that I have been on this highway, it took me a while to figure out the direction the course description ion the lead (and in Route description too). I would say explicilty that it enters from Ohio in the west and exits to Pennsylvania in the east. See WP:PCR
    • All WP:USRD articles are written west to east and south to north per WP:USRD/STDS and has been generally accepted at FAC with out further explination. --AdmrBoltz 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The average reader will have no idea what the USRD convention is (I did not, and I am fairly familair with Wikipedia), and unless the article tells them, average readers will not know which direction the highway is being described in. Please provide context to the reader. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph in the Route description section is not a route description - it is about usage. Might want to call the section "Route description and use" or move this paragraph to the newly re-named "History and use" section
    • Other USRD FA's have been passed with the title as is. The header has been set per the USRD standards as well. See I-80 Bus. for another recent FA that passed with traffic under the Route description. --AdmrBoltz 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, if that is the convention. Might want to point this out in the FAC nom (that it follows the USRD MOS and other road article FAs as a model). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not clear to me when the events in the second paragraph of History were taking place
  • While conciseness is good, comprehensiveness is a FA criterion - I looked at current ref 18 to see when the second paragraph of history was taking plkace and that article mentions costs (3 million just to removate on of the two tunnels) and issues with water causing tiles not to stick inside the tunnel. These may be worth including
  • Current ref 20 seems to say that the tunnel is a single lane in each direction. If this is correct, this should be made clearer in the article/
    • There is one thru-lane in each direction. They are both two lanes wide, however exits on each side of the tunnel are exit only. --AdmrBoltz 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the use of color in the Exit listing meet WP:ACCESS?
    • Yes. There is a legend, and the reason for the coloring is indicated in the |notes= field. Also, see MOS:RJL. --AdmrBoltz 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the Exit listing give kilometers as well as miles for distances?
  • I don't have time to comment on everything, but I had some trouble following the proxe. Just in the course section, I found this confusing: I-70 enters West Virginia by crossing the western channel of the Ohio River onto Wheeling Island. The freeway passes through a light commercial zone as U.S. Route 40 (US 40) and US 250, becoming concurrent with I-70 before crossing the Fort Henry Bridge. So it enters the state as I-70, but then it is US 40 and US 250, then becomes concurrent with I-70??? Sicne the article is about I-70, I would expect the course description to follow that highway. It is not clear to me what "the freeway" refers to in the second sentence quoted.
    • Corrected the sentence, it seems to have been changed from what I originally wrote. --AdmrBoltz 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the freeway" allways refers to I-70 as introduced in the lead, and the Interstate Highway System article. None of the other highways mentioned are part of the Interstate Highway System, more commonly known as freeways. --AdmrBoltz 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also not clear what the Greater Wheeling Trail is - a highway? a trail? Since it is a red link, that's no help.
    • The Greater Wheeling Trail is a rail trail. I do not have enough secondary sources to make an article of it, but someone may be able to dig one up. --AdmrBoltz 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't WV 88 be spelled out in full on first use - As I-70 curves to the south, the highway intersects US 40 and WV 88, with the ramps ... ?
    • The abbreviation for WV Routes had been established in the first paragraph of the Route description with WV 2. Past FAs have accepted this. --AdmrBoltz 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another problem sentence - Still elevated, a complex interchange with US 40 and West Virginia Route 2 (WV 2) provides access to downtown Wheeling and Benwood. Sicne the fact that the highway is elevated has not been explicitly mentioned so far in this section, it just reads oddly. The next question is what is the subject of this sentence - 1-70?? the "complex interchange"??
    • Elevated has been fixed. The whole stretch between the western channel of the Ohio River to the tunnel is elevated. --AdmrBoltz 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected the subject. --AdmrBoltz 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canyon?? Would gorge or deep valley work better? Canyon souns like the Wild West, not West Virginia ;-)
    • Well I am in Utah, so I guess thats wild west,  Done --AdmrBoltz 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or in As I-70 curves to the south, the highway intersects US 40 and WV 88, with the ramps from the eastbound lanes crossing underneath the freeway, parallel to Wheeling Creek. three highways are mentioned and I was not super sure which was the "freeway" mentioned,
  • As a general impression, there seems to be (if anything) almost too much detail in the Route description seciton and not enough in the History section.
    • I added some more to the history. --AdmrBoltz 02:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.)

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 ><>°° 05:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Modern Family episodes[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope this article can become a featured list

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]


  • interesting to see that in the first season, the episodes written by Christopher Lloyd had the most views --Taekyukim91 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I started looking at this before I realised that there already exists a Modern Family article, and two detailed list articles for season 1 and the incomplete season 2. So I fail to see any useful purpose in this particular list. Any inormation which it gives that does not appear in the season lists could easily be incorporated there, and/or in the main article. This one looks like duplicated effort. I also don't see the sense of making a season list when the season is not yet complete. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at FLC was that the season information should really just be found in this list. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Modern Family (season 1)/archive1 for more info. I'll try and comment on this peer review time willing. Nomader (Talk) 07:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I read through each episode's articles, I found out that some of plot is not sufficiently written. Since it may considered as a spoiler, I did not want to write too much details, yet I feel like the article should provide at least some general plot.--Oliviavia (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lightning Thief[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to at least FA-class.

Thanks, Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Melicans

It's not too bad an article, but there is a little way to go yet. A few comments I have:

  • References 1, 7, 8, 10, 21, 28 are all dead links and need to be replaced. I always recommend manually archiving all of the links so this issue is avoided in the future (handy if any links go down during an FAC, and so that you don't have to scramble if the article ever goes to FAR. WebCite is excellent, and can be implemented with the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= functions in any of the citation templates.
  • Overlinking; in the first paragraph alone Poseidon is linked twice in two sentences. Linking generally needs to occur only once in the body, and once in the lead and prose should the terms show up in there. Common terms, like second grade, also do not generally need to be linked. Another example; the section on The Sea of Monsters; you use {{main}} and then link the work again immediately beneath. Choose one or the other.
  • Speaking of The Sea of Monsters, I'm not sure that it even needs its own section. A simple mention under Reception saying that it was followed by a sequel would probably suffice (though that alone might be a bit much since the article mentions that it was the first book in the series; a sequel is a bit expected). Do the readers really need to know how many copies it sold, or what awards it won? That would be better in its own article.
  • The character list can probably go as well. It comes across as a bit crufty, and since this is about a book and not a cast list it probably isn't entirely necessary. Just link the first occurance of their names as it occurs in the prose.
  • The entire "Foreign language editions" section needs to be referenced.
  • File:The Lightning Thief audiobook.jpg needs a much tighter fair-use rationale.
  • Any possibility of expanding a few sections? Pretty much every section apart from Plot could do with having a bit more content in it if it is available. For instance, the audiobook adaptation could do with some more information on its creation, and a bit more reception on it would be nice. The bit on the film could use details on why it was adapted, etc. Try using {{find}} on the Talk Page; it will link you to a multitude of books, news articles, and even scholarly journals that you can search. That will give you not only more information to incorporate into each section, but more references as well.
  • The lead says that 1.2 million copies were sold, but also that 275,000 hardcover and paperback copies combined were sold. Which is right, and why is this information not under Reception?
  • When talking about what it was ranked on the best-seller list, why not say how long that it was on there? The New York Times has that information.
  • Do you have any more quotes from the author that could be incorporated into the article, specifically about the development process or his reaction to the reception?
  • Going back to references... for the most part they look good; I see sources from The New York Times and USA Today, and most of them seem to check out as reliable. The only one that jumps out at me as being questionable is the final reference. What makes this random blog reliable? You may be quizzed about some others at FAC, but so long as you can justify what makes them reliable it should be fine.
  • References really need to be integrated into the article more. It is fine having them at the end of a sentence instead of split every few words, but you can't use just one at the end of a very long paragraph, as is the case in Development and production (unfortunately the only reference in the first paragraph is a dead link, compounding the problem).
  • Finally, refernce format. There are quite a few issues here. You use two different date formats ("yyyy-mm-dd" and "month day, year"), sometimes in the same reference (see ref 12). Pick one varient and stick with it throughout. Speaking of ref 12, how can it have been retrieved/accessed one day before it was published?
  • As in the prose, linking in the references only needs to occur during the first instance of it appearing. New York Times should only be linked the first time; on the other two or three occurances it can remain unlinked.
  • Reference 16; it has a publish and a retrieval date, but no link. Retrieval dates only need to be used when there is a URL present in the reference. Is the link missing, or is it a formatting error?

I hope that these comments help. There might be some prose issues too, but you will probably want to get somebody else to look at that since it is not my forte. Good luck. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line! Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

Going off of what Melicans said:

  • I think instead of deleting the whole "Sequel" section, I think you should make it into a "Legacy" section. I know for a fact the novel spawned 4 sequels and a new series. Are there any other legacy aspects about it?
  • If you want the article to get to FA, there are a few criteria for an FA that the article fails, including criteria 1b: Comprehensiveness. What are some major themes of the novel (Google scholar is good for this)? What is some background on the novel before he wrote it? For a normal manual of style for a novel article, see here. For FA criteria, see here.
  • Also, I think that only 32 references isn't enough to suffice for an FA. Look around for more references. I know the series has a large following and I think there are many references out there to get everything out of this article.

Good luck, and if you have any questions please ask. Guy546(Talk) 19:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was an awesome article. You hit all of the major points of this story. Having seen the movie twice and reading the book, I can honestly say that you summarized a two hour movie and a weeks' work of reading down to its fine points. There was also great insight on parts of the plot-line that one might have otherwise missed, including the reveal of the sequel, which I personally am highly anticipating.--Bballa238 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot section was very detailed, which I think is a good idea. However, there are some things that can be tweaked to make it more lucid. It starts off saying Percy has ADHD and Dyslexia to his teacher attacking him to his stepfather being abusive in the span of a few sentences. I would recommend starting with Percy having to deal with ADHD and Dyslexia and on top of that dealing with family problems. Then, I would mention that his teacher attacks him and why. It's also confusing as to who Sally is, so maybe in parenthesis you can mention who she is. As for the links, they lead to pages that are informative and useful. The references also seem reliable. Overall, the page looks good to me.--CCandC (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)CCandC[reply]

The Lost Hero[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to get GA. However, I believe that it still needs some improvement.

Thanks, Perseus8235 18:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some comments:

  • The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD
  • There are a few places in which the article mentions the so-called "Camp Half-Blood" series. What is this? How does this book relate to the series?
  • If there is any additional information available, the Sequel section should be expanded to include it.
  • "The story is narrated by Jason Grace, then Piper McLean, then Leo Valdez repeatedly, each character telling two chapters. The book has 56 chapters" If each character tells two chapters, and there are three main characters, then there should be only six chapters total. Something is not right here.
  • The article should include a section titled Themes (or something along those lines).

I won't be watching this page, but feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you need any clarification. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've Got Nothing[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I don't think the sources exist to make this article comprehensive enough to meet the FAC, but I have listed it for peer review because I still welcome any and all feedback from the community on how it could be improved. I suppose that my main area of concern is the 'Live performances' section, which seems incredibly brief, but I'm not sure what else there is to be said. I also hope that if someone unfamiliar with the subject looks over the article, they'll be able to say if there is anything that's not well-explained. Thanks very much in advance! VoBEDD 01:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Melicans

Don't sell yourself short before you begin. There are plenty of articles that are much shorter. I see you have {{find}} on the talk page; have you checked every section? It's amazing how much stuff can be dredged up from that! If you don't try then you'll never get there; and even if the article does not pass the first time around, you'll still get some valuable feedback that will help for a future nomination.

 Done Well, I've had a look at the links listed on the Find template, and unfortunately none of them really seem relevant to this article.
  • One thing I always recommend is to manually archive all of the URLs in the sources; that way, if a website goes down or a story is removed, you have a backup of the information. WebCite is quick and simple to use, just use the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters in {[tl|cite web}} (or whichever templates are most applicable). It's a bit boring to do, but it'll save you a lot of hassle in the long run.
 Done That's an interesting idea...
✗ Not done I'm not so sure that I necessarily agree with that. WP:ALT says that alt text for an image "should contain the shortest possible description or identification of the image". I don't think it's relevant to describe what Chesney Hawkes or the Caerleon Campus actually look like, as that's not what the article is about, and that's not why those images were selected. I believe that those kinds of alt texts would be better placed on the articles that are actually about Chesney Hawkes and University of Wales, Newport.
  • File:I've Got Nothing music video.PNG needs to have an improved fair-use rationale. It's all very well saying that it's discussed at length in the article; you need to explain on the file page just how it is significant and/or aids the reader's comprehension. You should be okay with the only other non-free image, the cover art; that's generally accepted at FAC as being mandatory. Consider File:U2 3D layers.jpg as an example of a good fair-use rationale.
 Done I've had a go at writing a more detailed rationale for use of the screenshot in the article.
  • Same problem with File:I'veGotNothing.ogg - you need a detailed fair-use rationale on the file page itself, explaining how it is necessary. File:Passengers-Slug-musicsample.ogg is a good example of a detailed rationale. It's right on in terms of length at 17 seconds though; always a good thing!
 Done (I think)
  • Credits and personnel needs to be referenced. You can use the liner notes for that with {{cite album-notes}}.
 Done

I will try and do some more a bit later. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback Melicans, it's been very useful! VoBEDD 12:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article was taken to FAC by me in November of last year; the main issues from the FAC was the copyediting and grammar. I would like to see what grammar changes can be done and what other improvements can be made on this article. Thanks, User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: Can you check the following links:-

  • Ref 51 (Ministry of Education): this appears to be broken.
  • In the "Legislation" listing, Police of the Hokkaido Prefecture: I get constant timeouts.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Comments from Cryptic C62:

  • "The debate surrounding the law also revealed a split in the leadership of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan and the party discipline of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and collation partners." What are "collation partners"?
  • "The passage of the law was met with mixed feelings." Mixed feelings from whom?
  • "The rules for use of the symbols were not specified; if they had been included, the bill would not have gained enough support in the Diet to pass." This is a bold speculation, not a statement of fact, and it should be rewritten accordingly. See WP:CRYSTALBALL.
  • "However, the law allowed the continued use and manufacture of flags with the 1870 proportions." The article has not yet specified what the "1870 proportions" were, so this sentence isn't particularly helpful.
  • "Kimigayo is one of the world's shortest national anthems, with a length of 11 measures and 32 characters." Citation needed. Also, what does "characters" refer to in this context?
  • "Approximately nine out of ten respondents favored having the Hinomaru as the national flag, and six out of ten supported Kimigayo as the national anthem. Overall, about 46% were in favor of the bill." These two sentences seem to contradict each other. How is it possible for so many people to support the individual symbols but to oppose the bill? Some clarification is definitely needed here.
  • "The head of a teachers' federation praised the legislation, believing it would help them inculcate people with a proper sense of respect for a country's symbols" It's not clear if this refers to a Japanese teachers' federation and a sense of respect for Japan's symbols, or to some non-Japanese teachers' federation and a sense of respect for national symbols in general.

I won't be watching this page, but feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you need clarification. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting and generally well-written. The sound file is excellent and so is your diagram of the flag dimensions. I think the article is likely to achieve FA with just a bit more tinkering. Here are my suggestions:

  • Shouldn't the flag's name be in regular type instead of italics; i.e., Nisshōki or Hinomaru? This would be parallel to "Union Jack" or "Union Flag" for the U.K. flag or, possibly, "Old Glory", a nickname for the U.S. flag.
  • Shouldn't the anthem's title be in quotation marks rather than italics; i.e., "Kimigayo"?
  • Linking World War II more than once in the entire article is probably not necessary.

Lead

  • I'd include the abbreviations of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in the lead on first use.

Background of the legislation

  • At the time of his suggestion, the Japan Teachers Union was opposed to using the anthem because it "[smacked] of emperor worship" and was connected to pre-war militarism. - An inline citation should follow immediately after the end punctuation of the quoted material; i.e., right after the quotation marks after "worship".
  • "Failing to win their support, Toshihiro saw no other option but to take his own life." - It is not clear why he would consider this his only option. Why would suicide be his only option and not the only option of those who end up on the losing side of the debate when the Act passes in 1999? What was special about Toshihiro?

Party positions

  • "The President of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), Naoto Kan, stated that the DPJ must support the bill because the party had already recognized... " - Verb tense. Substitute "had to" for "must"?
  • "On July 16, the DPJ decided to issue their amendment... " - DPJ is singular, but "their" is plural. Change "their" to "its"?

Public opinion

  • " ...one respondent suggested the song Sakura Sakura instead." - "Sakura Sakura" should appear in quotation marks rather than italics.
  • Yomiuri Shimbun should not be linked twice in this section.
  • "Overall, about 46 percent were in favor of the bill." - I agree with Cryptic C62 that this number looks wrong. Is the number a typo? Should it be 76 percent, maybe?

Reactions

  • "As one of the two prefectures affected by nuclear weapons during World War II, the education of Hiroshima has been biased with regards to information regarding the symbols and the Emperor due to pressure from native groups and teacher's unions." - This claim is strong enough that it needs its own inline citation to a source. Also, it would be good to say clearly how it is biased; i.e., against symbols connected to the war.
  • "The passage of the law was seen as an "annoyance," running counter to educational practices in the prefecture and unlikely be able to resolve issues inside Hiroshima." - Would it be helpful to add a word or two to clarify what is meant by "issues"? Perhaps "war-related issues"?
  • If South Korea and the People's Republic of China are linked, why not the Philippines and Singapore?

Political ramifications

  • "The DPJ had allowed their elected members to cast their votes... " - DPJ is singular, but "their" is plural.
  • "the LDP focused on their own agendas... " - Same problem here, singular and plural.

References

  • The abbreviation for a single page is p. and for multiple pages it is pp. Citations 33, 34, 35, 44, 45, 48, 52, 57, 58, 24, 25, 26, and 30 all use the wrong abbreviation and should be fixed. I might have missed some others. You should check them all for this particular error.
  • The book data in the "Bibliography" section should include place of publication. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Orr[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FA. It is currently a GA. I am not a great proof-reader. I am looking for input in general to improve the article. Anything missing, prose to rewrite. Suggestions on images to add, if any.

Thanks, ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain

General

  • There are links to dab pages, such as skating in the lead, car, etc.
  • Please review the overall linking strategy—there are some fairly common terms linked that may need rethinking.

Sources

  • It looks like you used an array of good quality sources, and I see all the Bobby Orr books that I would think to use. One thing to be cautious of is unintentionial plagiarism that can arise from following the structure of a book too closely. If you take a macro view of the page numbers for Brunt, for example, in the refs section, you will see what I mean.
  • Is hockey-reference.com acceptable within the hockey project? It looks fairly unprofessional. If there is a better source, it would be preferred.

Lead

  • Watch for parallel structure in sentences like: "Orr played in the National Hockey League (NHL) for his entire career, the first ten seasons with the Boston Bruins, joining the Chicago Black Hawks for two more." To fix: "Orr played in the National Hockey League (NHL) for his entire career, the first ten seasons with the Boston Bruins, and two more with the Chicago Black Hawks."
  • "A defenceman, Orr used his skating speed and scoring and play-making abilities to revolutionize the position." Why not "skating speed, scoring, and play-making abilities"?
  • "the youngest to that day to be inducted into the Hall" Something is off here... "the youngest of that day"?
  • "He first played as a forward, but was moved to defence by his coach, who allowed him the freedom to play his style." Is there a connection between moving positions and being free to play his style? This sentence implies it.
  • "With Orr, the Bruins won the Stanley Cup twice, in 1970 and 1972 and lost in the 1974 Final." Seeing a pattern here with not placing the closing comma after a phrase like "in 1970 and 1972". I fixed one, but someone might have to go over the whole thing.
  • It doesn't seem to occur throughout the entire paper, but the language in the lead is fairly repetitious with many sentences beginning with "Orr".
  • Personal details such as marriage and children... probably don't belong in the lead.

Early life

  • Even though the information is available, consider easing the amount of writing about extended family.
  • Lots of clunky writing in here—it's not bad, but you definitely need a strong copyeditor to go through with an eye toward parallel structure, overly long sentences with complex or disconnected ideas, and lots of name repetition. Need to introduce more variety to the text.

Running out of steam for tonight, but will leave more comments tomorrow. This is exciting to read—Orr is one of my favorite players and I'm glad to see all this work done. Very very nice! --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the thorough reading and your comments. I will work on those points. I wanted to mention that hockey-reference.com has been reviewed several times as to its reliability and it has passed. In any case, I can back up the stats with one of the Orr books. I should be able to do the rewrites that you've mentioned. Rewrites I can do, but when it comes to reviewing my work, I often don't spot the things you've mentioned. Again, thanks. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orr and Eagleson

  • Why continue to note US dollars throughout the section when you have the hatnote under the heading?
  • "The two soon became a team, discussing Bobby's future plans without his father Doug." Unsure of the reason for the "team" rhetoric, or why we're specifying who Doug is again. The prose around Doug and Bobby needs considerable smoothing out—there are places where you seem to go out of your way to clarify which Orr you're writing about, where it's normally clear from the context.
  • "When Hap Emms, the general manager of the Bruins offered a" Another example of commas missing after dependent clauses.
  • "Or Orr would refuse to play with the Bruins and play for Canada's national team instead, like Carl Brewer." Fragment.
  • The section about how his salary was kept secret needs rewriting for clarity. What I understand is that they kept it secret to get around the "typical maximum" but what does that mean? What is a "typical maximum"? Why would they do that?
  • The official signing ceremony was held?
  • "At the time, it made Orr the highest-paid player in league history." What is "it"?
  • "It was the start of the player's agent era in professional hockey." Same comment. Next sentence as well... "it" is repeated throughout this para.

Bruins career

  • "In that first season, Orr was challenged physically as a rookie by the veterans" Redundant: "in that first season" and "as a rookie"
  • You link "Boston Gardens" here but it doesn't seem to be the first mention—you write "Gardens" earlier but no link.
  • Likewise, "assists" is linked here but it's not the first mention. The linking strategy in general needs review.

Post-hockey career

  • The first sections strikes me as an overly long bit of "accountant-speak" about his being bankrupt, and not necessarily a logical causal relationship. A lot of people's liabilities exceed their assets, but that doesn't mean they're bankrupt. Bankruptcy means you cannot repay your debts.
  • Check here and elsewhere for use of single quotes—we don't use them unless they are inside of double quotes.

Personal life

  • Some "fun facts" need to be trimmed down—the bit about jigsaw puzzles for example.
  • Check here and elsewhere for WP:OVERLINK. Common terms like "fishing" shouldn't be linked unless they have special relevance to the article.

Honours

  • "A museum, called the Bobby Orr Hall of Fame, where his Order of Canada medal is on display along with other exhibits." Fragment.
  • "team-mates" here, but "teammates" elsewhere. Need consistency.

More general comments

  • Needs a serious MoS review, to include consistent use of en dashes and em dashes, use of single quotes, etc.
  • Needs attention to WP:OVERLINK.


Alaney2k, the narrative is fine, as is the sourcing. The major weakness is the writing—it needs a thorough copyedit by a strong editor before it will be ready for FAC. I think that creating a laundry list of problems here would be less productive than just getting someone to go through it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, thanks a lot for such a detailed peer review. I think that the writing (and its problems) somewhat flows from two things: there are a lot of contributors and there were numerous edits for the GA. I will work on all of these items. I will do some rewrite with all of the good advice in mind. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty: World at War: Zombies[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because anything Call of Duty can and will attract many editors from the Video Games project here to improve articles such as this one. It's not in the main series and it's the only COD game on iOS. I would improve on it but I simply don't have the time nowadays, so I am putting this up for peer review so someone can follow any tips to improve this in the future.

Thanks, SixthAtom (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but I think you should add different weapons or maps/levels. --Taekyukim91 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Actually the maps are explained well haha sorry. But I would like to see more about the different weapons and perks. --Taekyukim91 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - have to say I missed the Nazi zombies in the WWII history books I read ;-) , here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs in Category:FA-Class video game articles and one seems like it would be an especially good model for this - Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
  • The article is quite short and so there is not a whole lot to say, but here are some ideas.
  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, and as such nothing should be in the lead only. However, there are things only in the lead, like Ideaworks Game Studio developing it, or it being for the iOS, or wi-fi networks.
  • The things that are only in the lead are all things that can be expanded on in the article. I think the article could be more explicit that iOS is an Apple product.
  • How is playing the game on an iPad / iPhone different from playing other COD games on other computers / systems (touch screen vs controller / mouse / keyboard)?
  • Make sure the article is up to date - in the lead It will offer purchasable downloadable content in the form of new maps in the future.[3][4] is sourced to 2009 articles - surely by now the new maps have been released (and seem to be mentioned in the article later).
  • No mention of critical responses
  • The Development section really is not about development (how the game came to be, before it was available for sale) as much as some later extensions.
  • The Development section has no references and needs them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • German words should have translations provided
  • No images? Most game articles have at least one fair use image
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing
  • Make sure to provide context to the reader and make sure to write about this fictional world from an out-of-universe perspcetive - see WP:IN-U
  • 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.)

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 ><>°° 05:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. SixthAtom (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at Brabourne Stadium[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is based on similar lists that have Featured List status. The information is complete and as such I am requesting the review to iron out any issues that may be before nom the article for FL status.

Thanks, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 14:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias talk

I wouldn't say this article is too far off at all: in fact, it's probably better than a lot of articles that get nominated straight to FL. That said, I'd prefer that articles come here to be cleaned up first, so fair play!

  • I've cleaned up a fair bit of stuff that was just consistency and formatting.
  • The caption is unencyclopedic language, 'hallowed turf' specifically. I'd suggest completely rewriting it to be more neutral.

 Done RM 'hallowed turf' from the caption. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cricinfo references should list ESPNcricinfo as the publisher, not Cricinfo.com. I'd also suggest linking this on the first usage.

 Done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • First reference should have an accessdate, and the title and publisher need to be reversed (with the above change applied too).

 Done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in your date format, at times you use Month DD, YYYY, and other times DD Month YYYY.

 Done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 8 has no publisher listed.

 Done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You could do with listing a reference other than Cricinfo at some stage, even if just in some background info on the ground. Relying too much on one source is frowned upon.

 Done Iv added refs from Zee News, Indian Express Newspaper and BBC News Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps! Harrias talk 14:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Arwadi[edit]

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

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

I just want some feedback on the article.

Thanks, 3family6 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Sources do not need to be included in the lead and infobox as they referenced in the article body
  • This is just a suggestion, is there any to expand the lead? WP:LEAD states that articles with fewer than 1,500 should have one-two paragraphs

Article body

  • Two paragraphs (beginning with “On 2006, Jeff Arwadi moved to Canada…” and “On 2009, Jeff announced that…”) in the “Kekal” section needs additional references as both of them are unreferenced.
  • ”Jeff decided to quit this band in 1991, and spend time learning the guitar more seriously” perhaps “In 1991, Jeff decided to quit the band to spend more time learning the guitar”? The following sentence “In 1992” could be replaced with “A year later”.
  • The sentence “Despite his leaving Kekal, Jeff still contributes to the band, which is releasing its eight studio album, appropriately titled 8.” is separated from the paragraphs. Either expand it to make a paragraph or merge it into one of the paragraphs.
  • The section “Other projects” has only one sentence and is unreferenced. I suggest either expanding the section or merge it into one of the sentences.
  • ”Though Jeff and the other members of Kekal are Christians, the band has maintained that it is about music, life, and universality, and does not endorse any particular belief.[14][15]” This sentence is separated from a paragraph. Either expand it or merge it onto one of the paragraphs.
  • I’ve noticed some superlatives, for example: “This was his first serious band” What makes it a “serious band”?

References'

  • I would suggest removing the reference after “Nekrofonik – 2004” and put it on the relevant section in the article
  • Is there a secondary or third-party source for the Soundmind Graphics sections? The one from Allmusic is fine.

Additional tips

  • I highly recommend you go through a copyedit for the article. You can someone do it for you or request at WP:GOCE

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Magiciandude (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll get to work on your suggestions.--3family6 (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Hunter[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked hard to improve it to GA standard, and now want to start pushing it towards FA. I think it would benefit from an outside view, and some advice as to the sort of things that need to be improved. N.b. I have also requested peer review at the arts wikiproject, but have had no response as that project is now semi-active, so I am hoping for better luck here.

Thanks, KorruskiTalk 09:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-written. However, it does not seem comprehensive to me, a non-expert on art with no prior knowledge of Hunter. I also have doubts about the images, as explained below.

Lead

  • "He spent much of his early life in California, USA, but returned later to Scotland... " - Instead of "California, USA", I'd recommend "California, in the United States". WP:MOS#Abbreviations says in part, "Do not use U.S.A. or USA, except in a quotation or as part of a proper name (Team USA)."

Early life and San Francisco

  • "making a living primarily as a magazine illustrator" - What magazine or magazines? Is any of his published work available from that time? It would probably be free-use material if you can find it.
  • What did Dixon, Putnam, and Hunter have in common? What did they hope to accomplish by forming the California Society of Arts? In what ways was it to be different from the San Francisco Art Association (SFAA)? In what sense was the SFAA conservative?
  • You mention a family in this section and a sister in the "London" section. What were his parents' names? What was his sister's name? Did he have other siblings?

Early painting career

  • "What painting he did was dominated by still-lifes on black backgrounds, influenced by the Dutch style." - Could you be more specific about "Dutch style"? Does this refer to a particular chronological period? A particular group of painters? What are its characteristics beyond "still-lifes on black backgrounds"?
  • "Here, inspired by French art and the local landscape" - Which French art? What did the physical landscape(s) look like? Farms? Seacoasts? Cliff faces? Hills? Ponds? Forests?

London, ill-health and death

  • "Hunter suffered a severe breakdown" - What kind of breakdown? Physical? Emotional? How did it manifest? Signs and symptoms?
  • Since it was his sister who looked after him, I'm assuming that Hunter was not married. Was he? Any significant other(s)?
  • "including one of Dr Tom Honeyman, the Director of the Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum" - Instead of academic titles, Wikipedia uses brief descriptions. I would suggest "Tom Honeyman, a physician who directed the Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum... ".

Popularity

  • Would it be useful to add the names of places that people can go to see major collections of Hunter's work in 2011?

Layout

  • It's best to keep images wholly inside the sections they illustrate. Short sections make this difficult to achieve. Sometimes the problem can be solved by moving the images, and sometimes sections can be expanded or merged to make room for an important image. In the existing article, both images displace edit buttons and overlap section boundaries. They would look better if they did not do this.

Images

  • I'd make sure to add an image to the infobox. Preferably, this would be a free-use image of Hunter, if one can be found.
  • The source link for File:Leslie Hunter - The Beach Largo at Low Tide.jpg is dead and should be repaired or replaced. Otherwise, fact-checkers cannot verify the license claim. Also, if the date of creation is unknown, how can we be sure that the copyright has expired?
  • If the creation date of File:HunterPortrait.jpg is unknown, how can we be sure that it is not still protected by copyright?
  • If the images can't be licensed as free-use, perhaps a fair-use license would be acceptable. An example of such a license can be seen at File:No. 5, 1948.jpg.

References

  • Do all of the sources meet the WP:RS guidelines? The gallery web sites, for example, are most likely tertiary sources rather than secondary sources; that is, they largely repeat information from secondary sources, although they might not identify those sources.
  • The book data should include place of publication. For example, the book in citation 5 was published in Layton, Utah. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.
  • This leads to my most serious reservation about meeting the FA requirement that the article be comprehensive. A WorldCat search on "George Leslie Hunter" turns up material not mentioned in the existing article. The first item on the search list, for example, is The Life and Work of George Leslie Hunter, 1977–1931 (2002) by Derek Ogston and Margaret Carlaw. I don't know anything about Hunter except what I've read in your Wikipedia article, and I don't know which, if any, of the other biographies or studies would be useful. Nevertheless, the article seems a bit skimpy in places. Could it be expanded? Should it?

Other

  • The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dead link in the citations.
  • Rather than repeating "life" and "early" in the heads and subheads of the "Life" section, I'd rewrite them with variety in mind. Perhaps, for example, "Life" could become "Biography".
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AJona1992/Sandbox14[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

Article is here

I've listed this article for peer review because the current status of Selena lacks information and have short paragraphs which was a huge concern for the FACC. Although it succeeded the concerns, the article lacks a lot of vital information in regards to Selena. I've spent and dedicated my time and week to turn a 45 KB "FA" article to a 115 KB article. Once this draft can be OK-ed, I'll move all contents to the main article

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is not how PR works; we cannot review articles that are not in mainspace. Re-present when the article is properly ready for review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anerley[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I`ve edited the page to a point which this article is no longer in the start phase.

Thanks, Rockybiggs (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Amakuru[edit]

Hi Rockybiggs,

Good work on the article, you seem to have made some good improvements to it.

Hopefully Ruhrfish will come back to you with some useful feedback, but I will make a few general points in the meantime.

As a guideline for developing this article, you might like to look at Radcliffe, Greater Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyne. The reason I suggest those is that they are featured articles on a similar topic, i.e. a suburb of a large English conurbation. Another useful port of call is WP:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, which provides lots of guidance on which sections to include etc. Broadly, you need sections on History (which you already have), Governance, Geography, Demography and Economy at the very least and probably also Landmarks, Sport etc. if there is enough to say about them.

Another thing to bear in mind is referencing. This is pretty much the number one rule in Wikipedia. Try to find sources for every single thing you write. As an example, the Roads paragraph does not contain a single reference. A map would do for the A road information, and for the ringways scheme you could probably check in London ringways article itself to see what references they use.

Once you have the above sections in place, you will then need to expand the lead so that it becomes a summary of everything significant mentioned in the article. As such, it needs to be longer than at present (probably 3-4 paragraphs), and it needs to closely match the individual sections of the body of the article.

Anyway, good luck with it - I know it can seem daunting at first, but if you keep plugging away, section by section, you can make it. And any work you do do is a bonus for Wikipedia, even if you then have to move onto other things. I have been working on the Rwanda article for the past year or so, with pretty limited time available sometimes, and am finally getting to the point where it is shipshape enough to consider a GA or FA run. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments[edit]

Thanks for your work on this article and sorry to be slow in reviewing it. I agree with Amakuru's comments above and hve some more suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead is very short - it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the bit about Charing Cross is only in the lead as far as I can tell.
  • In terms of expanding the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way (so more history, transportation). Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example the Buses, ROads, and Rail sections all have no refs at all. The material in Hisotry on the last rocket in WWII and becoming part of Bromley also both need refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The refs that are there are incomplete in terms of the information provided. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The External link checker tool (on this page in the toolbox) finds three dead links which will need to be fixed or replaced.
  • Make sure the references used meet WP:RS - what makes "findanewhome.com" a reliable source, for example?
  • The Anerley Gardens section has a a block of text sandwiched between two images - WP:MOSIMAGE says to avoid such image sandwiches.
  • History ends in 1965 - has nothing happened in the past 46 years?
  • There is very little on the Crystal Palace - I expected more since it was in Anerley and is mentioned in the lead.
  • Language is a bit rough in spots - one example of several Anerley Gardens opened in 1841, and provided entertainment to the growing 19th century leisure industry.[2] It provided entertainment to people, not to an industry (it was probably part of that industry). "leisure industry" sounds odd to me - is it OK in British English? Perhaps something like Anerley Gardens opened in 1841, and provided entertainment to the masses of London as part of the growing 19th century trend to commercialize leisure.[2]
  • I agree that model articles are very useful.
  • 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.)

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 ><>°° 05:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithm[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article recently passed its Good Article Nomination and I'm planning to push it to FA level. Any comments welcome.

Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest toning down the first sentence a little bit? Perhaps by recasting the logarithm as a relationship before fleshing out some technical details, for example:
The logarithm is a relationship between the numbers a,b, and c in the equation ab = c. The relationship is defined as follows: given ab = c, the logarithm of the number c, with respect to the base a, is the exponent b. For example, since 42 = 24 = 16, the logarithm of 16 with respect to the base 4 is 2, and with respect to the base 2 is 4. This relationship is denoted logac = b and (enunciated?) the log of c to the base a is b.
This proposed sentence is terrible. If the logarithm is a "relationship", then that "relationship" is already expressed by ab = c. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I expect most people looking this article up will have had limited expose to reading mathematics. An afterthought: maybe my examples are confusing since most of the numbers are the same. I'll try and add more comments later. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion; however I'm not sure the detour (and disguised link) to a function/relation is helpful and/or necessary. The logarithm is, most basically, really just a number. Isn't it? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two suggestions about the definition of the logarithm
(Which are not contradictory with the previous suggestion, as far as it could be suggested to bring this formal sentence further down in the article, and rewrite it in a less formal style in the lead).
My comments would be about the question "but what is precisely the logarithm ?" that a beginner could be expected to be interested in, and for which an answer could reasonably be wished in every maths article, be it a highschool topic or a research topic.
First, the definition is not obvious to find - as far as I looked for it, I finally found it in the first sentence of the lead, but nowhere clearly in the article proper. This is not very suitable, such an important thing could be retold in the article proper - or even sent in the article and replaced in the lead by something a bit more informal, as suggested by Ben above.
Thanks, someone has apparently removed it from the first section. I'll reinstate it there at once. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then, supposing I am a highschool student looking for precise information, and supposing I have understood the definition lies in this first sentence, I don't fully understand it. I click on the wikilink on base. Oooops, this brings me to an article titled radix, which seems in casual reading to be about "bases" in elementary arithmetic - if I read it thoroughly, I discover relevant information in the bottom, but it was not obvious where to find it. If I click on power, I am redirected on exponentiation and here again I might be a bit lost - am I supposed to understand by my own that the place to read is the subsection called "Real powers" ? The two first wikilinks are not informative enough (I have not tried the following ones). As I may seem a bit negative, here follows a suggestion (I practise it as often as I can when I edit maths articles, mostly on :fr wikipedia) : use redirects towards sections. In the article radix a section called "Radix in analysis" can be created (even should, since the information is badly classified under the title "In Arithmetic". Then a redirect called [[radix (analysis)]] (or something similar) sending to [[radix#Radix in analysis]] may be created, and at last the link in the logarithm article can be reinstated more precisely as [[radix in analysis|base]]. The same can be done with a redirection to section which may be called [[power with real exponent]], sending on the relevant section of the big exponentiation article.
I removed the wikilink to base/radix (which was superfluous there) and changed the "power" to "exponent". (The suggestion with the subsection might work, but ideally we would not need such a technique.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, a complete review of every wikilink in the article should be underdone before label is asked. Circular references are the plagues of maths articles, and I would not be suprised that a few ones haunt this place ; even if they don't, making wikilinks as precise as possible is an important aim.
OK, I'll do that. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now another topic about the definition : NPoV. The present definition is sourced by only one book, probably well suited to this purpose, Basics Of Mathematics by Kate, S.K.; Bhapkar, H.R. As an experienced reader, I know that for other sources, the logarithm is the primitive of x 1/x that vanishes at 1. (I suppose this is the choice of a minority of sources, but certainly a significant minority). As long as we consider these "points of view" as different points of view about the logarithm, they are both adressed in the article, which respects NPoV. But if we consider that they are points of view about the definition of the logarithm, NPoV is not respected. Due to the expected mastery of mathematics of some readers of such an article, I quite think we are in the second branch of this alternative.
Did you see that the article characterizes/redefines logarithms as the integral in section 4.3? If yes, I'm not quite sure I can follow you about the NPOV. The first definition we give is clearly not POV, it is just the usual definition any elementary math book contains. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did of course, and I underlined I knew it was already here, but not already here pointed as a possible definition. And as I explained in the following too longish paragraphs, I understand very well there are good reasons to answer me "no sorry". But I don't agree with your "it is just the usual definition any elementary math book contains" -> it might be a difference of culture between undergraduate level teaching in the US and in France, but here (in France) it is fairly common to begin an exposition by building the logarithm as a primitive, then the exponential as a reciprocal, and at last the powers from the formula ax=ex ln a. Here is an example available on the web : [1] (the Encyclopaedia Universalis is quite venerated in France :-)) ; I can certainly find several others when I access a library next Monday. Two definitions with two different flavors really do happen in different sources. French Tourist (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "elementary" I meant middle and high-school text-books. I don't doubt you find many (French, Chinese or English) university-level textbooks (one is cited in the article) which take this path, since it is more smooth and maybe more elegant, too.
More concretely, what precisely do you like to be changed? Mention the integral-based definition in the first section or in the lead? I was reproached (probably rightfully) for having too many internal links in the article, so I'm hesitating about putting a "see below for another definition" in the first section. (NPOV and similar accusations should only be based on assessing the whole article.) I'm slightly more open to putting a brief note in the lead section, but even here it is not clear to me that this would be beneficial. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My God, I realize only now that while I had of course seen section 4.3 I had read it too quickly and not seen the sentence "The right hand side of this equation can serve as a definition of the natural logarithm". Sorry for the inconvenience I have caused by speaking so lengthily while I had missed something essential. A footnote after the first definition hinting there is another one further might be useful, though, now that this first definition has been reinserted in the article proper (I agree it would be a unproductive in the lead), but feel free to think this is pointless cluttering, and that I was definitely wrong on this one. French Tourist (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Further comments welcome ;) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On higher level articles, the reader can be expected to have the experience that a given concept has several equivalent definitions. On such an elementary concept, there obviously exist readers unaware that a mathematical topic can be defined in two seemingly very different ways. So, at the level of this article, my opinion is that I think this is a problem which should be addressed, and which is very difficult to address, especially if we begin to try to imagine the situation of a reader clicking on a chain of three or four successive wikilinks to expand a definition. I have no such constructive solution as for my first remark, but I could suggest that somewhere in the article there should be a subsection titled "Definitions of the logarithm" which will explain to an hypothetical lost reader that some books (with at least an example) do prove from other premises that the logarithm is "the exponent to which the base must be raised". I fully understand this kind of joke can awfully clutter an article, and I would understand quite well if I was rebuked - you might be right indeed. But I think it is necessary to think about it, even if to decide to do nothing. French Tourist (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it would be highly beneficial if this article could explain for the lay reader, up front, the true benefit of logarithms: that, prior to the invention of the computer, logarithms turned a tedious number crunching operation (multiplication and division) into a simple procedure (addition and subtraction). Hence the benefit of logarithm tables and the slide rule. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
I tried to give more emphasize to it. Better/sufficient now? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: In an effort to judge the accessibility of this article to a general audience, I read it through - or as much of it as I could understand. It's a while since I studied maths at school, and though I half-remembered some terms I found most of the article beyond me. I enlisted the help of a 17-year-old in his final school year, who is intending to study mathematics at University. His view on the article is that most of his school class would be able to follow the article without too much difficulty, though given the nature of the subject it is unlikely that it can ever be written in terms that the mythical "general reader" would find comprehensible. Between us we picked up a few instances in the lead that we thought could be clarified:-

  • Clarify that "e" is a mathematical constant. Don't rely on the link on e
  • "It is critical to calculus since it is the inverse function of the exponential function." Rather than relying on links to explain this complex sentence, in the lead I would simplify it to "The natural logarithm is especially critical in calculus", and leave the explanation for later in the article.
  • "...the Richter scale is the common logarithm of the amplitude of a seismic event." Unclear as it stands, suggest "...the Richter scale uses the common logarithmn to measure the amplitude of seismic events".

Beyond the lead it will definitely require at least some mathematical knowledege to make sense of most of the content, though often the general gist can be gleaned by non-experts. I hope that this is useful by way of general advice. Please contact me if you need any clarification concerning these points. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, all of which I found useful. They are now integrated in the lead. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Section on monotonicity properties is needed.

The fact that logb(x) < logb(y) ⇒ x < y (with reverse inequality for b < 1) is never spelled out explicitly, although it is quite useful. Similarly, there is logb(x) < y ⇒ x < by (again, for b > 1). In fact, I believe the case b < 1 should be given more attention: although such bases never used in practice, it's a common trap in highschool exams to give such a base and have the direction of monotonicity reversed. Starting from the first picture (with 3 logarithm curves), we should add a 4th curve there, corresponding to, say, b = 1/2. Because right now the article leaves the impression that logarithm is always an increasing function, which is not quite correct.  // stpasha »  02:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now briefly mentioned (in the inverse function section). As you rightly say, bases < 1 are hardly ever used and highschool exams are not important enough to give a full-fledged discussion of the function, I think. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am seeking a Peer Review as a step to Featured Article status. After a first Peer Review, a successful GA promotion, and subsequent copyediting, I think one final set of eyes to look the article over before a FA nomination would be very helpful.

Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62:

  • I think the lead would benefit from having more information about the decision itself. Was the decision unanimous? Who wrote the majority opinion? If there was a minority opinion, who wrote it and what were their concerns?
  • The beginning of Background assumes that the reader has read the lead, or that the reader is from the United States, neither of which will always be true. I suggest rephrasing to make it clear that this took place in the US.
    •  Done
  • "The purpose of the act was to provide government-funded legal aid to indigent defendants" What is an "indigent defendant"?
    •  Done
  • "Restrictions included prohibitions against bringing class action lawsuits" Bringing them where? Perhaps "bringing" should be replaced with "filing"...?
    •  Done
  • "trying to collect attorney's fees" Was the prohibition against the trying or the collecting (rhetorical question)? I suggest rephrasing to "collecting attorney's fees"
    •  Done
  • "Carmen Velazquez lost welfare benefits from the government under the provisions of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act (TANF)" When was this?
    •  Done
  • The phrase "distortion of speech" is placed within quotation marks for its second appearance in Subsequent developments. Jargon phrases should be placed in quotations only for their first instance (or not at all).
    •  Done
  • "This means that when the government..." Ew. The phrase "this means that..." should be used only in children's workbooks and material published by Britannica. We're trying to write a serious encyclopedia here. I suggest removing the offending phrase and connecting this sentence to the previous by using a colon.
    •  Done
  • "It first went through the case law relating to government speech. It examined what it described as the "Conditions doctrine" where certain conditions on receiving federal funds were upheld or struck down. The article then turned to the Rust distinction." Don't give a play-by-play description of everything that was said in the article. Drop the "first this, then this" wording and simply summarize the main points.
    • I think resolved.  Done

Hope this helps! I won't be watching this page, so if you need clarification, please leave a note on my talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I believe I addressed everything raised. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1907 Tiflis bank robbery[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get this up to a Featured Article and I wanted to run it through peer review first in case there were any glaring mistakes.

Thanks, Remember 13:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is very well-done and quite interesting. I enjoyed reading it. I have a fair number of suggestions, all minor, for further improvement, but I don't see any big problems.

  • I think the lead image would look better at 300px.
Done.

Lead

  • "the injuring of fifty others according to official archive documents" - I'd add a comma after "others" to set the tag off from the rest of the sentence.
Done.

Background

  • "This resolution passed with a vast majority of 65% against 6% (others abstained or did not vote)... " - MOS:PERCENT recommends "percent" or "per cent" rather than the symbol in simple cases like this, with a no-break code between the parts; i.e., 65 percent.
Done.

Preparation

  • "later in his life he reportedly cut out a man's heart from his chest... " - Tighten by one word by deleting "out"?
Done.
  • "organization called "the Outfit" - It appears as "The Outfit" in the infobox. I don't know which is correct, big T or little T, but they should be the same.
Done.

Stalin's role in the robbery

  • Shorten the head to "Stalin's role"?
Done.

Security response and investigation

  • "The police launched an investigation of the crime, and a special detective unit was brought in to lead the investigations." To avoid repetition of "investigation", maybe "The police assigned a special detective unit to investigate the crime."
I revised it so it doesn't have two investigations.
  • "Additionally, it was unknown which group was responsible for the robbery with numerous rumors that put the responsibility... " - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction, and "responsible" is repeated twice in the sentence. Suggestion: "Additionally, they did not know which group was responsible for the robbery. Rumors blamed Polish socialists, Armenians, anarchists, Socialist-Revolutionaries, or even the Russian State itself."
Revised.
  • In his book "Stalin – An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence" - Italics rather than quotation marks for the book title?
Revised.
  • "According to Roman Brackman's The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life, several days after the robbery the Okhrana agent Mukhtarov questioned Stalin about the robbery in a secret apartment." - Since you give all of the details about Brackman earlier in the article, I think you could just use "Brackman" here; i.e., "According to Brackman, several days... ". Also, to avoid repeating "robbery" twice in the sentence, maybe this would be better: "According to Brackman, several days after the robbery the Okhrana agent Mukhtarov questioned Stalin in a secret apartment."
Revised.
  • I'd merge the one-sentence orphan paragraph at the end of this section with the paragraph above it.
Revised.

Moving the money

  • The money from the robbery was originally hidden in Tiflis, kept at the house of Stalin's friends, Mikha and Maro Bochoridze.[29] There the money was sewn into a mattress so that it could be moved and stored easily without arousing suspicion.[33] After the money was sewn into the mattress, the mattress was moved first to another safe house and later onto the Director's couch at the Tiflis Meteorological Observatory." - Too many repetitions of "money" and "mattress"?
Revised.

Captures and trials of Kamo

  • "from Lenin to a prominent Bolshevik, Dr. Yakov Zhitomirsky, asking the doctor... " - The Manual of Style suggests using a brief description rather than an academic title. Thus, "Dr." should be omitted from this sentence, and nothing needs to be added in its place since it is already there in the form of "asking the doctor for medical assistance" unless you want to use the even more specific "physician" in place of "doctor".
Revised.
  • "In August 1911, after feigning insanity for more than three years, Kamo escaped from the psychiatric ward of a prison in Tiflis by sawing through his window bars and climbing down a homemade rope.[42][47][43]" - Rearrange the inline citations to appear in ascending order, i.e., [42][43][47].
Revised.


  • "Kamo was caught before the robbery took place and was put on trial in Tiflis for his exploits" - Would it be helpful to add the year here?
Revised.

References

  • Citations 36, 43, and 62 should use p. instead of pp.
Revised.
  • Citation 48 should use pp. instead of p.
Revised.
  • Citations 25, 57, and 59 should use Wikipedia house style by rendering the article titles in title case rather than all-caps, per MOS:ALLCAPS.
Revised.

Bibliography

  • If possible, the book entries should include place of publication. If you don't have this information in your notes, it can usually be found via World Cat.
Revised when possible.
  • Krupskaya should precede Kun.
Revised.

Images

  • Nice images. They work well.
Thanks.
I don't know anything about where this image came from so I can't help out here.
  • I'd consider moving File:Kamo(Ter-Petrossian).jpg to the left side of the page so that he looks into the article rather than out. I might move him down also, just a bit, to keep him from bumping into the subhead on the left.
Done.

Other

  • The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one link, to Freedom Square, that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.
Revised.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Ok.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the peer review. That was very helpful. I with revise the article with your comments in mind as soon as possible. Remember (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth's review[edit]

I'm a bit late to this peer review (a note was left on my talk page), but here are my thoughts:

  • (1) Is there really a need to put the UTC time in the infobox. It seems irrelevant to me. Local time is sufficient, but it should be made clear that this is local time. Anyway, I'm not even sure if worldwide times had been synchronised yet.
Good point. Revised. Remember (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2) Background: "vast majority" - I think vast should be replaced with 'large'. Vast seems an excited way of putting it. Also, saying "against" 6 percent sounds wrong to me. The usual word that would be used here is "versus". Even better would be to say that 65 percent supported and 6 percent opposed.
Revised. Remember (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3) Preparation: here, you are moving back in time from the congress at the end of May and first day of June to April. Maybe use a phrase like "Earlier..." to alert the reader, or use the past tense to indicate that you are referring to past events within the timeframe of the narrative.
Revised. Remember (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (4) It's not clear whether those taking part in, or organising the robbery, were aware of the resolution passed at the congress in London. It is implied that they (or some of them) were, but this is never stated explicitly in the article. Was Lenin at that conference, for example? Were any of the others there?
Revised. Remember (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (5) It's not clear how crowded the square was at the time or how large the square was (though the picture helps there). It might also help to give an idea of how large a city Tiflis was at the time, and what its population was, and how large in physical size it was (the phrase "almost across the whole city" seems to suggest that the bombs could be heard over the whole city).
I don't have that information at this time and I haven't come across it. If I do, I will add. Remember (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (6) "managed to sneak out of the square before security forces arrived" seems inconsistent with "The police [...] were guarding every street corner in Yerevan Square".
That is what the sources say. I think the after the bombs exploded all the security forces were in disarray.
  • (7) "The deputy committed suicide soon afterwards" - this is a bit of a hanging statement (the implication is left there for the reader to make the connection). I think you need to either find a source that explicitly links the suicide to the robbery, or drop this.
Revised. Remember (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (8) "Kamo then rode to the gang's headquarters" - is this the same as the place they met at before the robbery, referred to earlier as "the organizers, including Stalin, met near Yerevan Square to finalize their plans". If so, you need to make clear this is all still within the city and not outside it.
No. Different place from what I can tell. Remember (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (9) When was Stalin – An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence published? The references gives 2009, the date of the publication of the translation. Since Trotsky died in 1940, you need to say here when Trotsky published this book. The same applies to the quote from Nicolaevsky - it is not clear from this article when either of these two are making these quoted statements. You then mention someone called Kun for the first time. It is not clear who this person Kun is, so you need to say what period he is from (I presume he is an author whose book was published in 2003, but you need to introduce him here and explain who he is, especially as you are switching from quotes from those at the time to someone speaking around a century later). The same applies to the Krupskaya quote later - the reference is dated 1970, but when was she saying this (she died in 1939)?
Done. Remember (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (10) The link to 'Allegations of Stalin's suspected cooperation with Okhrana' doesn't really work. Better would be to work in the phrase "early life of Joseph Stalin" and link to it that way.
Revised. Remember (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (11) Was the money all notes and no coins or bullion? The description of the denominations makes that clear, but maybe it could be explicitly stated at some appropriate point?
I think this is fine, but I will change if others disagree.
  • (12) When I click on the links in the references section, they are not taking me down to the entries in the bibliography as they should be doing. Is this broken in some way?
It works now. Remember (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (13) When you refer to Berlin, possibly say it is in Germany, to orientate people as these travels take place.
Berlin, Germany is mentioned the first time Berlin is mentioned and then it is just mentioned as Berling. Remember (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (14) Inconsistent spelling: "Bolshevik Centre" (twice), "Bolshevik Center" (once), "Bolshevist Center" (once, in title of a source), and "Bolshevist Centre" (twice).
Revised. Remember (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article was fascinating to read (especially about armed robbery in the days before mass communications and motor cars), and it is very well-written and was a pleasure to read. I hope the above comments help. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary psychology[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Request for peer review of the Evolutionary Psychology (EP) page. There is currently disagreement regarding what are appropriate and inappropriate criticisms of the field to include on the main EP page, with strong opinions expressed on both sides. See the recent discussion / debate on the EP talk page [[2]] Thanks, Memills (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall comments:

  • The article should either use spaced en-dashes or non-spaced em-dashes, and they should be used consistently. The first sentence uses spaced em-dashes; the second sentence of the overview uses three dashes; the quote by Tooby and Cosmides uses a non-spaced em-dash; the "Natural selection" section uses spaced dashes.
  • "Other adaptations, according to EP..." As far as I can tell, these are the first concrete examples. Hence, the word "other" here seems improper. Perhaps "Examples of adaptations,"?
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, the article discusses how EP views intraspecies conflict, but does not tie this into how this impacts evolution.
  • Please wikilink bonobos, standard social science model and metatheoretical as the reader may be unfamiliar with this jargon.
  • "designed by the process of natural selection" => the word "designed" here is perhaps not the best as a few readers might take it to imply a "designer". Perhaps "assembled through the process of natural selection" or some such.
  • The jargon "agent-detection mechanisms" is unclear. Can this be linked or explained? I can take a guess but I'd prefer something definitive.
  • There are a few too many paragraphs that begin with 'Evolutionary psychology', 'Evolutionary psychologists', EP or the like. This style can tend to make writing monotonous, so please try mixing it up a little.
  • The writing was decent up until here: "EP uses Nikolaas Tinbergen's four categories...", which left me dangling a bit. I think that part could be improved upon.
  • Aren't bullets #2 and #5 of the Cosmides/Tooby principles more or less the same? Perhaps the text could clarify how these differ?
  • Much of the final sentence of the "Principles" section is redundant with much of the first sentence of the "General evolutionary theory" section.
  • I understand the "General evolutionary theory" section is there as an introduction, but right now it just seems like an interlude. My sense is that the selection needs to tie in more tightly to the article topic. For example, sexual selection could focus on the psychology of mate selection criteria in humans.
  • The "Foundations" section could do with an explanation. Why is the table there and what is it trying to show? I know it looks orderly formatted this way, but as a casual reader the table approach tended put me off.
  • Likewise the bullets in Middle-level evolutionary theories are not quite appealing. I think they could just as easily be re-written in normal prose so there is better flow.

I hope these comments were somewhat helpful. I'll try to add some more later.—RJH (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 Note If I understand correctly from your submittal, I think that you are saying that you are having a content dispute? I'm not versed enough on the norms of PR to know if that can be handle here, but here or wherever, if you want input on a content dispute it would be good to clarify more exactly what the question is. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Balotelli[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I would like to make it Good Article standard and would like some oppinions and feedback of other users before I start work on the article. Thanks, –LiamTaylor– 22:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Canada Hky (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • Comments from my experience getting some hockey and (gridiron) football articles to GA status. Canada Hky (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typically, if the fact is cited in the body of the article, the inline citations aren't needed in the lead.
    • The lead is a bit short to adequately summarize the material in the rest of the article. The info about his nickname could probably be omitted in favour of a more thorough summary of his career.
    • The "cramped lifestyle" makes it sound like it refers only to Balotelli, presumably it refers to the way his family lived.
    • The comment about his biological parents "glory hunting" seems to come out of nowhere, because there is no mention of his parents wanting him back. A bit of context, or reorganization might help.
    • Lots of football jargon - "senior side", "set-piece", "penalty" (presumably kick), etc.
    • In the Style of play section, the part about "petulant attitude" probably needs a direct cite.
    • Having inline cites in numerical order cleans things up a lot.
    • The dead links in the references should be cleaned up / replaced if possible.
  • This isn't an exhaustive list, just some things to get you started. The article could probably do with a thorough copyedit and some polishing before GA / FA. Interesting read, though.  :) Canada Hky (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Iv'e done all your points. Thanks mate, your comments helped, much apprieciated. –LiamTaylor– 11:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 113[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I want to get more sets of eyes on the article to catch major and minor issues before I submit this article to FAC. This article sailed through GAN and was improved markedly through the project's A-Class Review. I think this article is broad, comprehensive, and follows all of the guidelines for Featured Articles, but there are probably some changes that can be made that I would never think of on my own. My goal is to have these potential snags corrected to make the FAC process as smooth as possible.

Best regards,  VC  07:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: With just a few minor changes, this is ready for FAC. It appears to be comprehensive; its prose is professional; the images are adequate and correctly licensed; all but the last two paragraphs of the article are reliably sourced (and those should be an easy fix). This is, overall, an excellent highway article. Here are my suggestions:

Pocomoke City to Snow Hill

  • "which preserves cypress swamps and loblolly pine stands" - Identify the kind of cypress if possible and then link to its page (not the disambiguation page for cypress)? Link "loblolly pine" to Pinus taeda?
    • The specific type of cypress is bald cypress. I linked both bald cypress and loblolly pine using their common names, since those names redirect to the scientific names.  VC  22:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along the Maryland Scenic and Wild River" - Is this part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System? If so, should the name be Maryland Wild and Scenic River? Should it then be linked to National Wild and Scenic Rivers System?
    • There are no Maryland rivers within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.  VC  08:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the head of navigation of the Pocomoke River" - Link Pocomoke River?
  • "at the head of navigation" - I'd consider linking here on first use to a definition in Wiktionary, like this: head of navigation.
    • Wikilinked Pocomoke River and linked to definition of head of navigation as suggested.  VC  08:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Hill to Berlin

  • "The U.S. highway bridges Five Mile Branch of the Pocomoke River before the highway veers away... " - Using "bridges" as a verb here causes a hiccup because it can also be read as a noun at first glance. I think "crosses" would be more clear.
    • I changed "bridges" to "traverses" because "crosses" is used later in the sentence.  VC  08:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown to Milford

  • "North of the swamp area, US 113 passes to the west of Ellendale, whose late 19th-century heyday was as a railroad town at the junction of perpendicular rail lines at its Railroad Square." - A town isn't a "who". Suggestion: "North of the swamp area, US 113 passes to the west of Ellendale, which flourished in the late 19th-century as a railroad town at the junction of perpendicular rail lines at its Railroad Square."
    • Changed wording to the suggested version.  VC  08:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Predecessor roads

  • "ultimately leading to Wilmington and Philadelphia" - Link Wilmington and Philadelphia? I think this is the first mention of them in the article.
    • Both cities are linked in the second paragraph of the Lead.  VC  08:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland state roads

  • "was paved with a 12-to-14-foot (3.7 to 4.3 m) wide macadam surface" - Link macadam on first use?
    • Linked macadam in that sentence.  VC  08:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dupont Highway

  • "then resurfaced with bituminous concrete" - Should "bituminous concrete" be linked or briefly explained? How does it differ from macadam or concrete?
    • Bituminous concrete is asphalt concrete, commonly called just asphalt. Since "bituminous concrete" is more of a specialized engineering term, I replaced "bituminous concrete" with "asphalt" in all instances and wikilinked the first instance of asphalt to asphalt concrete. I wikilinked the first instance of concrete to Portland cement concrete. I thought about wikilinking shoulder to shoulder (road), but there is no info in the article about use of shoulders as a way to widen a road rather than as a breakdown lane or road margin.  VC  08:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bannered routes

  • This section needs in-line citations to sources. The wikilinks to other articles can't substitute for in-line citations in this article even if the linked articles provide the sources.
    • Referenced paragraphs in Bannered routes section.  VC  08:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • The bolding of some of the publication dates jumped out at me. I would consider using "cite web" instead of "cite journal" for the road commission reports to render the publication dates in regular type. (By the way, it took me a while to figure out your methods. I had never seen anyone put the first instance of a citation in the reference section itself. I vainly hunted for a first instance in the main text, then saw the pattern. Your system is internally consistent, but other editors may also find it a bit puzzling at first.)
    • The bolding of the publication years is because the volumes are numbered by year instead of by a sequence starting from one. I would appreciate an opinion on whether this violates MOS or there is a more appropriate way of formatting these types of citations.
    • In one of my GA reviews last year, my reviewer recommended moving the details of reference citations to the Reflist template to make it easier to read through the text in the edit box. I thought this was a great idea and I have been doing that since in all of the articles I do significant work on.  VC  21:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is citation 94 missing a page number?
    • It is missing a page number because I accessed the article online and there was no page number indicated. I added the article's URL.  VC  21:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dead URL in the citations.
    • I fixed the URL for the dead URL in citation 20.  VC  21:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Image licenses look fine.
  • I would suggest retouching File:U.S. Route 113 at Maryland-Delaware line.JPG a bit to remove the two big white spots on the road. The cloning tool in image-manipulation software could be used to make the spots the same color as the road adjacent to them. I think the spots are camera glitches rather than paint on the road. I would be willing to modify the image for you if you like. Just let me know.
    • I retouched the photo to remove the white spots on the road.  VC  07:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Finetooth. I will be replying to each of your points here for self-edification and for the reference of other peer reviewers, since you indicate you do not usually follow review pages. I will contact you directly if I need clarification.  VC  20:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article and I wanted to run it through peer review to see what I need to work on. Thanks,

Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, timely, and sad. Here are suggestions for improvement:

  • I urge you not to include File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg in the article even though it has been published on-line elsewhere. I find it disrespectful to Saeed, and I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. The image constitutes an invasion of privacy that has implications for living relatives and friends. Please see WP:BDP. Also see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Privacy rights, which lists "any medical facility" as a "private place". A morgue is a medical facility and, hence, private. Please delete the image.
I second that!!! I was shocked by the image... Didn't expect to see it there! Please only provide a link for people who are interested in the external links section!--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to WP:NOTCENSORED? The image has been discussed on the article's talk page.  – ukexpat (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place of death and a brief description could be added to the "persondata" (generally visible only in edit mode) at the bottom of the article.
  • To broaden the coverage, it might be useful to cite other similar instances or to briefly describe the emergency law, and police tactics in Egypt. Perhaps there are statistics that might be useful.
  • If you can find more data about Saeed, it would be interesting to know where (what town or city) he was born, whether he had siblings, what he did for a living, and other pertinent biographical details.

Lead

  • " A prominent Facebook group, We are all Khaled Said... " - The second link goes to a redirect to a section of this same article. I would suggest removing this circular link. Also, the group is mentioned but not name in the "Aftermath" section. I would name it there.

Death

  • The blockquote should be in ordinary type, not italics. I'd recommend the blockquote format rather than the improvised format in the existing article. MOS:QUOTE explains how the blockquotes work.
  • The blockquote and all other quotations in the article need inline citations placed directly after the punctuation at the end of the quotes.

Aftermath

  • To make room for the image, I'd consider deleting the subhead, "Protests" and merging all of the material under the main head, "Aftermath".
  • When multiple citations appear as a group, they should be arranged in ascending order; i.e., [9][15] instead of [15][9].
  • the Egyptian government consented to a trial for the two detectives" - Has a trial date been set? Has the trial begun? Can you add any more details?

References

  • The date formatting should be consistent throughout the citations. Citations 1 and 2, for example, use two different kinds of formatting. You can use either format but not both.
  • Authors should all appear last name first.
  • Newspaper names like The National in citation 1 should appear in italics.
  • Citations to web sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of those can be found. Citation 4, for example, lacks the author's name, Ashraf Khalil.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Narasimham Committee on Banking Sector Reforms (1998)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this Topic is about a series of economic and political changes that happened in India, transforming India from a very weak economy in the early 1990s to an economy resilient enough to weather the Financial crisis (2007–present) that crippled half the world. It is obviously only one of the many factors but a significant one nonetheless.

Thanks,
abhishek singh 19:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Apterygial

Hi Abhishek. The article needs a fair bit of work, so I'm going to give a fairly basic review. Any questions or problems, feel free to leave them below my own comments.

  • The lead needs to be a summary of the article, and no information should be mentioned in the lead which is not in the body of the text.
  • First of all, you need to establish a context for the article in the lead. The first sentence assumes knowledge of the state of the banking sector before this body was initiated. You establish a context in the background section, so the lead should summarise this.
  • What were the key problems with the banking sector? That is, what prompted the committee (for example, was the sector seen as being too insular, were the problems mainly legal or was there a technical aspect)?
  • Once linked, an article does not need to be linked again (for example, there are two links to Economy of India in the first paragraph of the background section.
  • You can also reword your links by piping them, so [[Economic liberalisation in India|economic liberalisation]] comes out as economic liberalisation. This helps repeating words (in this case "India" and helps the flow of the article.
  • Spell out what "GOI" and "RBI" is the first time you mention it, as I had to hover over the links to understand the acronyms.
  • I would recommend merging all of the headings under Recommendations of the Committee, as many of the sections are only a sentence or so long. You should be able to link each of them together using prose.
  • Merging sentences together into two or three paragraphs in the Implementation of recommendations section would also help.
  • Headings shouldn't generally contain links; you should be able to include those links in the prose beneath.
  • The article needs a comprehensive Copyedit to clear us some often clunky prose. Go through the article carefully to spot any mistakes, and ask if you need help.
  • References should follow punctuation.
  • For the references, they need to include the title of the article you are citing. For example, the first one (which is currently labelled "The Frontline Article") needs to be re-named "Radical prescriptions", as this is the title of the article. The second one should be called "Narasimham Committee Report 1991 1998 - Recommendations", not ""Kalyan City articles".
  • I spotted at least a couple of instances of whole sentences being taken almost unedited from sources and included here. Note that you should at least re-word any information you get from sources when you include it in the article.
  • Make sure every work you cite follows Wikipedia's rules of verifiability and is a reliable source.

Again, let me know if you have any questions or comments. You've done some good work on the article, and it clearly has scope for further expansion. The effects of the reforms in advancing India's economic position, for example, and its impact on the resilience of the Indian economy (which you mentioned in your introductory statement and briefly at the bottom of the article) would be useful. Thanks, Apterygial 10:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I went through and had another look, and made some minor changes. Some other points:

  • Unless particularly relevant, people shouldn't have titles next to their names in Wikipedia articles (in this case "Mr.").
  • There should always be a space between the end of a word and an opening parenthesis. So National Housing Bank (NHB), not National Housing Bank(NHB)
  • References should usually follow punctuation, not sit in the middle of sentences.
  • Per WP:OVERLINK, once linked you shouldn't need to link an article again.
  • If you want to link to a site outside Wikipedia, this is better done in the references or in an external links section, not in the body of the article.
  • Make sure every fact you include in the article is covered by a reference.

Overall, nice work! There has been a big improvement in the article from when it first came to PR. Good luck with its further improvement and your other activities on Wikipedia. Apterygial 10:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Gate at the Stairs[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Lorrie Moore is an important American fiction writer though not as prolific as some of her more famous contemporaries, like Alison Lurie and Ann Tyler.

But I'd like some feedback on the following specific points:

1. I have a copy of the book and can scan and upload an image of the cover (I think I can figure that out). In my experience as a newspaper editor, book covers have always fallen into the category of fair use if one is running an article that is about nothing other than that book. However, will Wikipedia regard it as fair use?

2. The novel has been extensively talked up as a "coming of age" story (Bildingsroman) and as a post-9/11 anxiety story. Would it be worthwhile to develop subsections on these points within the critical review section?

3. Beyond that, does anyone have any other ideas on how I (or others) can improve the article? Please be kind. I'm relatively new to the encyclopedia and not as knowledgeable about templates as many other users.

Thanks, Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - sounds like a ver interesting book. This is quite good for a first article, and here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to eventually getting it to WP:GA or even WP:FA.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are multiple articles on novels which are FAs - two fairly recent FA novel articles that might be useful models for this are Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell and The Time Traveler's Wife
  • An image of the cover would be OK under fair use - again see the model articles for how to do this properly (or please ask me)
  • I think this could be expanded by a fair amount. Themes in the novel (such as it being a Bildunngsroman) are certainly good to include. I also note that there is currently nothing on the composition and publication history of the novel, for example. Again, looking at model articles should give some ideas on ways to possibly expand this, though it will also depend on the sources available.
  • Are there any interviews with the author in which she talks about writing the novel or its themes or influences on her that show up in her writing? Anything like that would be good to include here, if it exists.
  • The current lead is too short and needs to be expanded. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so it is often useful to do all the expansion, then (re)write the lead last.
  • 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 there is not really anything on the plot or characters in the lead now. Please see WP:LEAD
  • It is useful when wikilinking to only add links which really add to the average reader's understanding. My guess is that most readers do not need a link to know what a husband or biology or vehicle are, but links to articles on the newspapers mentioned would help. See WP:OVERLINK
  • Newspaper titles are italicized, so The New York Times - also if an abbreviation is used (like NYT), then it should be defined the first time it is used. So The New York Times (NYT)
  • Wikipedia uses logical quotation - generally if a quotation is not a full sentence, the terminal punctuation is placed outside the quotation marks.
  • Neither of the model FAs have sections on characters and it seems to me that the information there could be (or already is) in the Plot section. I would probably combine the characters information with the plot (and make the plot more than one paragraph).
  • Make sure to provide context to the reader - for example, I would say that her brother is sent to Afghanistan (many readers will not know where Helmand province is)(it might be worh linking too)
  • I would make sure that the sources used meet WP:RS and try to avoid sources directly connected to the author or publisher (so the publisher's study guide is used for the prizes, but in the article on the author, this is sourced to a Christian Science Monitor article, which is a better source.
  • 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.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friday the 13th (franchise)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get this up to FA standards. It went through the FAC process in April 2009 and the main issues that were brought up were copy editing (mainly redundant wording, not being terse enough). It has since been copy edited twice by two different members of the League of Copy Editors. Right now, I'm looking for more independent eyes to bring up any questions, concerns, or other copy editing issues that they see. I'm too close to thep project to see any glaring issues.

Thanks,  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kaguya-chan Very nicely written. Clearly a lot of hard work went into writing and researching this article. The impact section was also very interesting to read. I found very little grammatically wrong with the article; the majority of my comments have to do with spelling out two-digit numbers (such as twelve and thirteen) and capitalization (such as Editor-In-Chief--> editor-in-chief). Also adding alt text for the images would be nice. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Under New Line Cinema, 13 novellas and various comic book series featuring Jason were published." Since twelve was spelled out earlier in the lead, I would go ahead and spell out thirteen too.

Overview

  • Would Wikilink Hell for better understanding
  • Earth 2? Is that a future Earth?

Development

  • "Haney decided that this final girl should have telekinetic powers, which led Producer Barbara Sachs to dub the film, Jason vs. Carrie." Is producer supposed to be capitalized?
  • "The film suffered from the loss of its biggest supporter, President of Production Michael De Luca, when he resigned from his position." Again, double-check capitalization.
  • "After more than 15 years of off-and-on development, and approximately $6 million spent in 18 unused scripts from more than a dozen screenwriters, New Line finally produced a Freddy and Jason crossover for 2003." Spell out numbers?
  • "Manfredini was inspired by the 1975 film Jaws, where the shark is not seen for the majority of the film, but the motif created by John Williams cued the audience as to when the shark was present during scenes when you could not see it" Little wary about the use of "you". Could change it to "Manfredini was inspired by the 1975 film Jaws, where the shark is not seen for the majority of the film, but the motif created by John Williams cued the audience as to when the shark was present during scenes and unseen"
  • "because he was busy with a Broadway production." Do you know which one?

Impact

  • Three senior editors, the Editor-In-Chief, and IGN′s Entertainment Editorial Manager judged the various film franchises." Check capitalization and you could wikilink directly to editor-in-chief instead of just editing.
  • "Friday the 13th became one of "the most influential franchises of the 1980s" and that its commercial success through 11 films, novelizations, comic books, and other collectables is proof of its legacy." Spell out eleven?
I had those numbers spelled out before but the copy editors changed it and said that, according to this MOS, anything above 9 should be in numerical form. So, I'm confused because I don't want to have to change it, again, only to turn around and have to do it ... again... in an FAC. I have wikilinked "Hell" and added "lands on the planet Earth 2". The whole thing takes place in the future, he lands on a new planet Earth. According to this website, if the title comes before their name then you're supposed to capitalize it. If there is another style that Wiki is following that negates this then I'll be glad to lowercase them all. Used your example for the music section regarding Jaws. The original source only states that he was working on broadway, it doesn't identify which production it was. Since his page doesn't even discuss his broadway work I cannot even make assumptions for your benefit. The rest of the issues are numbers and capitalizations...and that's stuff the league has done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess spelling out the numbers is just a personal preference of mine, then. Don't worry about it. Ugh, so you do have to capitalize the titles before the name. I still think that "Editor-In-Chief" and "Entertainment Editorial Manager" in "Three senior editors, the Editor-In-Chief, and IGN′s Entertainment Editorial Manager judged the various film franchises" should be lowercased as they don't have names following it, but I'll leave that up to you to decide. Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. I've lowercased them because there isn't any names attached to them. I guess it's the same as "President Obama" and "the president of the union".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the second time I am nominating this article for peer review. I hope, I have rectified all the comments given in the previous peer review. I am proposing to nominate the article for Good Article assessment, hence I would like to confirm whether the article fully complies with the good article criteria present at WP:GA?. Please provide a comprehensive review on that basis.

Thanks, R.Sivanesh ✆ 08:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but far from ready for WP:GAN. The prose is generally clear, but the article does not meet the WP:V guidelines because many paragraphs lack inline citations to reliable sources. Also, the article does not yet meet several Manual of Style guidelines such as those related to linking, citation formatting, and abbreviations. In addition, compressing some of the sections would make the article more appealing to the average reader, who probably does not plan to be an accountant. I would aim for something much more succinct and well-sourced.

  • Considerable parts of the article lack citations to reliable sources. For example, the first paragraph of the "History" section, is unsourced even though it contains information that is not common knowledge. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph (except, usually, in the lead) as well as every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every unusual claim. If a single source supports all of the claims in an entire paragraph, the inline citation should be placed right after the terminal punctuation of the paragraph's last sentence. An in-line citation in the middle of paragraph does not apply to the later parts of the paragraph; for example, the first two paragraphs of the "Motto and Mission" section have parts that are unsourced even though other parts are sourced. What about the unsourced parts? Where did the information come from? These are only examples; similar problems occur throughout the article.
  • The article may go into a bit too much detail in places. For example, it's hard to imagine that a general audience would want to know in great detail how to become a chartered accountant by examination. Perhaps some of the material could be compressed, and readers who want to become accountants could use the "Reference" and "External links" sections to navigate to sources with complete details.
  • The article has many very short sections and subsections, which make it seem choppy. It might be better to merge some of these to make longer sections.
  • Quite a few of the citations are incomplete. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of those can be found.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page fine one dead URL in the citations and eight links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
  • Generally, abbreviated terms should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use. In the existing article, many are, but some, like AICPA in the second sentence of the lead, are not.
  • Generally, linking a term once in the lead and perhaps once again in the main text is enough. Linking terms multiple times or linking terms already familiar to most readers is counterproductive; readers may simply ignore all links if too many things are linked. For example, "company" is linked twice in the lead, "Ministry of Finance" is linked twice in the "Role" section. These are only examples.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R.Sivanesh reply:Thank you Finetooth for valuable review. But for your comments I would have know that the article has so many issue. I will try to rectify your comments one by one. I will not nominate for GAN before these comments are rectified. I need one clarification. Almost the whole of the history section is from a book call "History of the Accounting Profession in India" by G.P.Kapadia. So is it ok if I add one ref at the end of the para? Will it suffice? R.Sivanesh ✆ 11:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, as long as you are careful to summarize in your own words and as long as the whole paragraph is supported by Kapadia. If, on the other hand, only most of the claims are supported by Kapedia and one or more claims supported by others, you'll need inline citations that make clear which claims are supported by which sources. The second paragraph of the "History" section, for example, already has citations to two different sources. I'm assuming that citation 14 covers the first two sentences and that citation 15 covers the next three sentences. The last three sentences are not supported by anything (so far). Looking more closely at citation 14 to Kapedia's book, I see that it lacks a page number, publisher, and place of publication. If you cite Kapedia multiple times, you will probably be citing different pages. Those should be added, and any other references to book-length works, journal articles, or long PDF documents should include the page(s) being cited. These details not only make the claims more easy to verify but are helpful to other researchers and increase the value of the encyclopedia. Finetooth (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mir spacewalks[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been doing some work on this list recently in an attempt to bring it up to the same standard as the List of ISS spacewalks, with an aim to eventually put it forward at WP:FLC. I'd like people's general comments about it, particularly with any suggestions for improving the citation list. Also, if anyone is good at table code, I'd love to know how to ensure all the tables span the entire page instead of being different widths. Looking forward to any comments! Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The general layout looks good to me. I like the illustrations, and the data (dates, times, descriptions, personnel), as far as I can tell, looks fine. The lead would be better with a bit more detail about Mir and its history; something should be done about the large number of red links, and quite a few technical terms should be linked or briefly explained. Here are further comments:

  • The table widths look fine on my computer screen.
  • Featured lists generally do not include a lot of red links. See List of ISS spacewalks, for example. The solution to the problem is to create articles for the red-linked items. Although this can be quite time-consuming, it expands the encyclopedia and makes it more useful.

Links

  • I don't see any need to link key terms more than once in the lead and perhaps once in the tables. For example, I would not link "core module" or "Kvant-1" or the names of the cosmonauts multiple times.
  • On the other hand, I would link technical terms such as solar array, airlock, S band, X-ray telescope, and other technical terms that not all readers are familiar with. Words like "dorsal" should either be linked, briefly explained, or replaced with more common words like "back". I might use "dorsal (back) surface of the module" to preserve the technical term while also explaining it in plain English.

Lead

  • Featured lists have been moving away from starting with the stock phrase, "This is a list of", and trying something a bit more imaginative. See the beginning of List of ISS spacewalks, for example. You might start by explaining what Mir was.
  • Instead of using the ambiguous front slash in Soviet/Russian, I'd recommend separating them and giving some of the historical details; i.e., saying when it was Soviet and when it was Russian and saying something brief about the breakup of the Soviet Union. I don't know if the breakup affected Mir directly, but you might add something about whether it did or not and, if it did, how.
  • "With a greater mass than that of any previous space station, Mir was the first of the third generation type of space station, constructed from 1986 to 1996 with a modular design, and was the largest artificial satellite orbiting the Earth until its deorbit on 21 March 2001, a record now surpassed by the International Space Station (ISS)." - Too complex. This would work better as two separate sentences.
  • Would it be helpful to include a more complete description of Mir? Size? Interior? Exterior? Orbit? Could the most important modules be briefly described? What exactly is meant by "largest" artificial satellite? Does "third-generation" mean third within the Soviet Union or third worldwide?
  • EVA needs to be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use. Ditto for IVA.
  • "EVAs conducted during different principal expeditions are indicated by a separator." - I'm not sure what this means since every item in every table includes multiple separators. If this refers to the wide blue separators, it's not clear to me which items the blue separators are linked to (the ones above, the one immediately above, the ones below, the one immediately below). Would it be more clear to mark each instance with a symbol like ♦ or ×?

References

  • Generally, authors are listed by last name first; e.g., Harland, David.

Other

  • Strings of reference numbers such as [4][1][2] should be rearranged to appear in ascending order; i.e., [1][2][4].

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review; I've made a start on some of the comments you made, but would tend to disagree with your point about linking - WP:REPEATLINK states that terms should be linked in every row of a table, as it should be able to stand on its own, whilst the redlinks we have are mostly expedition pages, which are undergoing a bit of a creation drive at the moment, so I'm just building the web in preparation. Colds7ream (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Canticle for Leibowitz[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Several editors, including the primary contributor, have expressed interest in bringing this current GA to FAC. There are plans to create a new section about the characters, and the lead could use some expansion. The story background and plot summary, while well written and informative, are a bit long and I'm concerned about whether this will hold the article back or if it is acceptable the way it is. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall comments:

  • I'm sure you know about WP:PLOTSUM. The current format, with a section for each part of the book, helps with the length issue. Plus it is probably balanced by the length of the other portions of the article.
  • "Walter Miller, reclusive for years, committed suicide several decades after publication of his novel." It should explain why this relevant to the topic of Church vs. state.
  • The "Adaptations" section looks unfinished.
  • "Masterplots II: American Fiction Series" is a multi-volume set. The Shippey (2000) reference doesn't list the volume, page number, editor (Frank N. Magill) or ISBN. Note that this reference is used twice, so this information is missing in both places.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is good, but I agree that it needs further work to approach FA-level. Here are some suggestions:

  • At least some of the featured articles about literature (WP:FA#Literature and theatre) include a section about writing style. Sometimes this is combined with material about character, and sometimes style and character are discussed in separate sections. Can this article be considered comprehensive if it largely ignores Miller's writing style and his methods of character development?
  • The "Church versus state" subsection seems underdeveloped. The three sentences in this subsection seem logically disconnected, and only the first seems related to "church versus state". The second is about conflicts between scientists and states, and the third is about Miller's suicide. How are these three disparate thoughts connected, if at all?

Development

  • "And the Light is Risen" - Should "is" have a capital I? It usually does in titles.
  • "Miller did not simply colligate the three short stories" - Most readers will not know the meaning of "colligate". Would "unite" or "group together" be more accessible?

Fiat Homo

  • "encounters a Wanderer," - "Wanderer" is capitalized here but not further down in the section. Should it be lower-cased?
  • during his return trip by "misborn" people (the "Pope's children") - "Pope" is upper-cased here but not elsewhere. Should it be lower-cased?
  • "The Wanderer discovers and buries Francis's body." - Same question: W or w?
  • "(The book then focuses on the vultures who were denied their meal; they fly over the Great Plains and find much food near the Red River until a city-state, based in Texarkana, rises)." - Perhaps a bit more background would help make this sentence clear. A city-state could not rise in the time it takes a vulture to make a flight (even if it flew such a long way). The sentence must refer to vultures in general or generations of vultures in different places. How much time elapses between the death of Francis and the rise of the city-state? What happens that provides so much for the vultures to eat?

Church versus state

  • "Walter Miller, reclusive for years, committed suicide several decades after publication of his novel." - Is this somehow related to the "church versus state" debate? It's not clear how it's related.

Adaptations

  • The last four paragraphs need sources.
  • I would turn the list into a single paragraph with complete sentences. Add a bit more detail about each item if possible. For example, what did the Felnagle play focus on?
  • Has anyone made a movie based on the novel?

Images

  • It will be hard to convince all reviewers that two fair-use covers are necessary for a reader's understanding of the material. If it survives the WP:NFCC tests, File:A Canticle For Lebowitz.jpg should be re-positioned so that it doesn't overlap section borders or displace edit buttons. I think, though, that it is mainly decorative and doesn't pass NFCC #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Other

  • Since citations 3 and 19 have URLs that produce only an abstract, it would probably be good to add "Subscription required" to the citation. You can use the |format= parameter in the citation template to add this information.
  • Citation 21 has a nested quotation inside a quotation. The convention for nested quotes is to use single quotation marks around the quotation inside the larger quotation; i.e., " '...' ". Otherwise, readers may be confused by where quotes begin and end. Citation 4 also has a small nested quotation.
  • In citation 9, you need "p." instead of "pp." for a single page. Same problem in citations 15, 22, and 23. There may be others as well; please check to make sure. Use "pp." only for multiple pages.
  • Citation 11 is incomplete or maybe just odd. Would it be better to turn this into two or more citations to specific pages in WorldCat that support the claim?
  • Citation 16 has an unusual amount of bolding. I think if you use "cite journal", as you do for citation 27, you will get a better result.
  • Citation 25 is missing an access date.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Regional Municipality[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because that at the wikiproject Cities, it said that it is a start class article but it should be a higher class.

Thanks, ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 17:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis comments[edit]
  • The rating can be easily changed. I've just moved the article to a C, mostly due to lack of sourcing, easily could be made a B
  • My initial feeling from the article is that it is lacking in sources. There's plenty of information in this article, quite good, but some sections lack a single source.
  • Firstly, the lead has sources which it doesn't need. Per WP:Lead the lead should be a reflection of the text, and as such if figures are cited in the text they don't need citing in the lead. In my opinion they actually make the lead less attractive. Make sure the information cited in the lead is in the text, and that it is cited in the text.
  • The history section has room for expansion. I think it should probably have 4-5 decent paragraphs, but that of course depends on information available. From looking at the article, I think a quick overview of the first settlements would be useful, population economic base etc. I'd also include a summary of changes in higher administration, such as why it was established as the capital of Nova Scotia, when it became part of Canada, etc. All this should of course be sourced.
  • Geography is good in terms of scope. Perhaps some sections can be clarified, for example the second paragraph of the urban-rural section. I'm unsure how most municipalities with a metropolitan area have expanded. Information about referendum is probably better suited to History section.
  • I'm not sure what's up with demographics. Having those three tables so close doesn't seem to be good formatting. It might be worth converting the population growth table into prose, adding to the current couple of sentences (which I've moved to the top of the section).
  • Economy can be expanded, and could probably use some statistics. A breakdown per sector would be useful, maybe with a paragraph for each.
  • The government section could perhaps name the top figures of administration. It might also be worth moving some local government information from the geography section to here.
  • I'd recommend some slight reformatting.
    • Moving education to a level 3 section under demographics
    • Moving sport and media to level 3 sections under culture.
    • Major Parks may belong under geography.
    • Transportation and Buildings and Structures may be subsumed under a larger header, such as infrastructure.

In summary, it's an article with a nice wide scope, but which could include slightly more detail (it is a very low level administrative region) and could use a great deal more sourcing. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunter (film)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, although relatively new to the assessment side of Wikipedia, I have hopes of eventually bringing this article up to FA status (it's C-class at the minute), and have never been very good at working solely from criteria lists - as such, I'd greatly appreciate any critical eyes cast over the article for weak points to shore up, areas to expand or add, and identifying which parts, if any, should definitely be retained as they are. Of course, I know to take these things a step at a time, so the current yard-stick I'm hoping to measure up against is GA status, rather than FA status, for now. Even a few pointers or criticisms would help to identify where to focus next, so I'm not expecting or requiring anything too in-depth.

Thanks, GRAPPLE X 16:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Belovedfreak

Hi Grapple X, this looks pretty good so far, but needs a bit more work to get to GA, I think. I have seen this film, but a long time ago, so I'm not very familiar with the plot. Hopefully that will help here. I'll go through each section and make comments.

Infobox

  • I'm not quite sure why there's a reference added to the image caption. I haven't seen that before in a film article. You don't need to add a source in the article as it's sourced on the image page.
  • The image rationale etc looks fine.
  • Would you really say that there are five "stars" of the film? I can't really remember how prominent the characters are other than Graham. Something to think about.
  • You can now add a location to the release date parameter in the infobox. You can do this with {{Film date|Year|Month|Day|Location}}
  • You can also add the | studio = parameter now
  • You don't need the {{Other uses}} template. The article title is already disambiguated, so readers shouldn't accidentally end up there looking for a different Manhunter.

Lead

  • Consider stating that it is an American film, not all are... (don't link "American" though)
  • I see you expanded the lead a bit. It still needs a bit more, to adequately summarise the main points of the rest of the article. It certainly needs some details on production, release and reception.
  • "Brian Cox as Hannibal Lecktor (Hannibal Lecter in the novel)" seems slightly awkward to me. Perhaps just "Brian Cox as Hannibal Lecktor"? I'm not sure you need to mention the spelling change in the lead. Although readers may be expecting a different spelling, it's still basically the same name.
  • Perhaps make it a bit clearer that this is the first of a series of films to feature Hannibal Lector (although, I believe Silence of the Lambs was not considered a sequel to this one?). Or, the first film adaptation of one of Harris' Hannibal novels. Readers may well be more familiar with Silence and the more recent films.
  • Is Red Dragon considered a remake of this film? If so, that could be clearer in the lead.
  • Having mentioned the above, I don't think you need to state (in the lead) that the cinematographer also worked on Red Dragon. It's interesting, but I wouldn't say it's one of the major points of this article.
  • "Manhunter deals with the FBI manhunt..." - "deals with" sounds slightly awkward here, to me. Perhaps "Manhunter follows..." or start it with "William Peterson plays Will Graham, an FBI profiler who..." or something like that.
  • You have a hyphen which should be an em dash (WP:DASH). Also, the dash/hyphen seems to be parenthetical, but is paired with a comma: "...lend his talents to the case - and in doing so, must confront..." - either use two dashes or two commas, not one of each.
  • Will Graham and The Tooth Fairy can be linked in the lead

Plot

  • The plot is a little long and, per MOS:FILM, should ideally be 400-700 words long. This isn't an unusually complex plot, so shouldn't need to be any longer. To be honest, I think there's a bit of wordiness, and a bit too much detail in places, that could be cut without hurting the meaning.
  • Some of the language used is a little informal or colloquial, eg. "figuring", "spook", "checks in on", "frazzled"
  • The first sentence doesn't quite work for me. Its a little unwieldy. Maybe start by just saying who Will Graham is in that first sentence without introducing the plot. Eg. "Will Graham (Peterson) is a former FBI criminal profiler who ..." rather than "Will Graham, who blah blah blah, sat down with Jack Crawford and xyz." Save the new plot for the next sentence. (Hope that's clear!) Don't forget to mention at the beginning that they're FBI.
  • "cannibal serial killer" → "cannibalistic serial killer"
  • "is seated on the beach" is an example of extra detail you don't need. You don't need to describe every scene, only include what is needed to understand the plot.
  • You might also consider starting with Crawford. Say who he is, what role he plays in the FBI and then go on to say that he visits former profiler Graham to ask him.... etc.
  • Although not vital to the plot, it might be interesting just to mention why the killer has been dubbed the Tooth Fairy.
  • "...after Graham's insight revealed that the killer opened the corpses' eyes with his bare hands" - not sure you need this as the killer opening their eyes isn't mentioned again. In fact, the fingerprint isn't either, and I'm not sure the plot would suffer by losing that sentence altogether. If you keep it, I'm not sure that fingerprints are "extracted". "Lifted" perhaps.
  • I think it needs to be made clearer why Graham visits Lektor for help, ie. that he is a brilliant psychiatrist as well as serial killer.
  • Do we need to know that Lounds is photographing Graham? I can't remember how important it is to the plot, but it doesn't seem vital to the synopsis provided here.
  • I'm not sure that you need to link "manipulate" to phreaking. Readers will get the gist of what's gone on, and specialist knowledge isn't required for understanding of the plot.
  • "Crawford brings Graham back to Quantico", perhaps "Crawford brings Graham back to the FBI Academy at Quantico"
  • National Tattler should be in italics (WP:ITALICS)
  • "a homosexual sadist who molests his male victims" - I'm not sure what molest means in this context, it's a bit vague. It's perhaps not necessary either. I think we can gather what a (supposedly) homosexual sadist serial killer might do.
  • This is down to personal taste, but I feel there might be a few too many dashes in the article as a whole. Overuse can be a little distracting. Obviously, how many is too many is open to interpretation, but you might consider replacing some with commas or parentheses.
  • Is it The Tooth Fairy or the Tooth Fairy? Be consistent.
  • "Crawford brings Graham back to Quantico, where a missing section of the note is analyzed to determine what Lecktor has removed – finding an instruction to communicate ..." - this is not quite right, grammatically. What subject does "finding an instruction" apply to?
  • "They also include a press photo staged..." - a photo of what? (also, "photo" → "photograph")
  • "Lounds is approaching his car when he is kidnapped by the Tooth Fairy..." - simplify to "Lounds is kidnapped by the Tooth Fairy"
  • "Waking in Dollarhyde's home..." - who is Dollarhyde? He's not been mentioned yet.
  • "At his job in a photography lab..." - make it a bit clearer that he develops home movies, as this is relevant to the plot later.
  • "William Blake's Great Red Dragon paintings" - is The part of their name?
  • Does Lounds die?
  • "A police officer checks in on Graham's family, and the mood is tense when he arrives home." - when who arrives home? Graham, or the police officer?
  • "...Graham comes to realize how much Dollarhyde's desire for acceptance ..." - does Graham know Dollarhyde's name at this point, or is it the Tooth Fairy?
  • There are two instances of "it's", which should be "it is" (WP:CONTRACTION)
  • "Graham returns home to a warm welcome from his wife and son, who have come to terms with his career" - who have come to terms with his career sounds a bit odd, as it's not really been mentioned that they have a problem with it. To be honest, I'd leave the family background stuff out (such as explaining his breakdown to his son) because it's not essential to understanding the plot, and it's difficult to do it justice in the space you have. Just hinting at it might make it more confusing for readers.

Cast

  • Consider whether or not a cast list is really necessary as the main cast are already mentioned in the plot and some are mentioned in production. (See MOS:FILM for more on this.

Production

  • This section seems a bit disjointed, with short paragraphs of loosely connected facts. If possible, it would be nice to see more information here than there is.
  • If you're going to link William Peterson (which would be ok as you haven't done so since the lead), do it on the first occurrence. At the moment it is linked later, and too often.
  • "aeroplanes" → "airplanes" (US use)
  • "The pool of blood forming around Noonan's character ... was intended to allude to the "Red Dragon" tattoos ... but this shot left Noonan lying in the corn syrup stage blood so long that he became stuck to the floor." - why the "but"? the second fact seems unconnected to the first. Him becoming stuck to the floor has nothing to do with the purpose of having the pool of blood.
  • "TV series" → "television series"

Soundtrack

  • I'm not sure this image is really necessary and really qualifies under fair use (particularly as it's nearly identical to the film poster), although you may get away with it at a GA review. In any case, the fair use rationale needs beefing up a bit.
  • Hyphens in the track listing should be en dashes
  • This section is completely unreferenced
  • "Currently, the film is ..." - currently is vague, and will date. If I read this in two years, will it still apply?
  • Definitely need a source for the film being a cult classic. Can you really view the film almost daily?
  • The external link in this section should be unlinked

Reception

  • newspaper titles should be in italics (eg. New York Times)

Home media

  • The DVD cover is really stretching fair use and should probably be deleted.
  • The section could do with more references

Legacy

  • "it experienced something of a revival " - Silence of the Lambs? Or Manhunter?
  • I think the films that followed this one could be mentioned more explicitly, even if Manhunter is not considered part of the series (and if so, that can be explained).

References

  • Dates should be consistent. Pick either iso-format, day month year or month, day year. As it's a US film, I'd go with month, day year.
  • Some citations need more information. They should all have dates, publishers and authors where possible. If they are a web-only reference, they need retrieval dates.
  • Why does the article use different references for the financial details in the infobox, from those in the reception section? I'd just use the Box Office Mojo ref for all.

External links

  • There are too many. You don't need unofficial/fan/commercial sites, and you don't need links for the musicians on the soundtrack. I would lose them all except the first four.

Categories

  • It's not at all clear why this is an LGBT-related film.

Ga Criterion 3

  • The article needs to be "broad in coverage". While this is less demanding than the "comprehensiveness" required for FA, we still need to make sure that the main aspects are covered. This is of course open to interpretation, but I don't feel that the article's broad enough yet. One thing that stands out is the absence of a section with release details. (Again, check out MOS:FILM for a good overview of how the structure should look.) I would also expect a slightly more developed reception section. There appear to be a large number of reviews available, so some more should be used. I also wonder if there is any usable material in scholarly sources. There seem to be a great number of hits in google scholar and books. It's not clear how many are in depth about the film, and how many just mention it passing, or are more about the director, but it's worth looking into this. I imagine that the film might have been one of the first to focus on criminal profiling/criminal psychology, or at least one of the films that helped popularise the subject. of course, we don't want to add any original research, but it's definitely worth seeing if there is any literature on this. You might feel this is straying more into FA-land, but certainly the release/reception sections should be present and well-developed for GA.

I hope these points help. Let me know if you have any questions. I don't know if this is the first film article you've tried to get to GA, but it's always helpful to read as many other GA and FA articles on similar topics as you can to get a feel for what's required. --BelovedFreak 15:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Belovedfreak. I've addressed as much as I can at the minute - which is everything bar the sountrack album's section (though I did tidy it up), and the last point you mention, the expansion of scope based on GA crit 3 - I have a few things to add when I can source them, regarding award nominations and wins, but my only source so far is IMDB. I'll try to find more scholarly sources for the reception section within the next day or so, in order to flesh that out as well. Thanks again for your pointers, they were a big help. GRAPPLE X 23:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for FA eventually, and since I already have an article up, I figured I'd take this one to PR in the meantime. Shouldn't be any major issues, just looking to see if I'm missing any nuances.

Thanks, Juliancolton (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're missing three tropical depressions. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and if you're going for FA, the sections on storm one and five could be a little longer, such as what data allowed for what upgrades (ship, land station, implied pressure reading). Also, seeing "$12 thousand dollars" is sort of awkward, since it'd be much less to just write $12,000. The article could also go more into how the storms were treated at the time. For example, who issued what type of warnings, and who got them. Something that emphasizes how different it is from what the NHC does nowadays. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I agree with Hurricanehink that something explaining the differences between then and now would help make this article more interesting.

  • Where is the information about Hurricane One? Or does the numbering system go 1, 2, 3 ... without regard to storm intensity? If so, this should be explained for the general reader. I think it would be a good idea to include mention of the differences in the 1911 naming system and the later naming system and the date of the switch from no-names to names for hurricanes.

Lead

  • "Storm data is largely based on the Atlantic hurricane database, which underwent a thorough revision for the period between 1911 and 1914 in 2005." - Maybe this could summarize a short first section added to the article. The new section might include an elaboration of "thorough revision" and include information about the kinds of equipment available in 2011 that did not exist in 1911. Something about the naming conventions might appear here too.

Hurricane Two

  • "estimating total damage in Pensacola at $12,000 (1911 USD, $281,914 2011 USD)" - The data inside the parentheses is too precise. I can't point you to a specific debate about this, but I've seen discussions at FAC about getting varied results from varied inflation calculators. In any case, something like (1911 USD, $282,000 2011 USD") would be better, and since $12,000 was only an estimate, I'd think about rounding to $300,000.

Hurrricane Three

  • "after an anemometer, whose last report was 94 mph (151 km/h), failed," - Link anemometer?
  • "after an anemometer, whose last report was 94 mph (151 km/h), failed," - Since an anemometer is a "which" rather than a "who", perhaps recast as "after an anemometer, last reporting 94 mph (151 km/h), failed,"?

Hurricane Four

  • "Data on this storm is extremely scarce; as such, only minor revisions could be made to its chronology in the hurricane database,[1] and few impact reports are in existence." - The last claim needs a source. Maybe you don't need to make the last claim since "data on this storm is extremely scarce" seems to cover it.

References

  • The all-caps part of citation 4 should be changed to Wikipedia house style ("Pensacola Storm Loss Big") even though the source uses all-caps. Ditto for citation 7.
  • Authors should be listed last name first in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 10 singles in 2003 (UK)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback for improvements before submitting it for FLC.

Thanks, 03md 05:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ar1681 (talk) and jc3881 (talk): Overall, clear and good article. Maybe you could add more references and content. Also, the chart under "Top 10 singles" can be a little overwhelming. Maybe you could separate it into more specific and clear-cut categories (ex. by month).

May be a bit WP:IINFO as an excessive listing of statistics. I know there a few of these types of lists but are you sure they fall in the purview of Wiki content policies. That may deserve some discussion first before considering featured list status. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel it does deserve a place. Perhaps if it was a top 40 list then it may be unjustifed, unwieldy and belong in an almanc, but top 10 is a typical guage of an artist's popularity by many reliable sources e.g. It was Take That's {X} top 10 hit". The primary Billboard chart has similar lists, which are only shorter due to songs remaining in the top 10 for a longer period of time. 03md 17:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And none of those are featured lists either. You are talking specifically about making this a featured list and I was providing information regarding your request, which has nothing to do with other such lists. However, my comment regarding WP:IINFO applies generally to all the top 10 list pages, too. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This list has a fairly amazing amount of detail and must have taken a long time to assemble. I'll make just a few comments.

  • It took a bit of work but most of the time it was simply copying and pasting cells and replacing the song names. I probably put the table together in about an hour.
  • Is this much detail necessary and useful? Does it matter to anyone when a song entered the chart? Will anyone care in 2020 that a song in 2003 rose to #10 or #9 at some point? I notice that similar FLs on entire decades use #1 as the cutoff. See List of number-one singles from the 1950s (UK), for example. Perhaps, the long table could be made more readable and useful by breaking it into several smaller tables, as Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars suggests above. Perhaps #1s could occupy one table, #2 through #5 another, and #6 through #10 another. The latter two might be less detailed the first. "Weeks at number 1" would disappear in the lower charts, for example.
  • See my reply to Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars above. Top 10 is a regular benchmark for successful songs, with BBC News being an example of an organisation that analyses and prints the top 10 each week. On your second point, in my opinion I think sortability by artist, song title and position is important is a key feature of the table and want to keep it as one table. Maybe it could work like List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK), where headings appear after each year but it remains sortable - but in this case separated by another variable. I am applying the same formula in terms of the table layout to all recent years. 03md 02:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • A few sentences in the lead use "with" as a conjunction, although "with" is actually a preposition. An example is "Around 230 singles charted in the top 10 during 2003, with 219 of these reaching their peak that year." - I would suggest rewriting these sentences to avoid using "with" in this way. It's not usually hard to do. Suggestion: "Around 230 singles charted in the top 10 during 2003, and 219 reached their peak that year."
  • When multiple reference numbers appear together, it's customary to arrange them in ascending order; i.e., [5][9] rather than [9][5].

Other

  • When I click on [A], nothing happens. Would it help to make the notes clickable? It's hard to tell at a glance what notes B and C refer to.
  • Generally, images should not overlap sections or displace edit buttons. The Elton John image overlaps sections in a big way. So does Rachel Stevens. I would consider moving the images up in the article to avoid this.
  • The External links section is empty (except for half of Elton John).
  • The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than the intended target.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tend to agree. For a list of top tens, this has a lot of extraneous information - when it entered the top ten, when it peaked, it's actual peak, and weeks at #1. From that, I think only peak position is of true interest. Weeks at #1? Go to the list of number-ones page. Way too many images, too. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that there is too much information. I think dates are important for a perspective of songs across the year - demonstrating songs competing for number 1 etc. The weeks at number one column - which I only added recently - could go, but only if absolutely necessary. 03md 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest main-stem rivers in the United States[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've constructed it entirely in a sandbox over the past several weeks, and it has not been vetted by other editors. Although I'm as nitpicky as I can be, I always miss things, and my work is always improved by other eagle-eyed editors. Any suggestions will be appreciated. My goal is to get this list ready for WP:FLC. Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments by Ruhrfisch - this looks quite good on a quick glance, and I will make more detailed comments soon, but wanted to point out two quick things that coaught my eye.

  • I think that what a main stem is needs to be defined more explicitly in the article itself, perhaps with an example besides the St. Lawrence. Unfortunately the main stem article is fairly cryptic.
  • I also wondered if more images could be added in some way - either a gallery (know you're not a fan of those) or perhaps images in the table itself (add a column?).

More before too long, hopefully, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions. I look forward to more. I've added a more complete definition of "main stem" and a sample image to the Yellowstone River. It greatly expands the row dimensions and looks strange to me. Am I misunderstanding? Can you think of a tidy way to do this? Finetooth (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe eliminating the captions would help. Should I consider eliminating the other text, the list of states, in the column? Finetooth (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks better without the caption, I think. Finetooth (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And even better with several images. Thanks for this very good idea. Finetooth (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

  • Glad my comments were useful. I like the images in the last column and think they make the article look better. I went on Flickr to see if there were any free images for the White River, but did not find any. I am just going to comment on the whole list as I read it through.
  • On the map caption, would it make sense to give the number of rivers on this list which are part of the Mississippi watershed? I did a quick count and think there are at least 17 (may have missed one or two). Perhaps something like "The Mississippi drainage basin includes the two longest main stem rivers in the United States (the Missouri and Mississippi), as well as 15(?) more of the rivers on this list."
  • I would move the sentence defining the main stem (The main stem is "the primary downstream segment of a river, as contrasted to its tributaries".[4]) right after the sentnece ending with the Gulf of St Lawrence, and before the sentence on the Mississippi River. This way the definition is followed by an example, and I think going from general to specifics is better than the other way.
  • Should the deinition of main stem somehow indicate more explicitly that lakes are not included? I am not sure this is necessary as it says "of a river" but the ST. Lawrence example includes the Great Lakes, so I was not sure if this was super clear or not.
  • I might add the Susquehanna to the list of rivers not quite long enough to be included (444 miles).
  • The lead is five paragraphs, but WP:LEAD says to limit the lead to four. I know this is sometimes ignored for lists, but I also wondered if the current thrid and fourth paragraphs might be moved to a short section before the table itself (which would need its own header to separate it from the lead). The lead would then be the current first, second and fifth paragraphs and would still end with the wonderful quote from Ruth Patrick.
  • In the table, should the column header "States, provinces" include the word "image" or "photo" or something like that? Also should "provinces" be italicized (on second thought, Mexican states are italicized, but American states are not, so not sure this makes sense).
  • The image of the Missouri has a different River in the foreground (Big Mo is the water in the background).
  • In the notes, if the watershed is split between two countries, would it help to give a percentage? So Note 2 would be Of the total, 27,800 square kilometres (10,700 sq mi), or 0.85% of the basin, are in Canada.[6][7]
  • Otherwise can't find anything else to quibble about. I think the km (mi) order is addressed nicely in the article already. The only other question I can think of that might arise in FLC is why limit this to 500 miles? I know 500 mi / 800 km is nice as they are both round numbers. 250 mi / 400 km would also work, but I worry this would be too large a list.
That was my thought too. I started with 200 mi but kept upping the limit to keep the list manageable. Finetooth (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps - please let me know when this is at FLC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional suggestions. I'll be working to improve the article over the coming days, and I'll certainly let you know when I take it to FLC. Finetooth (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible expansion

  • For the sake of keeping discussions together, I have copied the relevant posts from my and Finetooth's talk pages and paste them below.

I've added the Susquehanna to the also-ran list in the lead. I had hoped originally to include it in the main list. I thought it might make it since according to Rivers of North America it is 721 kilometres (448 mi) long. Then I realized that to be consistent I could only count the part from Sunbury downstream. If forks are tributaries, then the Susquehanna is only 200 kilometres (120 mi) long. Sigh. Finetooth (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not sure how to figure what the main stem is. The Ohio River is clearly formed from its tributaries in Pittsburgh. However, I was not sure about the Susquehanna. The GNIS says the Susquehanna heads at Otsego Lake in Cooperstown, New York here. Even if its main stem starts in New York, the whole is less than 500 miles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in...The North Branch Susquehanna River, as opposed to the West Branch, is usually considered an extension of the main stem. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 13:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I usually think of the North Branch as part of the main stem.
What if instead of aiming for a nice round number for length, thel ist was a nice round number of entries? So what if it were the 50 longest rivers in the United States (that would add 16 to the current list). Just an idea. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Waxing verbose, I replied on the PR archive page here. Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Susquehanna River is exceptional in that the USGS defines the main stem as the part from the mouth to the branches' confluence plus the North Branch Susquehanna River. I didn't find any source, including Rivers of North America, that disagreed with this, but I don't recall finding any other big rivers for which the USGS included a fork (branch) as part of the main stem. (I would not be surprised to learn of other exceptions, but I didn't notice any.) The 500-mile (800 km) cut-off is arbitrary. If I were to expand the list by 16, on what basis could I include the North Branch Susquehanna as part of the Susquehanna main stem without including, for example, the Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River as part of the Red River main stem? I think the 34-river list is internally consistent, but if I expand to 50, how can I make the Susquehanna fit? How should main stem be defined? When I try out things like "Main stem in this list refers to a named stream segment defined by the coordinates of its end points, as determined by the United States Geological Survey or Natural Resources Canada," I imagine readers' eyes glazing over. Part of the problem of defining main stem is that every tributary has a main stem, at least down to the level of the smallest named tributary, and even saying that a nameless stream has no main stem seems arbitrary and illogical. When I was compiling the list, I said, OK, stream X undergoes a name change at such-and-such a confluence; therefore the stream with the different name is a different stream. In all 34 cases (I think), the USGS coordinates confirm this choice. However, in the case of the Susquehanna, it doesn't. I have not found an RS definition that works for all streams. Any ideas? Finetooth (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with Susquehanna not being in the list (much as I love the river, it is not long enough). I do note that the USGS GNIS does not list the name "North Branch Susquehanna River" in its database here. Changing the number to 50 was just an idea, I figured top 50 was as arbitrary as longer than 500 miles (but imagine with uncertainties in published lengths that there might be some dispute as to which rivers made the top 50 cutoff or not). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I stand corrected. You are right about the GNIS, and, checking my road atlas and Google Maps here, I find that what I've been calling the North Branch is clearly labeled "Susquehanna River". I thought I had already checked the maps, but apparently I was simply working from (faulty) memory, a form of original research. I know the question here is not about including or not including the Susquehanna; in my mind it's about making sure that the definition of main stem makes sense. It's a relief, actually, to discover that the definition works for the Susquehanna. The West Branch is a tributary, but the North Branch is not. Finetooth (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Ruhrfisch for moving the posts to this page, and thanks to Ruhrfisch and Niagara for pointing out the problem's solution. Finetooth (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS stream gauge page for Pennsylvania refers to the main stem of the Susquehanna for several stations above Sunbury - not sure if similar pages would be helpful for determining what is the main stem on other rivers. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. That is helpful. I often consult similar pages to find the gauges, but I hadn't thought to consult them for references to the main stems. The problem here was that I "knew" too much about the Susquehanna, whereas I knew nothing or next to nothing about the Gila or the Kuskokwim and had fewer preconceived notions about them. Finetooth (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Schenn[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I found the peer review comments I received for Nikita Filatov extremely helpful as I made my way through the steps of promoting the article, and I am looking for similar help with his draft classmate, Luke Schenn. Any comments on sources, tips on prose or likely FAC sticking points would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Canada Hky (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Although short, this article appears to be comprehensive, well-organized, and reasonably well-written. The illustrations are good. As time passes, the article will need frequent updating to reflect changes in Schenn's career, his statistics, and his personal life. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

  • It's generally sufficient to link a term no more than once in the lead and perhaps once more in the main text. I wouldn't link Dion Phaneuf or Thomas Kaberle twice, for example, and I'd use just their last names on all subsequent references. In the "International" table, I'd link the Canadian team just once. Reducing the overlinking makes the remaining links more meaningful.
    • Reduced linking, in the medal table it actually should point to teams from three different age groups, so I will double check that. Canada Hky (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professional

  • "Schenn's play was disappointing, and he was a healthy scratch" - I'd replace the jargon, "healthy scratch" with ordinary words, or explain them in parentheses, or link to an explanation.
  • "Along with several other young Maple Leafs, Schenn picked up his game at the end of the season." - Rather than the jargon, "picked up his game", I'd use something like "improved his game".
  • "In February, when the Leafs were widely expected to trade Kaberle, Schenn was vocal in his praise for the veteran, "I’ve got nothing but great things to say about him. He’s a guy you can look up to, as far as how he carries himself. He’s well respected by everyone." - Since the quote is about Kaberle, rather than Schenn, it seems tangential to the main subject. I'd delete it.

International play

  • "to form the top shutdown duo for the team" - "Top shutdown duo" is jargon that might be made more clear with different words, an explanation, or a link.
  • Should "finished the tournament with a team high +/- rating of +5" be explained more clearly. What is the possible range? Does it go from −5 to +5? What would a negative rating indicate?

Playing style

  • "he has been among the league leaders in hits" - Should "hit" be explained in some way. What exactly constitutes a hit in hockey? Does it mean slamming someone into a wall? Does it mean knocking another player down? Who keeps score of these? Are the hit scores official? More broadly, do defencemen accumulate any special statistics such as "shots blocked"? If so, should these be included in Schenn's statistics?
    • Added a wikilink These stats are kept for all players (hits, blocked shots, etc). The hockey project has standardized their stats tables pretty well, so I wouldn't add in any new columns without consensus. I think the text mentions will suffice for now. Canada Hky (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He plays hard every night and does a lot not only in our room but in the community." - What does Phaneuf mean by "in our room"? What room?
    • The team's dressing room. I will try to figure out a way to clarify what was meant in the quote. Canada Hky (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • In citation 5, the all-caps "PLAYER PROFILE" should be changed to Wikipedia house style, "Player Profile" even though the source uses all-caps. Ditto for the all-caps part of citation 7.
  • Newspaper names like Toronto Star in citation 6 should be in italics. This is just an example; I see several more of these in other citations.
  • Citation 21 is incomplete. It lacks an URL and an access date. If the article is not available on-line, you can cite the published paper version, but you should include the page number in that case.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help, I really appreciate your contributions to make the article better. Canada Hky (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for GA status. I could use some advice on how much this should be connected to the prior Glenn Beck rally.

Thanks, – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I found this a very interesting insight into American political activity. It's the sort of stuff that doesn't get reported over here - though we know all about the extremists, Tea Party-ites etc. I think that the article can be improved by attention to a number of factors which I have listed below:-

Lead
  • Needs expanding into a summary of the whole article. The purpose behind the rally needs to be explicitly stated in the opening paragraph
  • What is meant by "an in-character Stephen Colbert"?
  • Bolding should be used only for the precise subject of this article, not for the initially separate events that were merged.
Origins
  • Non-Americans may not know who Al Sharpton is. He should be briefly introduced, rather than requiring your readers to use the link.
  • Likewise re "Stewart". You have given his full name in the lead and linked him there, but readers need to be told who he is.
  • What is "Reddit"? Again explanations, not just a link is necessary
  • I think rallies are "organised" rather than "produced"
Announcement
  • Some confusion in the text, where you say: "Stewart stated that the rally was for the majority of Americans". This is presumably referring to his rally, not the march that's just been mentioned. Likewise, in the next paragraph, Oprah Winfrey "gave the attending audience all free airline tickets to the rally." Make it clear that this is to Stewart's rally. (Incidentally, the word "all" in the above is redundant). Later, "free Chinatown bus tickets to the rally" adds to the confusion
  • "It was also announced that the two events had been consolidated into the "Rally to Restore Sanity..." Passive voice; does this mean "Colbert announced..."?
Response to announcement
  • Second sentence (beginning "Although organizers said in their application...") is overlong and overcomplicated, needs to be split. And I think that "the Facebook page for restoring sanity" would read better as "Facebook's "Restoring Sanity" page..."
  • Last line: "such as" → "including"
Charity
  • For reasons of chronolgy the first sentence should be amended to read: "Prior to the announcement of the joint rally, supporters of the movement for a Colbert-led march had begun a drive to raise money for educational charities..." etc
Rally
  • The images are excellent, but it might be argument that their placement over-dominates the text. Have you considered breaking up the gallery, or placing it at the end? Alternatively, you might consider whether all these images are necessary to illustrate the article.
  • The impression I get of the rally from the text is somewhat confused. It is clear that comedy was an important element, though some of the "medals" seem to have been awarded with a more serious purpose. However, the overall picture given here is of a comedy event, with ust a few serious words at the end. Is that an accurate summary of the rally?
  • The Medals section , in bullet-point format, should be converted to straight prose.
Closing remarks
  • It is not really acceptable to have these lengthy verbatim extracts. The critical points from the closing speech should be paraphrased in your own prose, with quotations restricted to key phrases or comments.
Broadcast
  • Does this one line of information need a subsection of its own? Surely this can be fitted in somewhere?
Response
  • By definition, "response" means after the event, so to summarise pre-rally comments under a Response heading is illogical. These pre-rally comments should be placed earlier in the article. You already have a "Response to the announcement" section - why not there?
  • As a general point, there is the recurrent need to identify people who will not automatically be known outside America. E.g. Ariana Huffington, Bill Maher.
Overlinking
  • I haven't checked through systematically, but it seems that some names are being repeated linked, e.g. Gleen Beck, Fox News, Al Sharpton, possibly others. I suggest you check out this aspect.
Ref formats
  • A number of the citation formats are incomplete, and some are bare urls.

I look forward to your responses, and to seeing the article again when you have made the appropriate adjustments. Please feel free to contact my talkpage when you are ready. Brianboulton (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it hasn't been through one for years. It was once a GA, and I feel it is close to fulfilling the GA requirements again. Any comments are very welcome, but don't worry too much about grammar etc. unless it makes it unreadable, as I intend to ask someone from the Guild of Copyeditors to look it over once this Peer Review is done.

Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is nicely done, generally, very informative, certainly broad in coverage, and not far from being ready for another run at GA. I took you at your word and did not dwell on minor copyediting issues; the prose reads smoothly in most places, and a copyeditor should not have a hard time tweaking things here and there. A couple of things to watch out for would be sentences that start with digits instead of words and for no-break codes per WP:NBSP for constructions like $15 billion or 19th century. Here are a few suggestions about sourcing, citations, and possible expansion.

  • Except for the lead, each paragraph needs at least one citation to a reliable source. The fifth paragraph of the "History" section, for example, needs support by a reliable source. My rule of thumb is to provide citations for every direct quotation, every unusual claim, and every set of statistics, in addition to each paragraph. When an in-line citation appears in the middle of a paragraph, it does not cover the remaining claims in the paragraph, which may need additional sourcing. (See the first paragraph of the "History" section for an example of this sort of incomplete sourcing.) Generally, though, the article's claims seem well-supported.
  • The "History" section is good. Would it be useful to add a bit more about what happened between 1965 and 1990?
  • The Geography section is quite interesting and well-done. The map is very helpful. I would suggest adding something about geology, including something about tsunamis and earthquakes, if Singapore is threatened by either.
  • Although I'm not commenting on grammar or low-level prose issues, this sequence in the "Economy" section stopped me: "Rated as the most business-friendly economy in the world,[53][54] Hundreds of thousands of foreign expatriates work in Singapore in multi-national corporations." Probably part of the first sentence got accidentally lopped off.
  • I noted the absence of any mention of labor relations, employment conditions, and unemployment statistics in the "Economy" section. Also missing are any mention of class distinctions or gender distinctions. Does Singapore have any "slums"? Does it have any groups that are systemically disadvantaged economically for any reason? Can women advance in the work force in the same ways that men can advance? Do people typically have retirement pensions, private or public?
  • Would it be helpful to add something about health and medicine in Singapore?
  • Should the "Art" section include anything about music and literature? Does Singapore have a national symphony? Have any famous writers come from Singapore?
  • Directional images generally look better if they aim into the page. I see two that I would consider moving to the right side of the page: the one of the imperial Japanese army, and the one of the fighter jet. I would move the MRT train to the left side of the page.
  • Quite a few of the citations are incomplete. (See citations 105 and 139, for example.) Generally, citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and access date, if all of those are known or can be found.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find one dab, one dead URL, and one soft 404 URL that may be dead.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Plains of Abraham[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has already achieved good article status, and it is of excellent quality and may be close to ready for featured article status. Your thoughts and ideas are appreciated. Thanks, 252semist (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Nicely-done article, well-illustrated. I found this highly readable and quite interesting. My main suggestion would be to include more background for the reader, chiefly in the form of a map showing the region, but also in the form of a few more details in the "Legacy" section.

  • The two close-up maps in the article are helpful, but I longed for a map early on that would show the entire region and place Quebec City in a wider geographic context. Ideally, it would show the location of the city and the St. Lawrence River in eastern Canada, and would make clear the direction of flow of the river. It would also show Cap Rouge. If you can't find a map like this on the Commons, you might be able to make a map from public-domain base maps and data from other maps, or you might enlist the aid of a Wikipedian who likes to make maps.

Infobox

  • "600 colonial army
    1,800 militia and indians" - Cap and link "Indians"?

Lead

  • "The battle involved fewer than 10,000 troops between both sides, but proved to be a deciding moment... " - "Between both sides" seems a little awkward. Would it be more clear to simply delete "between both sides"?

Overview

  • "France was forced to draw its troops back." - Would it be helpful to say which direction they were going? Retreating to the west from Louisburg, or retreating to the east from Fort Frontenac?
  • "7,000 regular troops, 300 gunners, and Marines" - Should "Marines" be lower-cased or perhaps linked to something?
  • "In preparation for the fleet's approach to Quebec, James Cook surveyed a large portion of the river... " - Shouldn't the specific name of the river, the St. Lawrence, appear here on first mention? Would it be helpful to say that they were approaching from Louisburg, if that is the case, east of Quebec City?
  • "distributed some 12,000 troops in a nine-kilometre long collection of fortified redoubts and batteries from the Saint-Charles River to the Montmorency Falls" - Convert to imperial also; i.e., "distributed some 12,000 troops in a collection of fortified redoubts and batteries, 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) long, from the... "?
  • "Wolfe, on surveying the town of Beauport, found that the houses there had been barricaded and organized to allow for musket fire from within; they were built in an unbroken line along the road, providing a formidable barrier." - What road? Did Beauport have only one street, or was this a road from Beauport to Quebec City?

Preparations

  • WP:MOSQUOTE suggests using blockquotes for quotations of four lines or more. It deprecates fancy quotes, in any case.

Landing

  • File:WilliamHowe1759.jpg is problematic in three ways. It should be moved to avoid overlapping sections and displacing an edit button. It is directional and should be positioned on the left side of the page so that it looks or moves into the page rather than out. It is not clear from the text who Sir William Johnson is. If the image is of Johnson and not Howe, does it belong in the article?

Battle

  • Rather than repeating a main word from the article title, I'd try to find a different but suitable word or phrase. I don't know if "battle" has any precise synonyms. Would "Epic fight" be a possibility? Or just "Fight"?

The Battle on the plains

  • This head repeats the title too. Could it become "Main engagement"?
  • "An eyewitness with the 78th Highlanders (Dr. Robert Macpherson) wrote three days after the battle" - Wikipedia generally avoids using academic titles like "Dr." Instead it uses descriptions such as "Robert Macpherson, a physician"). I don't know if he was a physician; this is just an example.

Aftermath

Legacy of the Plains

  • I would shorten the section head to "Legacy".
  • "the Moulin à paroles" - Would it be helpful to include an English translation in parentheses?
  • "including the 1970 FLQ Manifesto" - Would it be helpful to explain why the manifesto annoyed the federalists? Readers unfamiliar with Canadian history may not have any idea what the manifesto was about.
  • "Today, while much of the foreshore along the base of the cliffs that were scaled by William Howe's men the morning of the battle has been taken over by industry, the Plains of Abraham themselves are preserved within one of Canada's National Urban Parks." - I'd recast this for concision and better prose flow. Suggestion: "Although industry occupies much of the foreshore beneath the cliffs scaled by Howe's men on the morning of the battle, a national urban park preserves the Plains of Abraham."

References

  • Citation 52 refers to a book not listed in the "Bibliography" section. Should it be added to the bibliography, along with date of publication, publisher, and ISBN or OCLC? Also, pp. should be p. since it's a single page.
  • Citation 62 is quite mysterious. It is not French or English, and the clarifying note does not clarify. Can't a better source for the claim be found?
  • Citations 63 and 64 are incomplete. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and access date, if all of these are known or can be found.

Bibliography

  • It's often possible to find OCLC numbers for books published too early to have ISBNs. You can usually find these via WorldCat.

Other

  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find one or two dead URLs in the citations and one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ashes series[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is a former featured list, which I have tidied up, rewritten and improved the table functionality. I now believe it is on the way to regaining its status as a featured list, but would like to see where it is up to, and hopefully resolve as many issues as possible before nominating the article at WP:FLC.

I would like to draw particular attention to some changes I have made that may draw comment.

  • I have removed the Test series played between the two sides that were not Ashes contests – I considered leaving them in, but figured that they really have no more place there than the series played pre-1882. I do still think there is room to comment on these, maybe in the prose, or maybe just as a footnote: opinions would be appreciated.
  • The Summary of wins and draws table: it is unreferenced mainly due to the fact that the information is extracted from the table above. I could provide the reference "Records / England / Test matches / Series results". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 2011-02-19. which contains all the information on who won which series and by how many matches, but even that does not explicitly state the figures.
  • The time line: it looks okay, but I'm not its biggest fan, and I'm not sure if having a section to itself is the most appropriate location.

Thanks, Harrias talk 00:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)[reply]

  • " It is the most celebrated rivalry in international cricket" prove it.
  • I've toned the comment down slightly, and provided three references to support what I've put, how's that? Harrias talk 14:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the first Test series played between the countries was in 1876–77" did the first Test really take place over two years...?!
  • Fair point: do you think it'd be better to get a direct ref for 1877, or say "the 1876–77 season"?
  • The second works fine for me, kind of tied into the comment below about seasons/tours/hemispheres etc. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • "the English party" any reason why not to just stick with "the England team"?
  • Changed as suggested.
  • "being victors in 123 of the 310 Ashes contests" tighten with "winning 123 of the 310 matches." (also, might be confusing to non-experts that they've won less than half but that's better than England...
  • Might be, but the tables below will explain the draws. Can add a note in maybe?
  • "once more than" one more.
  • Are you sure? Once more sounds more appropriate to me: but I'm probably wrong.
  • Not worth quibbling about. I could be wrong too. Let's leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe worth a footnote to non-experts explaining the way you represent cricket seasons, i.e. northern hemisphere season (e.g. 1984) and southern hemisphere season (e.g. 1984–85).
  • Definitely: silly problem though, what can I use as a reference for this?!
  • It is a problem, perhaps Wisden could help somehow? Using some examples? Or ask at WT:CRIC as it seems to be a uniquely cricket issue... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urn caption could be expanded, like where the urn is held, that only a replica is presented, that sort of thing. as long as it's referenced!
  • Don't like the timeline but can see its utility. Fails ACCESS as colours only are used to convey information.
  • Yeah, as I say, I'm not keen. Would taking it out be such a loss?
  • I don't think it would be a major loss. It's interesting, but could use some real work if it stays. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First match column doesn't sort correctly (I guess if it needs to be sortable, it should sort by the day of the year, not the initial digit...)
  • How noob of me! I'll go through that later.
  • Fixed this now. Harrias talk 14:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Key - those are parentheses, not brackets.
  • Yeah, always do that. Fixed now.
  • Image captions could use references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for the pointers, fixed some, and will work on the others. Harrias talk 13:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Moondyne[edit]

The lead prose is a vast improvement, nice work. It does seem to favour the Aussies though. Is there not something notable we could say for England, say Botham's 1981 series to add some balance?

  • Linked to this in the key: it could do with the same reference I'm searching for though!
  • I am admittedly biased because I created it, but I think the timeline does add something that the table and prose cannot. Happy for it to be improved but I have no suggestions.
  • I'll leave it in and see what comments it gets when the article goes back to FLC.
  • Inclusion of the non-Ashes series was discussed on the talk page earlier. Logically they should be excluded, but again, I think they add something useful for the reader wondering why certain tours aren't listed. Is this a case of IAR? Moondyne (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. I'm personally against their inclusion, and if they were to appear, I'd want them in a completely separate table to the Ashes contests: but then the page should just be renamed List of Test series between Australia and England. I really don't know! Harrias talk 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image thumb sizes should be left to user default
  • Caption "Don Bradman (left), who has scored more runs in the Ashes than any other player, at the toss of the first Test of the 1936–37 Ashes with Gubby Allen." "has" somehow implies present tense. In any case, it seems superfluous. 03:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Chipmunkdavis[edit]
  • "It is generally played biennially, alternating between the United Kingdom and Australia." Mention that the location of play is what alternates. It may also be better to be more specific than United Kingdom.
  • I'm probably being thick: but what else could it mean? Also, how could I phrase this without it sounding a bit wooden. Similar for the specifics: "alternating between England and Wales and Australia" doesn't exactly convey the right meaning!
  • I'm not sure what else it could mean, I just feel it doesn't convey the message well. Perhaps something like. "It is generally played biennially, with the location alternating between grounds in Australia and grounds in England and Wales." Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the first Test series played between the countries was in the 1876–77 season, the Ashes originated from the solitary Test which the two nations competed in 1882" Stick with either "countries" or "nations". I'd personally go with nations, as this is what Englad is referred to in most sporting contexts.
  • Changed to nations.
  • "After their loss to Australia in 1882, England won the next eight series between the two sides, during which time they only lost four of the 22 Tests." It hasn't been mentioned that each series is more than one test match.
  • Have added something to explain this in the first paragraph: it might sound a bit forced, thoughts?
  • Perhaps make the sentence about the biennial play the second sentence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was during this period that the Australians travelled to England in 1948, and remained unbeaten during the whole tour, gaining the nickname of "The Invincibles"." Reword this somehow, I understand it means that the team that travelled was given that nickname, but that doesn't come through clearly.
  • How would this sound: "It was during this period that the Australian cricket team gained the nickname of "The Invincibles", after they remained unbeaten during the whole tour of the 1948 tour of England." ?
  • In the last lead paragraph remove words like "Overall" and "only". That might ease the apparent bias.
  • Have removed 'overall' and one occasion of 'only', how is it now? Harrias talk 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Summary of wins and draws" "Rename to Summary of Results" Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There have been five drawn series, and on four of these occasions, Australia have retained the Ashes due to being holders going into the series. England have once retained the Ashes after a drawn series." Might be worth somehow combining these sentences. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport in Vietnam[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I truly believe the primary contributor of this article, Dragfyre, has done an excellent job of research in this particular field in order to produce a well-written and referenced article. I want to see what I can do and how far I can take this article (FA, I hope!). Any comments will be warmly welcomed.

Thanks, Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 06:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis[edit]

Beautiful little article. Definitely no longer stub-class!

History
  • "the latter being a refurbishment of an older narrow gauge line running from Phu Lang Thuong to Lang Son." This railway appears out of nowhere. Considering the paragraph before dealt with the first ever raillines, it is strange that the second discusses the refurbishment of older lines.
  • "Paul Doumer Bridge (now known as Long Bien Bridge)" appears in both the text and the picture caption, and could probably be removed from one (the caption doesn't really need it). Additionally, if the date for the picture is known, it should be placed in the caption.
    • Fixed the image caption. The date for the photo is not indicated on Commons, but we may be able to figure that out by rooting through the Dieulefils collection's database.  Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The construction of the Yunnan line was not without controversy, nor without consequences; over 25,000 workers, both Vietnamese and Chinese, died working on the line." Not a very encyclopaedic tone, maybe it is better to simply state there was controversy and the death figures.
    • I agree this is poorly worded. I've been trying to corroborate the death figures with those cited in other sources, and when that's figured out, I'll fix this part. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done—found a better reference, and will write more about it in a forthcoming History article. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 04:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chinese railway engineering troops" Were these PRC troops?
    • Yes, PRC troops. Good catch, this should be specified is fixed now.  Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "significantly increasing shipping capacity; as well, a third rail was added to the existing lines" Remove the "as well", make the whole thing two separate sentences.
  • "effectively converting them from to mixed gauge lines." Is the "from" there in error?
    • Yup, a typo. "converting them to mixed gauge lines". Fixed.  Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section ends with reunification with a slight note of the Sino-Vietnam war. If a little bit more on the past couple of decades is added, it will be extremely solid.
    • Noted. I've found some source material for this time period and will write something up soon. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Network
  • "most of which are located along the North-South line" Is it possible to get a figure?
    • Yup. From List of railway lines in Vietnam: "As of 2005, there were 278 stations on the Vietnamese railway network, 191 of which are located along the North-South Railway line." References are in that article.  Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would permit new international railway links" I'm not sure permit is the right word there.
    • Changed to "would establish Vietnam's first international railway links to...".  Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the current lines table it may be worth placing a footnote stating information is missing. I'm most confused by the question mark after Meter Gague in the Pho Lu–Xuan Giao entry. Is it is unknown, it should be ?? like other boxes.
    • In this case, it should be ?? until the gauge can be confirmed. Metre gauge was my own educated guess. Now fixed.  Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In defunct lines, dates of construction would be useful for incomplete lines, possibly placed in notes.
  • "the line is the only main line in China using metre gauge, (or dual gauge, since it can also be converted to standard gauge)" This needs to be clarified. Metre or dual?
    • "only main line in China using metre gauge" is from Yunnan–Vietnam Railway, added by a previous contributor. This needs further research to clarify, but from what I've read in different places, the section of the line in the PRC still exists in metre gauge and is currently out of service, but is scheduled for conversion into a mixed-gauge line. Anyone who has further information, please feel free to add useful references. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the 1930s, to be connected to Cambodia;" To be connected to Cambodia seems redundant
    • Perhaps it should read: "with the intent of extending it further into Cambodia"?  Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
High speed railway
  • "National Assembly deputies had asked for further study of the project." "Have" not "had"?
Subways and light rail
  • "including a rapid transit system including five routes." " including a rapid transit system with five routes" or something similar would be better than repeating "including"
Infrastructure
  • "despite temporary restoration following the war" Temporary restoration?
    • Meaning, a low-quality, makeshift restoration to get it up and running quickly, requiring a more complete restoration later on. I agree it's a confusing turn of phrase. Update: I've changed this to "despite their restoration following the war" for now, until I can think of a better way to say it.  Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Vietnam Railways train enters a tunnel north of Quy Nhon." Passes through may be more accurate than enters, as the video covers the entire tunnel.
Railway management
  • In its current state needs to be broken up into a couple of paragraphs
  • This section seems to be mostly history (move to history section?) and there is little else about railway management not mentioned elsewhere. The section would be improved by an expansion on information about the company that manages it. This also seems to be a useful section to expand on foreign investment and help, as it seems countries such as Japan are interested, along with possibly information about any ASEAN cooperation.
  • The main article listed, Vietnam Railways, seems to be a duplication of this article. Merge or remake, but don't list as a main in its current form.
    • Good point. The content of Vietnam Railways was merged into this article, since most of the information there seemed better suited to this one. I agree that that article needs a lot of rework, and if it's best to delink it as a main article in the interim, then let's delink. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delinked for now. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also
  • Two of the See also's are mentioned in the article. It might be good to link to articles about any other companies, or similar projects such as tram lines.

Overall, a good article. It may be worth running through prose, as there are a lot of long sentences that have been created through the use of semi-colons that may be better written if split up into multiple sentences. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great observations. I've added a few of my own observations, and as long as I can make the time, I'm definitely be available to help further develop this article. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 767[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been promoted to GA status since the last time I've put it up for peer review. I'm hoping that, with helpful and constructive criticism, Boeing 767 can be nominated for Featured Article status.

Thanks, Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 06:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Looks comprehensive to a non-expert (me). The prose is clear though a bit heavy on the passive voice in places. The article is well-illustrated except for layout problems, easily fixable, as noted below. Here are a few comments and suggestions:

  • Watch out for combinations like Boeing 767 that would look awkward on computer screens if separated by line break. They need no-break codes to prepare the article for FAC. WP:NBSP has details.
  • The images generally look fine as images, but several are causing layout problems. None should displace heads, subheads, or edit buttons or overlap section boundaries. Relocating some may be possible, but to make more room for some of them, it will be necessary to merge some of the shorter subsections to make bigger subsections.

Lead

  • "The aircraft is regarded as an ETOPS pioneer, being the first to receive 180-minute approval by the FAA." - Abbreviations and acronymns such as ETOPS and FAA should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use.

Background

  • "reflecting increased industry confidence in the reliability and economics of new generation turbofan engines" - Link turbofan?

Further developments

  • "The company began offering the 767-300ER to tide customers affected by 787 launch delays, specifically to Japanese carriers All Nippon Airways and Japan Air Lines." - "Tide" doesn't seem quite right. Maybe "assist"?

Airframe

  • "optimized for a cruising speed of Mach 0.8" - Link Mach to Mach number?

767-300

  • "The 767-300 is a 21.1-ft (6.43 m) stretch of the 767-200, with an overall length of 180 ft 3 in (54.94 m)." - To this point in the article, the conversions follow the normal pattern of writing out the primary units and abbreviating the secondary units. The convert template can do that automatically; i.e., 21.1-foot (6.43 m). I'd change these two and any other outliers to match the normal format.

Military variants

  • I'd consider using italics rather than boldface for the airplane names. WP:MOSBOLD suggests limits on boldface.

Specifications

  • The hyphen in the 767-300F column is awfully small and might look better as an en dash or em dash.

References

  • Citation 53 is missing the retrieval date.
  • Citation 59 returns a 404 error and is missing a retrieval date.
  • Citations 66, 67, and 68 need retrieval dates.
  • Citation 86 is malformed.
  • Citation 89 lacks a retrieval date.
  • I did not check all of the citations, but I suspect there are others that need fixing.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Castle[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it reviewed before nominating it for GA status. The bulk of the text came from the Citizendium article and I have converted this port over to use the usual wiki format for layout and referencing style. I would be interested in pointers to any other changes that are needed to bring it into line with our standards and any other things that need attention before a GA submission.

Thanks, Keith D (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, but will need considerable work to reach GA. My main concern is that it is difficult to determine how closely the prose mirrors that of the sources. If you have been able to verify the claims in the article by checking against the sources, that's fine, but if not, is it certain that the Citizendium authors avoided close paraphrasing, plagiarism, or copyvios? Aside from this concern, I have others, listed below.

  • Insofar as is reasonable, heads and subheads should be telegraphic and unique within a page and should avoid repeating the main words of the article title. I'd be inclined to shorten "Early history of the site" to "Early history", "Original wooden castle, 1138–1157" to "Wooden original, 1138–1157", the next subhead to "Stone, c. 1157–1216". I wouldn't use "castle" in any head or subhead.
    • Changed.
  • In the infobox, 12th century appears in digits, but "seventeenth century" was spelled out in the lead. I changed it to 17th century, then noticed other big ones spelled out further down in the article. However, even further down is 20th century. They should all be consistent, and the usual pattern is to use words for nine and smaller and digits for 10 and bigger unless the numbers start a sentence. In that case, they must be spelled out. WP:MOS#Numbers has details.
    • Have changed these to digits.
  • It's best not to link words familiar to most readers of English. I mention three examples below in the "Features" section, but there are many others such as "water", "seige", "monarch", "workshop", "wood", "pirate", "museum", and "kitchen" that should not be linked. Overlinking dilutes the importance of the necessary links.
  • Many short sections and subsections make an article seem choppy and make it difficult to place images without overlapping section boundaries. For example, File:Henry II of England.jpg overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button. I would suggest merging some of the shorter subsections.
  • Directional images generally look better if positioned to look into the page rather than out. I'd move George Fox to the left.
    • Moved to left.
  • When a group of citation numbers appear together, it's best to arrange them in ascending order; i.e., [5][46] rather than [46][5].
    • Re-ordered.
  • The Commons license page for File:Henry II of England.jpg gives the English Wikipedia as its source. What is needed instead is information about the original source, a book most likely.
    • Changed as per other image which is almost identical.

Features

  • "some of many examples of changes to the castle over the centuries, which is itself a replacement for a twelfth-century fortification built around the remains of an eleventh-century Anglo-Saxon chapel" - This part of the paragraph needs a source too since its claims are unusual (not common knowledge).
  • "This bridge replaced the two original drawbridges, and was rebuilt in 1337–1338[5] leads first to the inner bailey (courtyard), which would have been used for workshops, offices, a kitchen, and a storage area." - Doesn't quite make sense as written. Is something missing?
  • "With its sloping plinth to aid defence" - Link plinth?
    • Linked as suggested.
  • "his square three-storey building would have been over 100-foot-tall (30 m)" - Remove hyphens; i.e., 100 feet (30 m) tall?
  • I would not link common words like "vegetables", "animals", or "fireplace".
    • Delinked.
  • "(see early history of the site, below)" - I'd avoid these kinds of direct asides to the reader. Readers who continue will get to the history of the site in due course. Ditto for any other asides and linked asides in the article.
    • Links removed.
  • "The 'King's Chambers' in the outer bailey" - Double quotation marks are standard except in the case of nested quotes. Ditto for other instances in the article.
    • Changed singe to double quotes.
  • "The thirteenth-century Queen's Tower in the wall nearby also saw different uses: initially luxurious accommodation with private latrines, a porch added in 1320[5] and large windows with bay views, two of these windows were later blocked up, and one was changed to a cupboard with a rubbish chute." - A run-on sentence.
    • Split sentence.

Early history of the site

  • "Archaeological evidence of Iron Age and later settlements from around 900–500 BCE[11] possibly suggest something as extensive as a full hill fort on the headland, though evidence of this is yet to be found." - This seems contradictory. If "evidence possibly suggest[s]", how can it be that "evidence ... is yet to be found"?
    • Removed the latter part of the sentence.

Development of the castle as a tourist attraction

  • The panorama looks good, but why include the duplicative smaller image? I'd delete it.
    • Removed the smaller image.

Other

  • The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two dead links in the citations.
    • I had marked 1 dead, and can probably be removed. The other one has gone dead in the last 20 days, I have replaced with a live URL.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. I will have to work through the points that you have raised. Keith D (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Nev1
  • Is there any particular reason "royal" and "fortress" are linked in the opening sentence?
  • No particular reason - I have de-linked them.
  • The spelling of medieval needs to be consistent; both "medieval" and "mediaeval" are used at the moment.
    • Standardised on medieval throughout.
  • "It was also fortified and defended for various civil wars, sieges and conflicts, as kings fought with rival barons, faced rebellion and clashed with republican forces": I don't like the phrase "republican forces". I assume it refers to the Civil War, but can the Parliamentarian forces really be described as republican?
  • I found the bit about the inner about outer baileys a bit confusing and have had a go at rephrasing it. To be honest, I'm not sure the terms "inner" and "outer" are useful in this instance as it creates the idea that you have to pass through the outer to reach the inner. I realise that's what the English Heritate school guide uses, but what about the Goodall book? Outer and inner seem to relate more to the location of the keep and the social layout of the castle (buildings closer to the keep were generally more important and part of the "inner" household), but I'm damned if I can find a nice reference for that at the moment. Perhaps swap "inner" and "outer" for the compass directions?
  • What is meant by the phrase "the west wall being strongest"? Is this the thickest wall, the wall with fewest windows, or something else? Strong is a bit vague.
  • It's good that an effort has been made to explain the layout and use of the keep, but its not clear which floor the hearth was on.
    • It indicates first-floor, but probably that means what would be called ground-floor today as there is no mention of anything between basement and first-floor. Any ideas how best to word this?
  • It's mentioned twice that the baileys are separated by a wall and ditch, I think the first mention could be removed. Also, where it says "The baileys are separated by a wall, ditch and bank, with two defended gateways" is it saying that there are two gateways leading from the inner to the out bailey?
    • I have removed the first occurrence & relocated the reference, source is not clear on the gateways, probably need to see what others say on that one.
  • "A 12th-century mediaeval building, 100 feet (30 m) in length and excavated in 1888, also stood in the outer bailey to accommodate royal visitors, with a long hall and private chamber for the monarch (the only one with a fireplace), as well as rooms for preparing and storing food. This building was demolished sometime before a survey of 1538, which makes no mention of it, and only the foundations remain.": The first sentence is fine, but I'm struggling to find the bit in the sources which relates to the second sentence.
  • The article uses mixed era systems, both BCE and AD are used.
    • Changed BCE to BC for consistency.
  • "This fate of the settlement, if it existed at all, is supported by the fact that Scarborough is not mentioned in the Domesday Book (a survey or census of 11th-century England). However, there is no archaeological evidence of such an inferno, nor any of the Viking presence": Is it possible to check this against the source? The Domesday Book didn't cover anything and the first sentence look a bit like original research to me, especially given the Harrying of the North.
  • "According to him, William le Gros built his fortress of wood, with a palisade wall (i.e. of wooden stakes) on the landward side, and a gate tower at the entrance. This motte and bailey castle subsequently disappeared, with only a small, raised mound (the motte) visible today, in the inner bailey:" I think this needs checking against the source as none of Pastscape, the Heritage Gateway, or the Gatehouse describe the 12th-century castle as a motte and bailey.
  • Pettifer in English Castles (1995) suggests the early castle may have been modelled on Richmond, which may be worth mentioning (I can add that myself if you want).
  • The section Piers Gaveston besieged, 1312 jumps about in time, it really should be arranged chronologically.
  • The castle's role in the Pilgrimage of Grace should be mentioned.
  • The keep was slighted during the Civil War as well as damaged by bombardment.
  • What happened to the castle in the Restoration? Was it restored to the Crown?
  • In some places, the phrasing is a little jarring with events followed by cause as was the case here.
  • Some sections of history, particularly towards the end, are very short and the titles don't necessarily reflect the whole content of the section, and leads to some unnatural separations; for example the First World War is mentioned before 19th-century tourism. Maybe the history could be broken down into more general parts, but it's not a big deal.
  • As Scarborough is an impressive ruin, did it have any role to play in the Romantic movement?
  • There are a lot of low value wikilinks; I've removed some myself but linking to articles such as soldier isn't going to help someone wanting to know about Scarborough Castle.

I've made some copy edits you'll want to double check to make sure I haven't accidentally changed the meaning of anything. Some of the comments here may seem a bit down, but the article is quite good; it deserves the current B-class rating but I'd like to see these issues addressed before the article arrives at GAC (but I'd love to see it there). The castle has a fascinating history and looks quite remarkable. While I am not particularly familiar with Scarborough, I think it would be a good idea to check the article against some of the sources. As Goodall is the latest English Heritage book on the castle, I would expect that to be more frequently used than say Binns (is he/she mainstream?) or Page (perhaps outdated in some respects?). Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the comments. I will have a look at them, though I am working from the imported text and have not got my hands on the source books as yet. Keith D (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hchc2009:

If it's any use to you, I've uploaded a copyright free plan of the castle from 1896 to the Commons; quality's not perfect though.

1896 plan

. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will probably put it in the features section when I get the text sorted out. Cannot get the source books at the moment so may be some time before I can make much progress. Keith D (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milos Raonic[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, so much improvement have been done since its subject has become more and more notable. Several dispute issues has been settled regarding his nationality, section lengths (they were trimmed down to be more comprehensive), statistics (it was moved to a separate page). All the photos were reviewed, the links are in my opinion appropriate. I want to make sure that every effort made was according to the guidelines and some tips concerning what is needed to be done to get it ready for good article nomination. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I began a fairly close line-by-line review until I noticed that much of the article lacks citations to reliable sources and therefore does not meet WP:V. This is a serious problem that will prevent promotion to GA and should be addressed before worrying much about other issues. If other editors added lots of unsourced claims, it may be hard to track down their sources, and thus the content may change substantially by deletion. Also, I doubt that so much detail is useful. Here's an example from the 2010 subsection: "He had more chances to break point but experience and poise won out for the veteran as Nadal converted both of his only two break points and Raonic, none of his five." How much detail about specific matches should be included in articles about sports? It is a judgment call, and there is no universal rule, but I think that most readers would find the highlights of Raonic's career interesting, the personal information interesting, but would probably glaze over while reading blow-by-blow descriptions of individual games. On the bright side, culling unnecessary detail from the article should simplify the task of finding reliable sources for the remaining information.

  • No dead links, no dabs. This is good.
  • Images and image licenses look find. However, File:Raonic2011AO2.png on my computer screen displaces the "2011 subhead". I would suggest moving it down several lines to keep it away from the subhead.

Lead

  • I would spell out as well as abbreviate Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) in the lead. Ditto for International Tennis Federation (ITF).
  • "He is currently ranked... " - Generally, instead of using words like "currently", "now", and "today", which change meaning as time passes, it's better to use a more specific word or phrase such as "as of 2011".
  • Anything like "No. 37" that would look odd if separated on computer screens by line-break should be nailed together with a no-break code. I fixed the first instance, in the lead, so you can see what it looks like in edit mode. WP:NBSP explains how this works. "Group 4", "Croatia F1", "No. 11" are other examples of combinations that need nbsps.

Junior tennis career

  • The entire section lacks any citations to reliable sources, yet the information is filled with statistics and is not common knowledge. Where does the information come from? Generally, except perhaps for the lead, any sets of statistics, any unusual claims, any direct quotations, and every paragraph needs a citation to a reliable source. Seeing much more of the same in lower sections, I will stop at this point.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Finetooth, Lajbi. Good article coming along nicely but nowhere near GA right now. Mainly because of the lack of sources. A dilligent review would quick fail this if you went to GA right now. Trust me I'm revewing a few GA's and gaining experience in how to review, and if I saw this I would quick fail it just like I did to the Grand National. KnowIG (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Wars[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to get this to at least a GA and I have been working on this article significantly, especially the reception section. Comments on how to improve this article should be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would recommend using a table for the "Voice cast" section so all the names could be separated into columns. Maybe something like what is at My Neighbor Totoro – Cast, but a little more polished and with a "Description" column besides the name columns. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Table has been added. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kollision

  • Name fixes
    • "Bill Jenkins" link needs disambiguation
    • "Ichiro Nagai" → "Ichirō Nagai"
    • "Yasujiro Ozu" → "Yasujirō Ozu"
    • "Joe Hisashi" → "Joe Hisaishi"
Done. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Logical quotation fixes (fullstop should go before the inverted comma)
    • pre-sales for the tickets are very high". → pre-sales for the tickets are very high."
    • usual SF/fantasy anime look childish and dull".
    • seems like a dream state".
    • seem silly rather than suspenseful".
    • both melodramatic and corny".
    • Debra Messing rom-com".
  • "The Girl Who Leapt Through Time won the same award three years earlier at the festival" - remove. stay on topic, this article is about Summer Wars not The Girl Who Leapt Through Time
Removed. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hosoda's The Girl Who Leapt Through Time won the same award in 2006." - same thing. this and the above could be moved to Hosoda's article
Removed. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "similarities between OZ and Second Life" - italicize "Second Life"
Done. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Summer Wars won the Audience Award" - italicize "Summer Wars"
Done. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Japanese Blu-ray release of Summer Wars" - italicize "Summer Wars"
Done. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last three short paragraphs of the Home media section should be merged into one paragraph.
Done. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voice cast section - A lot of the descriptions I feel go beyond bring descriptive of what is mentioned in the film and are interpretive. These should be changed or if accurate, they should be backed up by a secondary source.
    • "Kenji is invited by his crush Natsuki" - I don't remember it being stated in the film that Natsuki is Kenji's crush
Rewritten. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a secret confidante" - that's not how I'd describe their relationship
Rewritten. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Kazuma is also a hikikomori" - is he really?
    • "Natsuki refers to him as her "first love,"" - In the film it is one of her aunt's that describe him as her first love.
Corrected. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a shopkeeper of the family's electric company." - Described in the film as an electronics shop, his position is not mentioned or that it is the family's shop
Corrected. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of the job specific job positions aren't in the film, what's the source?
  • Plot section
    • "meets Wabisuke Jinnouchi (Ayumu Saitō/J. Michael Tatum), Natsuki's uncle and a Carnegie Mellon University professor." - I think explaining that he has been gone for ten years is more important than the fact that he is a Carnegie Mellon professor. It will also make some of the things mentioned later make more sense.
    • "He discovers a mysterious e-mail" → "He receives a mysterious e-mail"
    • "causing Kenji to become the primary suspect" - it is unclear here what Kenji is the primary suspect of. I think it would be better to remove this and replace it with an explanation of what Love Machine did (eg. "causing widespread damage")
    • "disables the power grid" - As far as I can tell, Love Machine never disabled the power grid. It just messes around with things like the water pressure, senior citizens' emergency buttons, fire alarms, GPS systems, etc.
    • "Kenji is exposed and promptly arrested; however, Natsuki has Kenji return to the estate." - This would be confusing if the reader hasn't seen the film. Kenji is arrested and Natusuki just has him return to the estate!? Maybe clarify that he was arrested by Shota and how he was "exposed".
    • "leaving Natsuki in shock" - I think more important is that fact that this really pisses off Sakae and that Wabisuke leaves after the fight.
    • "and Kenji hacks into the GPS directly" → "and Kenji tries to hacks into the satellite's GPS directly"
    • "Arawashi hits too close to the residence" → "Arawashi hits close to the residence"
Plot comments have been addressed. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBFC citation needs to be properly formatted.
Done. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, change the ISO dates in the citations to the US date format.

- Kollision (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Macdonald[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to nominate it for FA and would like feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The improvements are tremendous. It reads so much better. I will review more carefully and offer any suggestions that come to mind. More immediately, it's not clear why you are removing the references to National Historic Sites associated with Macdonald. His gravesite, in particular, is the only one in Canada to be so designated. It merits more than a reference note. I acknowledge the reference might be in the wrong spot, but I defer to your judgment on that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skeezix1000[edit]

Just a few comments (ignore any with which you disagree). Hope it helps.

Lead
  • "Macdonald served almost nineteen years as Canadian Prime Minister, more than any man except William Lyon Mackenzie King." → Could "man" be replaced with "person" or something to that effect? Someone with less familiarity of Canadian history might conclude that a woman has served a longer period. (This is not a huge issue - maybe you think "man" reads better)
  • "He articled to a local lawyer" → As an Ontario lawyer myself, one normally articles "with" a lawyer. Maybe this a historic way of saying this (and is used by the source), and perhaps usage is not standard across Canada.
  • "Canada had obtained most of the territory she occupies today" → "it" is better than "she", but this is a style choice I suppose.
Early years, 1815–1830
  • Kingston was not the capital of Upper Canada in 1820 (or ever, IRCC - wasn't it strictly the capital of the Province of Canada for a time?), although it may have been the most populated city at that time.
Legal prominence, 1837–1843
  • "Macdonald was not called upon to fire a shot in anger" → Not sure the words "in anger" are necessary. Had the Kingston area been attacked, would he have helped defend it "in anger'?
Parliamentary advancement, 1843–1857
  • Some of the photos near this heading are causing unnecessary extra spaces after the heading (in IE at least). You may want to slightly adjust the location of the images.
  • "The coalition which came to power in 1854 became known as the Liberal-Conservatives (referred to, for short, as the Conservatives) and eventually became the Progressive Conservatives" → It seems odd to mention one iteration of that party which didn't exist until 1942, and doesn't exist today. I would reference the Conservative Party of Canada (1867–1942) instead (or even today's Conservative Party, if the intent is to tie it to a current entity).
Colonial leader, 1857–1864
  • The first sentence is a bit confusing - it starts talking about Isabella, but then jumps to Macdonald (as do the next few sentences). Rather than separating the information on Isabella with a few sentences on John's activities, would it not make sense to put all the information on Isabella at the end of the paragraph?
Confederation of Canada, 1864–1867
  • "Macdonald had favoured the union coming into force on 15 July, fearing that the preparations would not be completed any earlier. On 22 May, however, it was announced that the Dominion of Canada would come into existence on 1 July." → Begs the question why the date was moved forward.
First term, 1867–1871
  • "It soon became apparent that Mary was not normal." → This sentence can be deleted entirely - "normal" is in the eyes of the beholder. The article should simply set out Mary's issues.
  • "The Canadian Parliament also ratified the terms, in what Macdonald cabinet member Alexander Morris described as the worst fight the Conservatives had had since Confederation." → It is unclear whether the Conservatives were fighting over the cost of the promise or over allowing BC to enter Confederation.
  • "Macdonald remained in the House of Commons, having been elected for Marquette, Manitoba and Victoria, British Columbia, choosing to sit for the latter." → This is somewhat confusing. He stood for election in Kingston, refusing to run in Caldwell, but sat as MP for Victoria? You might want to explain that candidates could, and did, run in multiple ridings (if that is the case).
This odd practice survived into the Laurier years, as Laurier was elected as MP for both Quebec East and the District of Saskatchewan. I can't find anything definite about the practice, but I expect they hoped for the prestige and perhaps some dough from being the Prime Minister's constituency. These were generally by acclamation. I have one source that says the Victoria election happened after the Kingston loss, but I'm dubious of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Third and fourth terms, 1878–1887
  • "Salable" is American English. "Saleable" is more common in Canadian English (and the term preferred in the Canadian Oxford).
Fifth and sixth terms, 1887–1891; death
  • "During the campaign, Macdonald suffered another blow when Quebec Liberals were able to form a government (four months after the October 1886 Quebec election), forcing the Conservatives from power in Quebec City." - I had to read this three times to understand that it was refering to the the Liberals' provincial cousins, not the federal Liberal caucus.
Legacy and tributes
  • This subject needs expanding. Although I do like the focus on his accomplishments being his most tangible monument, the physical monuments are important as well. I don't think the article should, for example, list all the high schools named after Macdonald (which would be the other extreme), but "Macdonald is the subject of a number of tributes in Canada" is way too vague. You could say that his name graces many schools and roads across the country, if we can find a source for that. Maybe this is where you mention that he is the subject of three NHSCs (it seems very odd that there is no mention of Bellevue, a museum maintained in his honour). While it is a good point that we have not named any provinces of cities after Macdonald, I am not sure what a "massive monument" is (I have a sense of what is meant by the term, but it's fairly subjective and ambiguous). While I agree that a statue is not the same as Mount Rushmore, the section makes it sound like there are few physical tributes to the man (in fact, there are statues on Parliament Hill, and in Toronto, Hamilton, Kingston and Montreal).

    Again, the article is looking great.

--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I'm trying to make this about Macdonald as much as possible, and just touch on the tributes. Any ones that are notable can be added as see alsos. It's about narrative. I will implement your comments as I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will make that change on "articling". Between Macdonald and Diefenbaker, the term has caused me endless grief. And I guess I'll add back the stuff, if only to beef up the legacy section. The thing is, while people have said a lot about Macdonald, they usually just say the same things over and over. Good Confederation, bad Riel and scandal.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect usage differs by usage and time period, which is why the term causes such grief. As for tributes, I will leave it in your good hands. I've said my piece - you have my support for whatever decision you come to. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't implemented these yet because I am h oping for more comments. If no one else replies by the end of the weekend, I'll push forward and start thinking about when to do a FAC nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Connelly[edit]

</noinclude>

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to FA. The article has been corrected by the Guild of Copy Editors and now I need help to correct other things missing or mistaken along the article. I think it is comprehensive but needs an additional review to fix the details.

Thanks, Gduwen (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-done but not quite ready for FAC. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

Career

  • The "Monologue of Love" infobox look strange to me. Most articles have only one infobox, although I have seen exceptions. This one, though, overlaps two sections and displaces two edit buttons. In addition, it does not add much information. Might it be better to use File:Monologue of Love Jennifer Connelly.jpg by itself (with a caption), to eliminate the infobox, and to add any information in it to the main text? Most of the info is already part of the main text; you could just add the seven-inch format, the B-side, and the record company info to the sentence about "Monolugue of Love". You might have to make it a separate sentence to keep the existing sentence from getting too long.
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early career

 Done--GDuwenTell me! 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early 2000s

  • Quote boxes and blockquotes are usually used for quotations of four lines or more. The one in this section is about a half-line and would be better, I think, if worked into the main text. The quote box also creates a text sandwich with the image on the opposite side of the page, and this is a layout no-no. Moving the quote into the text would solve both problems.
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2005–2007

  • File:Jennifer Connelly TIFF09.jpg overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button, at least on my computer screen. This could be fixed, I think, by using the "upright" parameter instead of "200px" and moving the image up slightly.
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008–2011

  • "played the Princeton University astrobiologist Dr. Helen Benson" - Per the Manual of Style, I would remove the academic title, "Dr.". The description is sufficient.
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The movie is set during the writing of On the Origin of Species and depicts that struggle along with Darwin's religious wife, Emma, who opposed his theories while they were in deep grief over the death of their daughter Annie." - This sentence is a bit awkward. Perhaps "The movie, set during the writing of On the Origin of Species, depicts Darwin's struggle with the material and with his wife, who opposed his theories. Both are in mourning over the death of their daughter Annie."
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The same year she voiced 7, in the animation film 9." - I'm assuming that 7 is a character, but I think that should be made explicit; i.e., "she voiced the character named 7" or something like that.
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's generally best to place directional images so that they look into the page rather than out. File:JenniferConnellycomiccon.JPG would look better if positioned on the right.
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Vanderveers are members of the Church of the Third Millennium, conducted by pastor Dan," - Is "conducted" the right word? Maybe "led"?
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • "She was featured in an ad highlighting the need for clean water of people globally with the end result that people made donations to drilling projects in Africa, India, and Central America." - A bit roundabout. Suggestion: "She was featured in an ad highlighting the global need for clean water. The ad encouraged donations to drilling projects in Africa, India, and Central America."
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd work the short quote in the quote box into the main text and move the image to the right side of the page.
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • The date formatting in the reference section needs to be consistent. I see three different formats, for example, across citations 1, 4, and 66.
 Done--I unified the date formatting in the refs.--Gunt50 (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The all-caps parts of citations like 5 need to be rendered in Wikipedia house style even if the source uses all-caps; i.e., "Jennifer Connelly Feeling More at Home in Her Career".
 Done I've been working on this point. I think it's done but since I'm not an expert on Mos-related stuff I'd be thankful if you could check what I did --Gunt50 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper and magazine titles like People Magazine in citation 1 and Wall Street Journal in citation 114 need to be in italics.
 Done-- I took care of that part. Take a look now to see if I omitted something--Gunt50 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 111 is malformed.
 Done-- I corrected it.--Gunt50 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 52 is incomplete.
 Done-- It's complete now--Gunt50 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find two dead URLS in the citations and three links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 17:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
 Done After a check I think it's ok, I did not detect any issue.--GDuwenTell me! 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: I re-read the article this morning. It looks very good. I found and fixed a few typos and glitches, and here are just a couple of other things, also minor, to consider or fix:

  • "while Variety Magazine wrote: "Connelly, though a shade looser and more spontaneous than usual, seems stuck at an emotional removed from the action". - I wonder if the quote has been slightly altered by mistake. It would make more sense if "removed" were "remove" without the "d". Could this be the case?
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 19:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found and fixed a couple of nonconforming date formats in the citations. There might be another one or two lurking somewhere. They are not always easy to see.
 DoneI've checked all the sources one by one and corrected the ones that were nonconforming--GDuwenTell me! 19:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just spot-checking the sources, I noticed that the Dominic Willis of citation 59 should actually be Dominic Wills without the "i". Finetooth (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 19:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Lumumba[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an article of great importance to African history. Reviewing Patrice Lumumba's article would give it a chance to be nominated and be a featured article. As a featured article it would attract readers and it will be listed amongst other great and reliable articles. So far the article as it stands looks good however there are two citation needed flags. Also the article is well structured and quick to the point.

Thanks, Juan Carlos Suarez Juanc.suar (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

You have nominated this for peer review, though you are not a contributor to the article. The leading contributors have very few recent edits between them and don't appear to have much current intetrest in the article. Who are you thinking is going to take on the work necessary to develop the article towards GA or FA status?

Parts of the article read well, though it will be necessary to check that some of the wording does not represent possible copyright violation. As it stands, the article is probably fairly classed as a C, not more. A great deal of work is necessary to get the work to GA standard, let alone FA. The principal tasks to be undertaken are:-

  • Balance of material: the article is over-weighted with material relating to Lumumba's death and the subsequent enquiries while his actual life and work is rather skimped. The "lfe" details need to be made more comprehensive
  • Under-referencing: The two citation tags only hint at the problem . There are many uncited statements, including whole sections. Please note that as a general rule every statement of significance needs to be cited, every direct quote needs to cited, and every paragraph should end with a citation.
  • Reference formats: We need a proper list of cited works that needs to be after the citations. This should be a list of every cited book, and needs to be separate from other lists of films, videos etc.
  • The format of citations needs overhauling. It is all over the place at the moment. Books are cited without page numbers; there are unformatted links; retrieval dates missing; publishers missing, publication dates missing, etc.
  • The "Films" and "Other" lists look mainly like trivia. Possibly the first item, about the naming of Lumumba-Zapata College,could be worked into the article, but the rest should be removed. The BBC "On This Day" links are external links that should not appear within the body of the article.
  • The "Tributes" should be reduced to a much smaller number, and included in a section dealing with Lumumba's political legacy. What, if any, lasting effect did he have on the country? What are considered his achievments? How have historians assessed his place in history?
  • Some of the prose lacks neutrality, for example: "In contrast to the relatively harmless speech of President Kasa-Vubu, Lumumba's reference to the suffering of the Congolese under Belgian colonialism stirred the crowd while simultaneously humiliating and alienating the King and his entourage". If this is a quote it should be indicated as such, and cited, otherwise it reads as POV. Another examples: "Lumumba made the fateful decision...".
  • The lead needs to be expanded so that it is a summary of the article.

In summary, the article needs much work if it is to be brought to a standard which this important African figure justifies. I hope that interested editors will come forward to attempt the task. Brianboulton (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romances[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like a thorough and detailed review on how to vastly improve this article to able to have at least a GA article status. I'll work on the copy editing once the other problems have been addressed. Any additional tips or suggestions would also be appreciated. One of the major problems I'm having is how to write the composition since most of the songs are covered. EDIT: I'm also working on the production section by including the background information for the producers and need suggestions as to what to put on the tour section.

Thanks, Magiciandude (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I have looked at this from the aspect of defining what needs to be done to make this into a Good Article. It is not a complete prose review, and I am not well-informed on the subject, but I hope my suggestions are useful:-

  • General point: I think that, as a first step towards preparing this article for possible GA status, you should look at some of the album articles that have already become GAs. They tend to be much longer, and more comprehensive, than this article. In particular:-
    • Background: This brief account of Louis Miguel's earlier successes does not provide background information relating to Romances. Why, specifically, did he decide to make this album, and why did he choose a title so close to that of a previous success?
    • The heading "Composition" seems wrong; the section seems to be about the choices of material rather than the writing of songs. This information would probably be better included in an expanded Background section, but in any event should come before Recording and production
    • Recording: Take a look at the Recording section in, for example, the I Want You (album) article. Much more informative (and with sound clips, too). This s the level of detail you should be aiming at (lokk at other GAs too).
  • Prose: the prose isn't bad, but there are occasions when it slips into a non-encyclopedic tone and looks sloppy. For example: "The two albums even became a hit in countries outside of Latin American such as Finland and Saudi Arabia." Two albums cannot be "a hit", "Latin America" not "Latin American", and the words "even" and "of" are redundant. Other things I spotted:-
    • translated into, not in
    • close repetition of "was composed by"
    • " where it remained on the position for eleven nonconsecutive weeks." First, the words "on the position", apart from being non-idiomatic, are redundant. Secondly, how can it "remain" for noncosecutive weeks? The fact that the weeks were not consecutive means that it did not "remain".
    • These are a few examples. In general the prose needs some careful polishing.
  • Performance and technical credits: So many names: are they all necessary?
  • References: (small point) 32 and 34 seem to be lacking retrieval dates

I hope these comments are helpful. If you have any query, please contact my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brianboulton, I found your review to be very helpful. I will be sure to ask if I have any more questions. Magiciandude (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eazy-E[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to nominate it for FA and I think it needs a lot of work. I believe it is fairly close to FA, but I believe it needs some copyediting.

Thank you, CrowzRSA 00:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I think the lead needs some work. The main issue I see with it is that it has too many fine details that are more or less repeated later in the article. For example, this: Wright was born to Richard and Kathie Wright in Compton, California. After dropping out of high school in the tenth grade, he supported himself primarily by selling drugs. should be trimmed down a bit. You could just say he was born in Compton, and after dropping out of school, started selling drugs before becoming a rapper. Same thing with the part about Dr. Dre trying to get out of his contract. The part about Suge Knight seems like too much for the lead. Also, with his influences, maybe you could summarize that a bit more by saying his influences included black comedians, 1970s funk groups, and contemporary rappers, because you name all the names in the musical influences and style section. You might be able to fill in lead space with other details instead.
  2. In the death and legacy sections, I think you may be using too many references for certain points, though I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule as far a limit to citations. I see numerous places where you're using three or four references for individual items. It's a bit distracting. Perhaps you could compress some of those down, and pick the best, most notable and reliable source (or two) for those points.
  3. I also see that you repeat that Steve Huey quote in the lead and in the legacy section. In this case, I think using it in the lead is better, since it's a very nice summarizing remark. Maybe you could get more details in the legacy section itself, and replace that quote with another one, either from Huey or someone else. I think exact repetition weakens the impact of the article.
  4. Also in the legacy section, it seems odd to point out he never won any awards or was in any movies. It just doesn't seem notable to say a musician wasn't in a movie especially.
I hope these suggestions help! —Torchiest talkedits 05:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, they were all helpful. CrowzRSA 00:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalorean Catholics[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article currently holds GA status. I hope to eventually nominate it as a candidate for FA status. However, before i do that, a peer review would be very helpful. As such, I would greatly appreciate it if someone would take the time to ascertain whether the article satisfies FA criteria, and if not, then what can be done to change that. Thanks! Joyson Noel Holla at me! 09:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62
  • Beware of phrases that are overly wordy or aim to tell a story rather than present information. "The most disconsolate memory in the community's history..." is one example of this.
Reworded the sentence to "Their 15-year captivity at Seringapatam imposed by Tipu Sultan, the de facto ruler of the Kingdom of Mysore, from February 24, 1784, to May 4, 1799, led to the near extinction of the community."
  • "Although early assertions of being Mangalorean Catholics date from the migration period" The meaning of this phrase is not clear.
Reworded that part to "Although early assertions of a distinct Mangalorean Catholic identity date from the migration period...". I hope this is more clear.
  • "At present, it comprises the whole civil districts of..." Two problems here. First, avoid the use of "at present", "currently", and "recently." See WP:As of#Precise language for more information. Second, avoid redundant words. "whole" can be removed from the sentence in question without any meaning being lost.
Reworded the sentence to "It comprises the civil districts of...".
  • "In 1526, after Portuguese shipping arrived in Mangalore, while the number of local converts slowly increased, an immigration of Christians from Goa to South Canara started on a large scale, in the second half of the 16th century." It's not clear why there are two time frames specified in this sentence. Did this happen in 1526 or the second half of the 16th century? It may be helpful to split this into two sentences.
Split para into two sentences. "In 1526, Portuguese shipping arrived in Mangalore, and the number of local converts slowly increased. However, a sizeable Christian population did not exist until the second half of the 16th century, when there began a large-scale immigration of Christians from Goa to South Canara."
  • Regarding image captions: The common convention is that captions which do not form a complete sentence ("A modern Mangalorean Catholic family from Mangalore") should not end with punctuation, whereas captions that do form a complete sentence ("The Catholic saint Francis Xavier requested John III of Portugal to install an Inquisition in Goa, which became the cause of the first great wave of migrations towards South Canara") should end with punctuation.
Done!
  • "According to the 2001 census, the Mangalore Diocese estimates the population of Mangalorean Catholics..." More redundant phrasing. This can be shortened to "In 2001, the Mangalore Diocese estimated the population of Mangalorean Catholics..."
Done!
  • Why are architecture and cuisine grouped into one Culture subsection? These topics have nothing to do with each other.
I have divided it into separate sections.
  • "As of 1991—92, out of 12 tile manufacturing factories in Mangalore, 6 were owned by Christians. These tiles, prepared from hard clay" It isn't clear what "these tiles" refers to, as the first sentence is about factories, not tiles.
Reworded sentence to clarify the type of tiles being manufactured. "As of 1991—92, out of 12 Mangalore tile manufacturing factories in Mangalore, 6 were owned by Christians."
  • The dashes and hyphens need to be checked throughout the article. See WP:DASH for more information.
    • "An English-Konkani Dictionary" the hyphen should be replaced with the en dash: "An English–Konkani Dictionary"
    • "Sanna – idli fluffed with toddy or yeast" the en dash should be replaced with the unspaced em dash: "Sanna—idli fluffed with toddy or yeast"
    • "During the mid–16th century," the en dash should be replaced with a hyphen: "During the mid-16th century,"
Done!
  • Generally speaking, sections other than History should focus on the current state of affairs rather than what has existed in the past. For example, the Geographical distribution section mentions statistics from the 1960s and 1871 without giving any indication of why such information would be relevant to today's geographical distribution.
Removed these historical statistics!
  • "The Mangalorean genealogist Michael Lobo" In most cases, it is unnecessary to include an article ("the", "a", "an") when introducing experts like this. Instead, just say "Mangalorean genealogist Michael Lobo".
Fixed!
  • "Of the remaining half, about 15% reside in other parts of Karnataka (mainly Bangalore), another 15% in Bombay and its surrounding areas, another 10% in the Gulf countries, another 5% in other parts of India, and the remaining 5% in other parts of the world" This phrasing is almost identical to that used by the source. This constitutes plagiarism, which must be avoided at all costs. Always make an effort to either construct a new phrasing or place the original one within quotation marks.
Re-worded para to: "As for the remaining half, about 15% reside in other parts of Karnataka (mostly Bangalore), 15% reside in Mumbai and its neighboring areas, 10% reside in the Gulf countries, 5% reside in other parts of India, and the remaining 5% reside in other parts of the world." Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After checking for details like this, I think the article would have a very good shot at passing FAC, as it is impeccably researched. Good work thus far! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments! I appreciate you taking the time to conduct the review. Please go through the article again and let me know if you find something amiss again. Regards, Joyson Noel Holla at me! 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments weren't intended to be a comprehensive check of the entire article, but instead a spot check to look for common mistakes. Be sure to go through the entire article yourself to check for other instances of these issues, particularly the use of "recent"/"currently", the proper use of dashes, and avoiding plagiarism. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz's comments
  • My first impression: there are too many images leading to the text sandwiching in many parts. Remove many images in History retaining 1-3 imgs in each section and positioning them to avoid text sandwiching. Remove 1 img in Language and literature, 1 img in Traditions and festivals, 1 of the 2 Monti fest imgs, sari img in Costumes and ornaments. Position images such as Images look inside the article correctly done in the adil shah img, but incorrect in sambhaji, tipu imgs. Assert that the Francis img is a depiction of Conversion of Paravas img. On first sight, you get the impression that Francis is blessing John III. See MOS:IMAGES
Removed images to prevent overcrowding. Re-aligned some of the images Fixed the Francis Xavier image.
  • "Their 15-year captivity at Seringapatam imposed by Tipu Sultan, the de facto ruler of the Kingdom of Mysore, from 24 February 1784 to 4 May 1799" Was the rulership or captivity from 1784 to 1779???

--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is obvious that the dates give the duration of the captivity.
Thanks for the helpful comments. Please let me know if you find anything objectionable regarding my placement and alignment of the images. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 11:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As shown by Checklinks, two of the links appear to be uncategorized redirects. See here. However, i can access them and am unable to see what the problem is. Would someone help me out regarding this? Joyson Noel Holla at me! 04:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the "indeterminate" section of Checklinks is just there to give the user an idea of what links may be problematic. If you don't experience any issues when using the links in question, then there's probably nothing to worry about. Even if I've misinterpreted the Checklinks data and there actually is a problem, surely some kind person at FAC will be able to fix it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that! Joyson Noel Holla at me! 16:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need more information on how to make it a featured article.

Thanks, Guy546(Talk) 21:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, certainly broad in coverage, and generally well-written. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • "There are many themes in the book, including living in a corrupted society, dealing with death, as well as many Christian allegories." - This is a bit weak. Most novels have many themes. Suggestion: "Major themes deal with life and death in a corrupted society, and critics have compared them to Christian allegories." Or something like that.
  • "Reception to the book was generally positive and several awards were given to the novel, including the 2008 Colorado Blue Spruce Book Award, and it was listed as a "Best Book for Young Adults" by the American Library Association. A film based on the book is split into two parts, with each of the parts being released eight months apart: the first part was released in November 2010, and the second part is to be released in July 2011." - A bit passive and wordy. Suggestion: Generally well-received, the book won the 2008 Colorado Blue Spruce Book Award, and the American Library Association named it a "Best Book for Young Adults". A two-part film based on the book began showing in November 2010, when the first part was released; the second part is scheduled for July 2011."

Plot introduction

  • Horcrux is capitalized in some places in the article and lower-cased in others. Choose one and stick with it throughout. My guess is that "horcrux" is better than "Horcrux" since it seems to be a generic term rather than a formal name or title.

Death

  • "while comparing Harry to Frodo Baggins in the latter." - It's not clear what "the latter" refers to, probably because it's tacked onto a long, fairly complicated sentence. It would probably be better to make this last thought into a complete sentence beginning "Donahue compares Harry's (fill in the blank) with that of Frodo Baggins of J.R.R. Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings". Or something like that.

Living in a corrupted society

  • "Self-proclaimed Harry Potter pundit John Granger additionally noted that one of the reasons the Harry Potter books were so popular is their use of literary alchemy (similar to Romeo and Juliet, C. S. Lewis's Perelandra and Charles Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities) and vision symbolism." - What does this mean? What is "literary alchemy" and how does it affect the three novels given as examples? What is vision symbolism? This sort of jargon needs to be explained or omitted.

Marketing and promotion

  • I'd think about changing the numbered list to straight prose per WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. The seven questions are probably not important enough to warrant special formatting that makes them stand out on the page.

Price wars and other controversies

  • "Yishai indicated that he would issue indictments and fines based on the Hours of Work and Rest Law." - Since this happened in 2007, did anything come of it? Did Yishai issue indictments?

Critical response

  • "They also praised the second half of the novel... " - Who is "they"?
  • "Catherine Bennett of The Guardian praised Rowling for putting small details from the previous books... " - Maybe "repeating" rather than "putting"?

Translations

  • "The Hindi translation Harry Potter aur Maut ke Tohfe (हैरी पॉटर और मौत के तोहफे) translated as "Harry Potter and the Gifts of Death" was released by Manjul Publication in India on 27 June 2008." - To avoid the repetition of "translate", maybe this would be better: The Hindi translation "Harry Potter aur Maut ke Tohfe (हैरी पॉटर और मौत के तोहफे)", which means "Harry Potter and the Gifts of Death", was released by Manjul Publication in India on 27 June 2008.

Notes

  • The direct external link in the notes should instead become an in-line citation done in the usual manner. It will automatically appear in the Reference section, just as though it were in the main text.

References

  • The publication date in citation 40 is in the wrong format. It should conform to the date formatting in the other citations.
  • Citation 100 should identify the language of the source document.

Bibliography

  • These should be listed alphabetically by author's last name.

Images

  • I would make the Borders image slightly smaller to avoid displacing an edit button or overlapping slightly into the "Awards and honours" section on some computer screens. Alternatively, you might combine "Awards and honours" with "Sales" to make a bigger section.
  • The J.K. Rowling image overlaps sections and displaces edit buttons. I would consider moving her to a large section, where overlap and displacement are not problems.
  • I don't think two fair-use images are necessary for a reader's understanding of the material. I'd suggest deleting the cover art for the paperback edition. Specifically, I believe it fails WP:NFCC #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments Since I peer-reviewed this before, I looked at it again. This is not a complete review by any means, but one worry I had was the lack of books cited. There are only 5 book sources cited in the Bibliography, 2 of which are previous HP books. Of the 3 books left, 2 were originally published beore Deathly Hallows (DH) was released (though one of these has apparently been updated). That leaves only 1 book on DH originally published after the novel came out. Since it is now nearly 4 years since DH appeared, I worry that the article would fail to meet the comprehensive criterion for FAs (1b). A quick look at the first few pages on Google Books finds several books which look like they should be consulted and probably used in this article (as well as a bunch of fan cruft - HP quiz books, etc.):

Note that I did not look more than 3 or 4 pages in to the Google Books. I also note that there are not really any articles from scholarly journals (I did not search for these, but in almost 4 years it seems as it there should be some). As it is a large number of the refs are to news accounts and reviews that came out within a short time of the book's release, and to various editions of the book itself.

  • 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.)
  • Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Idiot (musical)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the show is set to close in six weeks. I'd like to have this article in as good a shape as possible as a possible when that happens. Any suggestions you can offer for additional content or improvements to the current article or structure would be appreciated. I'd also like some suggestions for what it might take to make this a Featured Article.

Thanks, Fryede (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copper[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been listed for peer review because of the fact that it is a vital article and that it is only B-class. I have cleaned up the article of tags, spotted by M-S and communicated on the WikiProject Elements talk page, and now I want lots of feedback on how to improve this article. Any help is appreciated. FREYWA 09:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Driberg, Baron Bradwell[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. Tom Driberg led a complex life of many different parts and it's not easy to encapsulate him in a single article, but I've done my best here. Poet, society columnist, left-wing politician, compulsive homosexual, high churchman – he was all of these, and no doubt devious and dishonourable as well, but was he also a Soviet spy? This was alleged after his death, and widely believed; public decency was so outraged by revelations of other aspects of his life that it was easy to condemn him. He almost certainly had a long-running association with the British security services, but the evidence that he was a KBG agent and a spy is far from conclusive. Judge for youselves. I am particularly concerned that Driberg's name appears in the list of "Soviet/Russian spies" that appears at the end of the article (it predates my involvement). I want to remove the list from the article (and Driberg's name from the list), but I'd like to hear other opinions first. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim riley First batch follows. Pretty meagre gleanings on the biography section. Shall go through the rest tomorrow.

  • Infobox – The "Lyttelton" isn't mentioned in the article. A widow? Divorcée? Perhaps you might clarify in the body of the biography section.
  • Oxford
    • TUC – needs explaining and linking
    • failure in his final examinations was a foregone conclusion – perhaps "inevitable" is a slightly less over-emphatic way of putting it
  • Dropped ref to TUC, accepted your suggestion re his exam failure. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daily Express columnist
    • "Margaret Street" – worth linking to All Saints, Margaret Street, perhaps?
    • After his submission of a trial article on London's nightlife, in January 1928 Driberg was engaged for a six-week trial as a reporter – perhaps avoid the repetition of "trial" in the one sentence?
  • I think you're not supposed to put links within quotations, but I've done it anyway, and also fixed the repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early parliamentary career
    • "right-wing" – earlier you give "Left" a capital letter. Far be it from me to stick up for the Tories, but in matters of upper and lower case I think we ought to be even-handed.
    • Maldon by-election: if you want a contemporary reference as a change from Wheen, the by-election figures (and those of the previous election) were printed in The Times under "Maldon By-Election Result – A Government Defeat ", 27 June 1942, p. 2. Technically, I believe, the Tory incumbent and failed successor stood not as "Conservatives" but for the National Government. But perhaps this is hypercritical.
  • Switched to Times ref. I thought I had regularised all the left-wing/right wings to lower case - this one got by. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retirement, ennoblement and death
    • Two pernickety points about "acquired a small flat in London's Barbican district" – first, "acquired" sounds like purchase, but until the Thatcher government introduced tenants' right to buy in the 1980s, Barbican flats were for rent only. Secondly (I speak as one who used to live there) "the Barbican district" sounds odd. I'd say "in the Barbican development in the City of London" or some such.

Tim riley (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these points. I welcome anything else. And thanks indeed for looking up and providing material on Pincher and on the Driberg-Attlee play, which is being incorporated into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second and final clutch of comments:

  • Allegations of treachery
    • Last para, second sentence: "Wheen points out" – a tendentious phrase, possibly? "Wheen observes" or something of the sort might be more neutral.
      Now "Wheen notes..." Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be inclined to omit Leo Abse's rather speculative comment, which strikes me as armchair psychology that confuses the issue on no known evidence whatever. On the other hand I think you could conscientiously round this section off with another bit from that Foot Guardian article, stating that Pincher's allegation that Thatcher and Foot conspired [hello! Earth callng!] to cover up Driberg's supposed treachery has been dismissed by Foot as fantasy "as any fool could see".
      I have added Foot's scornful rejection of the supposed Hollis/Driberg cover-up, but I am loath to lose the Abse material. Abse observed Driberg over many years in the House of Commons, and his view that Driberg was, essentially, playing a part is, I think, quite interesting (as Stephen Fry might say). Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine with me. It was merely a suggestion. Tim riley (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to your comments at the top of this PR page, I regard the allegations that Driberg was a Soviet spy as unproved (or "not proven" as Scottish lawyers say) to put it at the kindest, and, more probably, as Foot says, as the over-excited fantasies of Pincher et al. I am old enough to remember when Harold Wilson was similarly accused. Foot's phrase "the cowardly Pincher perversion" seems decidedly ad rem here. I subscribe to your proposal to remove the list from the article and Driberg's name from the list.
      Good, thanks. I'll see what other reviewers say before taking any action, though. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appraisal
    • Explanatory brackets – you favour square brackets for "[19th century]" (within a quote, I know) but round ones for "Tories (Conservatives)" in the Labour Member 1945–55 section. I'd be inclined to standardise on square brackets for both.
      The square brackets indicate that I am inserting words into a quotation (which I think is standard practice). The round ones indicate a normal parenthetical aside. Shouldn't this difference be maintained? Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title
    • Finally, and this a damn' silly place to mention it, but it has only just occurred to me: is the title of the article helpful? I doubt if one reader in a hundred who looks up Tom Driberg will have heard of Baron Bradwell. (I have the Baron Britten of Aldeburgh on my to-do list – another person ennobled too late in life for anyone to think of him as a peer. Much the same could be said of the Baroness Thatcher, Baron Wilson of Rievaulx, the first Earl of Stockton, and the first Earl of Avon, all of whom have WP articles under just their plain everyday names.)
      Excellent point. I inherited the title when I picked up the article, but it would be much more sensible to use the shorter title. I will use the Benjamin Britten and Harold Wilson cases as precedents. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need hardly say, but will, that the article is well proportioned, well balanced, impeccably referenced and a pleasure to read. Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and the helpful suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Another fine article about a fascinating character. Nicely illustrated as well as beautifully written. A quick check of the image licenses revealed no problems. I did manage to generate a few quibbles if only to prove that I read every word.

Lead

  • "He never held any government office," - This might confuse readers who equate "government office" with "political office" or "elected office". Since he was an MP, they will say, how can it be true that he never held any government office?
  • "raised to the peerage as Baron Bradwell of Bradwell juxta Mare in the county of Essex" - Link Essex?

Family background and childhood

  • "soon to be joined by a third—Left-wing politics—to form the ruling passions of his life" - Lower-case "left-wing"?

Lancing

  • "To avoid distressing the widowed Mrs Driberg... " - Better as "Amy Driberg" than "Mrs", perhaps?

As William Hickey

  • "where he lived and entertained until the house was requisitioned by the Royal Air Force in 1940. - Add (RAF) here on first use? It's used later, in the first paragraph of the "Marriage" section, as plain RAF.

Member for Barking...

  • "under the pseudonym "Tiresias", compiling a risqué prize crossword puzzles which on one occasion was won by the wife of the Archbishop of Canterbury" - Something missing? The phrase "a risqué prize crossword puzzles" seems incomplete. I'm assuming it refers to a contest involving multiple crossword puzzles. Would "compiling risqué crossword puzzles for a contest" be better?

Bibliography

  • "Driberg wrote or compiled the following books:-" - Delete the hyphen after the colon?
  • "Mosley? No!. London: W.H. Allen. 1948. (A pamphlet attacking Sir Oswald Mosley} - Delete the period after the exclamation point?
  • The OCLCs for books for which there is no ISBN might be useful. You can usually find the OCLCs via WorldCat. Here is the link for four variations on Mosely? No!, for example. (You probably already know all this, but I thought I should mention it.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this review. I have in general clarified and/or adopted your suggestions, except with regard to the following:
  • "He never held any government office": I have difficulty expressing this differently. Do people really think that all MPs hold "government office" when, at any one time, a goodly proportion are the formal opposition to the government? I'd have thought this was broadly understood.
    • I think this might be one of those "other side of the pond" things. In the U.S., the opposition party is seen as part of the government. When Yankees say, "the government", they usually mean the whole lot, not just the party in power. Tim Riley's suggestion below would solve the problem, I think. Finetooth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since "Essex" here is an integral part of a longer title (Baron Bradwell of Bradwell juxta Mare in the county of Essex) my understanding is that it shouldn't be linked.
  • Oh. I did not realize that "in the county of Essex" was part of his title. In that case, you are probably right. Finetooth (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you to comment briefly on one further aspect, namely the inclusion in the article of the so-called "List of Soviet Spies" which includes Driberg by name. Driberg is not a convicted or confessed spy; the evidence against him is not wholly convincing, and since it was only published after his death he had no opportunity of answering the charges. Frankly, the list bothers me, but I'd like to hear other opinions before deciding whether it should be removed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I did not read every word carefully, as it turns out. I think Driberg should not be included in the list and that the list should not be included in the article. Allegations are not the same as confessions or convictions. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt: The usual fine effort, of course. The usual quibbles as well. I will say that the capitalisation in this article was surprising:

Lede
  • "British Parliament". Is the word "British" really necessary? We know he's British, so is there any actual ambiguity?
  • Infobox: why is chairman of the Labour Party first? I would think his being an MP of greater moment and perhaps should be listed first.
  • "to parliament as an Independent" I would actually cap parliament and lower case independent. British practices may differ, especially on the latter, I guess.
  • "In 1933 he founded the" I think "founding" should be reserved for independent structures. This column was within the newspaper, therefore I recommend "began".
  • "After his retirement in 1974" This phrasing makes it difficult to determine if the retirement took place in 1974 or his elevation to the peerage. Or both.
  • "practiced with vigour" Quite the sweeping statement! I'm vaguely bothered by it (after Pipe Dream, though, I am in no position to be critical) but cannot come up with a better.
  • "was a source of bafflement" Baffled.
  • "included among his friends at various times" Befriended.
  • "inconclusive". That doesn't seem to fit. Suggest "uncertain".
Early life
  • "Thus were formed ..." Certainly this sentence can be written with only one use of the word "form" or variants.
  • "Driberg was inclining". I find this verb and form unusual when used so actively with a person as subject. Perhaps his views were inclining? Or beginning to incline?
  • "on the supposed grounds that he needed private tuition ..." perhaps "pretext"?
Oxford
  • " he managed to recite". This implies difficulty. I assume from awe at her presence? Perhaps just say "despite his awe, Driberg recited ..." You may feel, though, that the awe is implicit, and I don't protest too hard.
  • "Anglican rituals". Consider "Anglican ritual'. This may be more an American usage, I merely make the suggestion.
  • You might want to stress that the concert actually took place. There is some chance it could be read to say he advertised the concert complete with flushing toilets but people showed up for it in vain.
  • "Driberg received from Crowley ..." This seems like it should be a sentence, I can't discern enough connection with the previous clause to say it should be a semicolon.
Daily Express
  • Being picky here, but the Waugh quote doesn't say that he and Driberg met there, merely that Waugh saw Driberg. Perhaps the quote continues to recount a meeting?
  • "Roman Catholicism, when Driberg" I would use a semicolon and omit "when".
  • "He grew increasingly frustrated " Sewell is the subject of the previous sentence, making the "he" a bit uncertain.
  • " With his share of her estate and a substantial mortgage, he bought " This makes it sound like the mortgage was on his mom's property and might lead to confusion as to how you mean the word "estate".
Early parliamentary career
  • Surely he wasn't campaigning at the moment he was caught by the policeman. Perhaps "was in Edinburgh to campaign ...".
  • Your reference to the Reynolds News in the lede mentions that it was owned by the "Co-operative Group", that is not backed up in the body, you simply say it was part of the cooperative movement.
  • I take it he was accepted as a Labour candidate by the local constituency organisation?
  • " an independent North Vietnam state." No, he proclaimed an independent Vietnam. Partition was a bit later, was never fully accepted, yada yada.
  • Who appointed Driberg as a special assistant? He must have been getting some preferment from the Labourites?
  • Just as a note, the Labour majority after 1950 seems to be a bit of a dispute. The article on the election puts it as five, I've also seen it as eight. I would imagine such minor things deal with the former affiliation of the Speaker and the allegiance of minor party members.
  • "parliament"/"Parliament". be consistent. Also, was the outrage at Driberg's column "in Parliament" or among parliamentary Conservatives?
Later career
  • File:Burgess-maclean.JPG. I am dubious of the licensing. While it may be from a declassified FBI file, there is no indication that the FBI created it. The copyrights on those portraits belong to someone. I think you should delete.
  • "He convened a group ..." this and the next sentence should be moved out of this paragraph, which otherwise deals with Driberg's activities in the Labour Party and as one of its candidates. Either delete it or find another place for it.
  • "A dominant issue" Surely not for Harold Macmillan and his government, perhaps more for Driberg?
  • It might be worth briefly explaining who the Kray twins were. I must admit to a passing unfamiliarity with them (but then, I had never heard of Driberg either)
  • "election in February 1966" Pipe seems in order to the election article.
Treachery
  • "Driberg's colleague Michael Foot pours" You're probably a bit more liberal about the editorial present tense than me, but given that the UK has finally put its Foot down, and recently ... and shouldn't "prime minister" be capped re Thatcher given that she was PM at the time?
Appraisal
"Driberg's great services" Such as? He was an indifferent MP, never in government. Was it stuff while on the executive?

That's all I have. Looks like Waugh isn't over, just yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I only have intermittent internet access through libraries at present, so I cannot rerspond in detail but will do so as soon as I am able. Meantime could you comment on the issue relating to his listing as a "Soviet spy", as mentioned in my PR request? Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I have read, there's not enough evidence to put it in the list. Sorry about the internet access.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, thank you for these comments. In nearly every case I have adopted your suggestions or something very similar. A few comments are required on the folowing:-
  • Infobox: I agree with you about the order of the offices, but this seems to be governed by the template, which has rejected my attempts to revise the order. I will continue to work on this.
  • I have used lower case "parliament/parliamentary" throughout, except in the specific title "Member of Parliament". As to "Independent", it is invariable in the UK to capitalise this when it is used as a label in an election. I have also standardised "prime minister" in lower case.
  • Driberg and Waugh did indeed meet in church, and exchanged a few words. I don't want to extend the anecdote; I've changed "met" to "encountered".
  • Labour majority 1950: Of 625 seats, Labour won 315, everbody else won 310. One of these others was the Speaker, Douglas Clifton Brown, nominally a Conservative but in fact and by law strictly impartial. So the combined opposition forces were 309, making Labour's overall majority 6. Other majorities can be suggested; it's obvious where the 5 comes from, and since two of the opposition were non-voting Irish Nationalists a case can be made for an effective majority of 8. But most books, I have found, refer to a majority of six.
  • Re File:Burgess-maclean.JPG, I'll see if there is any grounds for it being PD and will otherwise remove it.
  • Nuclear weapons were a generally dominant political issue in the late 50s and early 60s, not just an obsession of Driberg and the Labour left wing. Hence Macmillan's efforts from 1959 onwards to secure a test ban treaty
  • "Great services" was Foot's assessment, so I've put it in quotes.

Hopefully all done now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks quite good to me. As requested, I have read it and here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • In the lead, I would link Bradwell juxta Mare (probably better to link "Bradwell on Sea" and pipe it to this and avoid the red link)
    • "Bradwell juxta Mare" is part of a title ("Baron Bradwell of Bradwell juxta Mare in the County of Essex"). Should parts of titles be linked? Finetooth raised the same point about "Essex". Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the Grange School was a boarding school - could that be made clearer in At the age of eight Driberg was sent to the Grange school in Crowborough ...?
    • Driberg was a day pupil at Grange. I have clarified this in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it help to add his age in In 1918 Driberg left the Grange for Lancing College...? I know you can work out that he was about 13 from the year, but I think most people today think on 18 year olds "starting college". OK, I now see his age is given later in the same paragraph (15 two years later when joining the BCP). Not sure two mentions of age in one paragraph are needed.
    • I've reworded slightly, to clarify how old he was when he went to Lancing and also to indicate that this was a school not a "college" in the US sense. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really picky, but why not just move the word outside the quotation Throughout his time at Oxford, Driberg followed his passion for Anglican rituals by regularly attending Mass at Pusey House, an independent religious institution with a mission to "[restore] the Church of England's Catholic life and witness".[15] could be Throughout his time at Oxford, Driberg followed his passion for Anglican rituals by regularly attending Mass at Pusey House, an independent religious institution with a mission to restore "the Church of England's Catholic life and witness".[15]
    • The full quotation refers to "restoring the Church of England's Catholic life and witness". I've altered "restoring" to "restore", to fit my own sentence structure, but I think the word should remain within the quote. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Foot is wikilinked in both the Allegations of treachery and the Appraisal sections - twice in adjacent sections seems overlinking
  • I do not see the need for the first comma in Driberg's colleague Michael Foot pours scorn on a claim by Pincher that prime minister Margaret Thatcher had, made a secret agreement with Foot not to expose Driberg if Foot would, in turn, keep silent about the supposed treachery of Roger Hollis, another of Pincher's recently dead targets.[131]
  • I somehow expected there to be more about his supposed links to MI5, expecially claims made after his death.
    • I will look at this aspect. All the claims were made after his death. Adding more might mean giving more space to Pincher's allegations. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few copyedits (removed an extra space, removed a stray close ref tag, and linked a German phrase)
  • 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.)

Hope this helps. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have responded as indicated.

PS I would at least add the disputed tag to Driberg's name in the {{Soviet Spies}} navbox (as is done for Liddell), and would not object to remiving his name from the template and the template from the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to a be a general view that this navbox should not be with the article, and I have removed it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state horses[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to take it to FLC and would like comments on anything that needs to be improved. Specific questions: Is it long enough for a FL? Is there anything that I'm missing in the lead section? Are the two missing pictures going to be a problem? Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I thought it was interesting, but am not sure it provides enough information on the state horses, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I know in the past FLs were supposed to have at least 10 items, so this is fine in that respect. I also assume that it is complete (no states are missing). I still worry that the article does not meet WP:WIAFL citerion 3a, Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. as it does not really provide annotations. I think adding a Notes or Comments column with a brief comment on each would help satisfy this concern. The notes could briefly mention the connection between the horse and state (why this horse was chosen for this state). A few of these are in the lead but I think they should be given for each.
  • For many of the breeds, there is not an explicit source saying "this is why xyz breed was chosen". I also think in many cases (Missouri Fox Trotter, Tennessee Walking Horse, Florida Cracker, etc), it's rather obvious, and could get a little repetitive to keep repeating this. Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notes could also explain more on the proposed breeds (there is already a brief explanation in the Arizona entry)
  • I also do not like to see things that are only in the lead - according to WP:LEAD the lead is a summary of the article, but here the whole third paragraph is only in the lead. Again, if there is a notes or comments section, this information could be there too.
  • I think the two missing pictures are not a problem (assume some day they will be found and added)
  • The article seems to be inconsistent on its capitalization of "horse" and "mustang" as part of a breed name. My guess is the official names are inconsistent, but it looks odd here to have horse capitalized most of the time, but not for Morgan horse or Nokota horse (ditto for Mustang / mustang)
  • I think I've standardized this a bit better. The only one I've left as a lowercase "horse" in a breed name is Banker horse, as the breed name isn't "Banker Horse" (like the Quarter horse is, for example), but most people don't refer to them just as "Bankers", although some do. Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the proposed states be indicated in the map too (with a different color)?
  • SOurces seem reliable and refs are formatted properly
  • Prose seems fine - no real other concerns beyond hat I mentioned above.
  • 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.)

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 ><>°° 13:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to a couple of things above, as well as leaving a message on your talk page about the differences between U.S. state dog breeds (off of which this is based) and what you are requesting above. Thank you for the review. Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. Nowadays I mostly do peer reviewes and FAC reviews so it is entirely possible I am used to different standards / expectations. My PR comments are generally suggestions (unless something really violates the MOS or a policy or guidleline). I can see that this follows the state dog article model pretty closely. If this will pass FLC in its current state, that is fine. I just made suggestions that I thought would make it a better article - why not show where the two proposed states are on the map (in a different color)? As for the notes, if the rationale is not known, why not give two sentences that help the reader understand the history of the breed in this state? So for the Florida Cracker Horse, something like "The Florida Cracker, a gaited breed known for its agility and speed, developed from horses brought to Florida by the Spanish in the early 1500s and was used by Florida cowboys (or "crackers") until the 1930s, when its population declined precipitously. Though saved from extinction, there is still concern about the breed's low numbers." Your call. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Pennsylvania has two horses on its official state flag - see File:Flag of Pennsylvania.svg Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPS EL Checker shows one dead EL and one missing an access date. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments! I've added quite a bit of description to the article, as well as a separate section on state symbols. I've also fixed the dead link, but I can't seem to find the one missing an access date. Dana boomer (talk)

Comments by Another Believer: I am offering comments without having looked at Ruhrfisch's notes, so pardon if some of this is redundant. I am biased, as I promoted the list to FL status, but I think List of Oregon state symbols provides much more information to readers than this list. I would include why the state horses were chosen--provide details about the relationship between the horse breed and the state, how it was chosen, etc. Also, instead of linking to just the state (Oregon), I would recommend linking to "List of Oregon state symbols"). I assume the cells with missing images will have "—" or another dash form instead? I would also consider centering the Year and Ref columns. Just my two cents. Best of luck! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't forget alt text for images! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some details on the links between the states and the breeds, as this was also suggested by Ruhrfisch. However, I'm wondering if linking to the state symbols articles would be rather easter-eggy. Also, as far as I can tell, alt text is not a requirement for FL status at this point. Dana boomer (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better. I added a few line breaks to the Ref. column. Just because something may not be required doesn't mean it still isn't in the article's best interest... :p --Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian temple[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've improved this article about as much as I can on my own. Now I need someone to else to examine it and make sure it's ready for (gulp) FAC.

Thanks, A. Parrot (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Land[edit]

This is a really amazing article, very well done! It's detailed, well-researched, well-structure and well-written and basically at FA standard. Even the dashes are used correctly. My only comments are...

  • The lead section is a bit long; can anything be removed or cut down? It's not that there is anything irrelevant or repetitive in it, but I think it would work a bit better shorter.
I trimmed it a little, but on a subject with so many important aspects I don't want to cut too much. In any case, the lead length is similar to that of FAs of comparable length.
  • The images could do with alt text (seems very finickity, but it's very important for blind people and is inevitably raised at FA)
I'd like to add alt text, but not even the people working on the alt text guideline can agree how it should be written (see the talk page there). I'm leery of doing anything when the rules are that confused.
It's probably the case that something is better than nothing.
  • Is there any scope for a little more use of further information links and in-text wikilinks? Do articles exist, for instance, on the Egyptian priesthood or animal cults? Could terms like Nubia and mummy do with linking where they appear?
I linked "mummy" and several other terms (and I can't believe I forgot to link "Nubia"), but for a lot of others there would be no point; the articles don't exist. The Egypt project is terribly anemic, and articles on Egyptian priesthood, oracles, animal cults, economy, etc. all have yet to be written. Even this article didn't exist until January. I hope to write some of those articles myself, but not until I have the time and resources to do them properly.
There's nothing wrong with adding redlinks (at least in my opinion!)
  • The use of commas in "The most important part of the temple was the sanctuary, the focus of its ritual, which typically contained a cult image, a statue of its god" is technically incorrect.
There was some potential confusion in that sentence, so I cleared it up in the lead-trimming.

Well done once more and I look forward to supporting it when it comes to FAC... The Land (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better Than Today[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to make this article a GA or further. besides the lead, "Music video", and "Live performances" sections (which are relatively unfinished), everything is ready to be reviewed. Go for blood.

Thanks, I Help, When I Can. [12] 04:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nehrams2020

  • "They also aplauded the dance-oriented lyrics." "applauded" Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It reflected the tour performances." Expand on this a bit more, it seems vague to me.
    • I thought I elaborated in the "Music video" section. Do I need to say more in the lead? I Help, When I Can. [12] 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was not as successful as Minogue's preceding singles." Is that referring to all of her singles or just the ones on "Aphrodite"?
    • Her singles. Period. I Help, When I Can. [12] 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Releases does read clearer. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article goes back and forth between using the serial comma. Pick one method and stick to it to remain consistent. Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by Hal Leonard Corporation" Probably can just go with "published by Hal..." Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hannah Kim of the Korea JoongAng Daily" Newspapers should be italicized. Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He gave the single 4 stars." Out of how many possible stars? Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""It's confusing. I felt a little let down with my releases from Aphrodite..." Although the album is in a quote it should still be italicized. A citation should also be added directly after the quote.
    • The citation is after the last sentence because that paragraph is all from the same source. Do it anyway? I Help, When I Can. [12] 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, even if the citation covers the whole paragraph, the quote at least should be directly sourced. This is also helpful if another editor down the line adds a sentence in between and it becomes unclear which source the quote is from. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minogue premiered the video for "Better Than Today" on 19 November 2010." Premiered where? Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...with help from her tour staff, including William Baker." Who is Baker, this is the first time he's mentioned? Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the first verse starts, she is now surrounded by..." Remove the "now", in the context of the encyclopedia article, it does not flow well. Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pink is the New Blog" I don't believe blogs should be italicized, check the MOS.
    • I remember looking up the issue a long time ago in the MoS talk pages. Consensus has not been reached, but most said in cases of "Name of Blog.com", they should not. In cases of "Name of Blog", they should. I Help, When I Can. [12] 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the citation in the charts table for the peak position, consider formatting it so the citation doesn't drop below the 55. It currently looks like one of the rankings. You may have to extend the table size.
    • That is temporary. The default source has not updated yet. Waiting it out. I Help, When I Can. [12] 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The new formatting looks better. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I spotted for now. Interesting read and well-sourced. It's good to see many of the citations have already been archived to prevent future linkrot. If you have questions on any of these, let me know.

Favicon[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to get tis article to GA or maybe to FA when I'm finished. I have only(?) to update one section/table with actual support, add some version numbers, and to correct the design of the last support table.

Regards, mabdul 15:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I want to solve the question with this peer review if the Apple-touch-icon should get a own section or if I/we split it out to a new article although I don't believe that there is enough content and that the section belongs in some cases to the favicon. mabdul 20:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, which I think would need a lot of work to pass FAC and somewhat less woprk for GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 17 FAs in Category:FA-Class Computing articles and 3 at Category:FA-Class Internet articles. Of these, Opera (web browser) seems closest to this and would perhaps be the best model. My guess is that looking at the GA articles in these WikiProjects might give some more applicable models.
  • Looking at the FA criteria, I think this needs some work to meet criteria 1a well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard and 1b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. More on each follows.
  • The prose is OK for the most part, but fairly rough in spots. As one example consider the first sentence from History Microsoft released in March 1999 Internet Explorer 5 with the favicon support.[4] This is fairly clear as to what is meant, but would be much smoother as something like In March 1999, Microsoft released Internet Explorer 5 which supported favicons for the first time.[4] (I assume this was the first browser to support favicons - it would help to make this clearer).
  • There are also a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections, which break up the flow of the text. Wherever possible, I would either combine the short paragraphs and sections, or perhaps expand them.
  • There is a lot of technical material in the article and much of it is not really explained well for an interested lay reader. As one example, consider this This table illustrates the different possibilities, how the favicon can be recognized by the web browser. Then the first row of the table is just <link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://example.com/myicon.ico" />. The average reader will have no idea how this is different from the other three rows of code, or what any of them mean. Brief explanation would help - please see WP:JARGON and make sure to provide context to the reader.
  • Once the article has been expanded to meet comprehensiveness concerns, I would make sure to get a copyedit.
  • As far as comprehensiveness goes, I still have a lot of questions after reading the article. Did Microsoft develop the favicon? If so, when did they start to work on it? Is the name of the person(s) who came up with the idea known? Is there any information on usage in the early days? How quickly did the idea catch on (I can vaguely recall a time when there were no favicons and when I first started noticing them). I also wonder about defunct browsers like Netscape, or even how current browsers like IE 8 work with these.
    • Ms has developed it. No more information about that. On the original press release and history of IEs the favicon isn't mentioned. Really sad. I can provide more information on Netscape - it supported the favicon since the browser based on Mozilla/Gecko... IE8 and other IEs are "discussed" in nearly every section, but especially in the comparison tables. Don't think that I need more work at IE. mabdul 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure the lead is an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example The "apple-touch-icon" icon is modified to add rounded corners, drop shadow, and reflective shine. Alternatively, an "apple-touch-icon-precomposed" icon may be provided to instruct devices not to apply reflective shine on the image. Use one of the following example of code for HTML and XHTML. seems not to have a ref, and many of the table entries seem to be missing refs too. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
    • Will look for the rest references. As I said: the apple touch icon is not my idea. But I will get behind this. Maybe I will find independent sources (other than apple). mabdul 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Mostly with these two apple documentation links all is done. I add some more, but mostly blogs ;( mabdul 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 22 seems to need a publisher. In general, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
    • I will overhaul the actual references. mabdul 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • done, mostly publisher is not known (only domain) but the author... mabdul 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure the sources used meet WP:RS
  • The lead image is of a Firefox screenshot. Might want to check the licnsing compared to File:Firefox 3.6 Screenshot.png
    • Is not a Firefox screenshot, it is a Minefield snapshot. The license is ok/correct.
  • 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.)
    • Read. Content included nothing new to me, but I never read this signpost... mabdul 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for this really good review. I will look later at the article and will change it to get it better. mabdul 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently gone through and taken it from a practically unsourced state to a sourced list, and also done some major work on standardising the maps. I'm not sure what people are looking for in such an article, and I'm hoping this covers the most basic of information that is needed. A look at the notes would be useful, if they're needed and/or if others should be added.

Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This looks a very interesting and useful list, and it's surprising no one has thought of doing this before. I have a number of suggestions for you to consider, with a view to enhancing or improving it:-

  • Is it really necessary to have separate columns for English short name and English long name? Because of the maps, individual cells are quite large, and it should be possible to incorporate this information into one cell.
 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same point can be made with regard to Domestic short name and Domestic long name which again I believe could be consolidated.
 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This condensing would allow you to include information which is at present missing, e.g.
    • Land area (and population density - surely this would be interesting and relevant?)
? Added areas, but was wondering if since population and area are both included then perhaps population density could be replaced by something else? I was thinking that perhaps HDI or some similar statistic would be appropriate, but I doubt that information will be easily found for the unrecognised states. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Official languages. This might be obvious in many cases, but by no mean all. How many peopole know offhand what languages are spoken in, say, Andorra, Lichtenstein, Luxemborg or Kosovo?
 Done The domestic names provided by UNGEGN are the "languages used in an official capacity within each country in the world"; I've added a note of that in the lead.
    • I believe that countries which are only partially in Europe should be listed separately. For example, only a very small area of Turkey is in Europe, most of Russia is in Asia. I know that the status of these countries is explained by notes, but many people glancing at the tables won't study the notes.
 Not done I understand this, but dividing the list would probably create a large number of disputes. The countries are already noted as crossing the border in the lead, and I've written in the lead that the maps show areas not in Europe in light green. I'm hoping the maps will be explanation enough.
  • I think you are muddying the waters by references to the cultural links to Europe of overseas territories and former colonies. The title says specifically "in Europe", and the article should reflect this geographical principle. In this connection I think the position of Cyprus needs clarifying. Your note says "Cyprus is in Asia", but who says this is so? In fact, Cyprus isn't "in" any continent, though its nearest landmasses are Anatolia and Syria, both in Asia. In that sense it is no different from Greenland, which you do not list. For the record, Cyprus is about 500 km from its nearest European neighbour, the same distance as Greenland is from its own nearest European neighbour, Iceland.
 Done Removed. Chipmunkdavis (talk)
  • By the same reasoning, the British bases in Cyprus are not "in Europe", neither is the unofficial sate of Northern Cyprus
 Done Reworded note, and placed a sourced sentence to the same effect in the lead. Added a sentence for Iceland too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eire" is not the domestic name for Ireland. It applied to the transitional state that existed from 1937 to 1949, but since then the official name has been "Poblacht na hÉireann".
 Not done All domestic names in the recognised states list are from the UNGEGN source, which uses Eire. I would prefer not to make exceptions unless necessary. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your responses, and to seeing the article develop accordingly. Please contact my talkpage, as I am not able to watch individual peer reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also: The link in ref 33 appears to be dead. Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done New source Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: You have responded positively to most of my points. Here are a few more that you may wish to consider:-

  • The "area" column would look much tidier if you used "km²" rather than writing out "square kilometers" each time
 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had envisaged a "Language(s)" column, which would save some repetition in individual cells.
I'm going to try and cut out the repetition somehow, per your note below of having the long and short names together. That should allow official languages and names to be in one column, with the languages wikilinked. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Repetition excluded due to naming suggestion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you have combined certain columns, the headings need to be more explanatory. For example, "English name (Formal and short form)" and "Domestic name(s) (Formal and short form(s)"
 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the individual cell entries, would it make more sense to give the formal name first, in the style, for example: "Republic of Albania (short: Albania)"? In the "Domestic" column, some notation is necessary for some of the more complex, multiple language countries, to distinguish between the formal and short names. As a trial I have annotated the Switzerland entry; you might consider doing this generally.
Will do somehow, see above. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done using a variation fo your "Republic of Albania (short: Albania)" suggestion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the domestic sell for the UK could be left blank
This may be an option, considering the UK can be argued as having no official language. I'd like in general to keep domestic names in english included, to show the official status. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done To show official Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the UNGEGN source says, "Eire" is the Irish word for "Ireland", not for the Irish Republic that occupies four-fifths of the geographical island of Ireland. Eire was, as I said, used by the transitional 1937-49 state, on aspirational grounds, but has never been used by the Republic. I can understand, though, that you would rather stick to what your sources tell you.
  • Finally, please remember that in this review I am making suggestions, which you are free to take up, modify or reject as you think fit. I wish you success with the list if you take it forward. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Night w

I hate to interfer with other reviewers' comments, but I'd like to make a quick correction to that "Ireland" comment, if I may. I don't know where Brian is getting his information from, but the name of the Irish republic is stated in Art. 4 of the Constitution, quite clearly: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." Whatever naming convention is practised by the government, Éire is the official name of the state, which is what the column refers to.

Just a few comments:

  • The guys at PR and FLC don't seem to like that opening sentence style "This is a list of ...". It might do better to start with "There are 50 sovereign states with territory in Europe ..." or something similar.
Not sure how to do this, cut the first sentence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect. Nightw 09:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest replacing "common definition" with "frequently used definition" or something similar, since "common" can also imply agreement or something shared by opposites.
 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links to "social contract" and "geopolitics" might be seen as overlinking.
 Done Removed links and the entire word geopolitics Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary to have both shading and asteriks to denote EU members? Two different indicators normally indicate two different things. Unless this was an WP:ACCESS issue, I suggest using only one.
This was in fact an ACCESS issue. It used to be just colours, and then a user stated that things should never be noted with just colour. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered using <hr> lines instead of <br> breaks between the short- and long-form names? Or merging the two, as in "Catalan: Andorra — Principat d'Andorra", if only to avoid seeing the languages repeated? I've no idea how these would look; I'm just throwing suggestions out there.
 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The longforms for Abkhazia and South Ossetia are missing...?
  • The column header "Legal status" is definitely a red light, but I can't think of anything better at the moment.
 Done Made it just "status" for unrecognised states, gave recognition numbers. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the notes need references.
Note 1 is just explanatory. Notes 3 and 4 are both cited elsewhere, 3 after the word Czechia and 4 in the lead. Footnotes 2 and 7 are just explanatory based on the border given in the lead and shown on the maps. I suppose a source could be found, although I'm not sure where I would source it. As for notes 5, 6, 8, and 9, I'm not sure where I would place sources for them. They're just there to explain previous common disputes. Note numbers taken from this revision. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I just realised you're using ref tags for the notes, so you won't be able to add citations to them anyway. One thing, though: the tool server picks up "are considered", which is used in Note 7, as a weasel word. It might be better to rephrase as "under the definition used on this page, X and Y have territory in..." or something along those lines, so that you've identified the "by whom?" question that would probably pop up there. I've added citations for the defintion, taken from Europe.
  • I'm not keen on the refs in the See also section. These would look better in the Notes section, with "For more information, see..." as a default prefix. You could even perhaps push them all into one note.
 Done Integrated into tables. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not keen on a lot of the borderline entries included. But that's a different matter, and I won't have the time to stick to a discussion on that at the moment.

I'll give the citations a formatting cleanup when I get a chance. Nightw 00:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried something with languages in the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe#Unrecognised sovereign states section. Comments? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this looks good! Nightw 09:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you ever wanted to submit this to FLC, they'd demand alt text for the images. Nightw 09:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression this wasn't needed for FA's anymore. What should I put as alt text, flag of X? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Links added to flags as well. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also should the Sovereign Military Order of Malta be added to the list? They are a recognized state. Spongie555 (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly where in the article you've just linked to does it say that? Nightw 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under the section called I international status Sovereign Military Order of Malta#International status of the Order also on their website they have a list of nations that they have relations with [3] except I would say it's a partially recognized state as it isn't recognized by every country In the world. Spongie555 (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? Neither say anything of the sort. The section you linked instead says "it claims to be a traditional example of a sovereign entity other than a state", and the website doesn't mention anything about statehood. It's not a state, and doesn't claim to be one, nor is it "recognized" as one by any other state. It just has diplomatic relations with states. That's to do with law. It doesn't equal statehood. Nightw 05:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The SMOM shouldn't be included. Even if it is a state, it doesn't have territory, and so isn't a state in Europe. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GreatOrangePumpkin quick comments

First of all: Great list! I have a few comments:

  • Notes column: AKazakhstan, Russia and Turkey have territory in both Europe (dark green) and Asia (light green).
 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also why you wrote dark green and light green? If you mean the map, Asia is dark grey and Europe is light grey.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is the colour of the asian and european parts of those countries on the map. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6, 5: The accessdates should use the same format as the others
 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to put more confederations; EU is too less in my opinion. What about countries with the Schengen visa? Or NATO members?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done EU was added due to its powerful institutions, which gives it some of the ahllmarks of a sovereign state. No other European organisation has this supranational power. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to correct any issue that the article has, and re-nominate it for an FA. I believe it is now good enough for an FA. Thanks, Novice7 (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: It appears that the article did not achieve FA on the first go-round because not enough reviewers took part. I don't see any major problems with article, but I think the prose could be a bit snappier in places, and that might attract more reviewers on the next round. Generally, I'd suggest looking for passive-voice sentences that could be made slightly more punchy by conversion to active voice. I wouldn't attempt to change all passives to actives or tie myself in knots trying to do this, but I think that selective flipping from passive to active would help. I have made a few specific suggestions about doing this in the lead, and I think you can find similar sentences elsewhere in the article. Look for places in the article where several passive-voice constructions appear in a row; those would be the best places to make an adjustment. Here's an example of a string of passives from the "Music video" section:

The music video was directed by Colombian film director Simon Brand.[65] Cinematography was done by Daniel Pearl,[66] and post-production processes were supervised by Felipe Nino.[67] The video was choreographed by Dan Karaty.[68] The video was shot in a set with futuristic backdrops, and Simpson assumes the role of a spy.

Lead

  • "The lyrics are more mature and suggestive than those of Simpson's previous songs." - I'm not sure "mature" is quite the right word. Would this be any better: "The lyrics are more sexually suggestive than those of Simpson's previous songs"?
  • "The instrumentation includes strings, and lyrically, the song discusses some very feminine views referring to an imminent sexual compromise." - This is a little too vague, I think, and I don't think there's a logical connection between the use of strings and the idea of sexual compromise. Maybe this would work better as two sentences, one that elaborates a bit more on the instrumentation and another that is more explicit about the kind of sexual compromise. Maybe "The instrumentation includes strings, synths, percussion, and acoustic pianos. The lyrics center on the tension between a young woman's sexual desires and her inhibitions."
  • A So So Def remix of the song featuring Lil' Bow Wow and Jermaine Dupri was recorded that incorporates samples of Club Nouveau's 1987 song "Why You Treat Me So Bad" and Kool & the Gang's 1973 song "Jungle Boogie". - This would be a bit punchier in active voice, I think. Maybe: A So So Def remix of the piece features Lil' Bow Wow and Jermaine Dupri and incorporates samples of Club Nouveau's 1987 song "Why You Treat Me So Bad" and Kool & the Gang's 1973 song "Jungle Boogie".
  • "Irresistible" received mixed to negative reviews from critics." - Perhaps: "Critics gave "Irresistible" mixed to negative reviews"?
  • "A music video for the So So Def remix was created with Lil' Bow Wow's and Dupri's scenes inter-cut with Simpson's." - Perhaps, "A music video for the So So Def remix featured scenes by Dupri and Lil' Bow Wow inter-cut with scenes by Simpson."
  • "The song is featured on the soundtrack to the Disney Channel Original series Lizzie McGuire (2001)." - Maybe: "The Disney Channel Original series Lizzie McGuire (2001) uses the song as part of its soundtrack."

Composition

  • But its time to stop this emotion / Right now I'm gonna say no. - I think "its" is probably "it's" (or should be) in the original.

Critical reception

  • Cashbox Canada ranked the song at number ten on "Top 10 Love Songs: The Crush", writing the song is a great ode to love "at step one". - This sentence slowed me down a bit because I thought at first that "great ode to love" must be a quote, and I wasn't quite sure what "writing" was attached to. Maybe this would be a bit more clear: Cashbox Canada, ranking the song at number ten on "Top 10 Love Songs: The Crush", praised it as an ode to love "at step one".
  • "Peter Marsh of the BBC gave a similar review, stating that the song was digitally rendered." - This sentence stopped me too, because I don't know whether digital rendering is common or uncommon, good or bad. Since Marsh's review is being used as an example of a negative review, I have to assume that digital rendering is something he considered bad in this case. But why?
Simpson's vocals were praised before for its rawness. But, this song is over-produced, which Marsh felt was disappointing. Maybe, I should remove the review? It's just two words.

Chart performance

  • File:Jessica Simpson side.jpg is a directional image looking to the right out of the page. Generally, it's better to position directional images to look into the page. I would move this image to the left. If you're concerned about keeping a balance between left and right-sided placements, you might move the slightly directional Christina Aguilera to the right side.

Music video

  • "They felt that Simpson needed to make some changes to her image." - Columbia Records is an "it" rather than a "they". I think I would use "The company felt that Simpson... ".
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Finetooth. I'll get on the article soon. Novice7 (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a few instances of passive voice. Thank you for your comments, again. Novice7 (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yoruba religion[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article looks to be in good shape but a user has recently challenged its neutrality.

Thanks, Otelemuyen talk 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland Islands[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has remained stable for a number of months. Previously failed to achieve FA status due to disruptive editing from a number of sources. A group of regular editors would now like to bring this article up to FA status.

Thanks, Wee Curry Monster talk 20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an important article and I am glad to hear a group plans to improve it (and thank you for your work. However, I), but think it needs a lot more work before it would pass at WP:GAN, let alone WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The biggest problem I see with the article is that it is missing references in many place. There are some paragraphs with no refs and other places where there is a ref in a paragraph then one or more sentences after that without refs. These need refs (there is one citation needed tag too).
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The refs need to be consistently formatted and provide all needed information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • There is a tool box in the upper right corner of this PR which has a tool for checking external links. This finds at least three dead links, and several possible problem links. All of these will need to be fixed before it could pass GAN or FAC.
  • The same toolbox has a dab link checker which finds several disambiguation links that will also need to fixed.
  • The lead is not really a great summary of the whole article. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I wonder if the Relations with Argentina and Landmines and ordnance sections could be combined as subsections of an aftermath of the war or Legacy of the war section. I imagine the Military section could also be included here.
  • This is a WP:WEIGHT concern, but I was surprised that the War section was so brief. The Landmines section appears to be longer than the section on the war, which also seems odd since the article says the landmines do not much affect the everyday lives of the inhabitants.
  • The article has quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections, which impedes the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • There are at least two places where images sandwich the text, which is not allowed under WP:MOSIMAGE
  • I thought there should be more on Ecology and animals
  • I assume the whale bone arch relates to a history of whaling associated with the island - if this is so, it should be in the article.
  • 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.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malati Dasi[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's rated as High importance under Women's History, and I hope that some expert editors out here will help improve it enough for a GA nomination. Thanks and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This looks pretty good and is interesting. I'm wondering if it would be useful to add, here and there, more background information about the organization. The movement in the U.S. began in the mid-60s, I gather. How big did it get? How many Hare Krishna followers were there by 1970 in the U.S.? How many are there in 2011? Did the membership rise to a peak, then fall, or has it been constantly rising? Are there bases all over the country, or is the one in West Virginia unusual? Should the organization's main beliefs and goals be mentioned somewhere in the article? I know that following the links to other articles would probably answer these questions, but to be comprehensive (in case you are thinking of eventually taking this to FAC), the article itself should probably include at least some of the background in summary form. Here are a few other suggestions:

Lead

  • "The same year she and her husband Shyamasundar Das... " - Suggestion: "In that same year" rather than "The same year".

Early years

  • Can her parents' names be added? Did she have any siblings? What did she study at Reed? Was she an English major, a physics major, something else?

Hare Krishna temple in San Francisco

  • The blockquote may be too long. Even with attribution, such long quotes may violate copyright law. I'm not sure there is an exact quantitative cut-off, but I get uncomfortable with anything longer than 100 words. This one appears to be about 200. I would consider paraphrasing most of this and perhaps using a much shorter quotation for the rest.
  • Malati recalled, "We chanted and got arrested in front of the Apple Studio. We ultimately got their attention by making and sending in apple pies to the studio." - This needs an inline citation right after the end quote.
  • ... apple holding a “Hare Krishna” flag - Here and elsewhere, straight quotation marks are preferred to the curly kind.

Governing Body Commissioner

  • "Malati became a vocal suffragette within ISKCON, which led to her "fiercely debated but historic appointment" to the GBC in 1998. [1][10][9]" - The citations should be arranged in ascending order.
  • "Her and Sudharma's presence on the GBC raised the issue of women in the organization for serious discussion at the GBC's annual meeting... " - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "The presence of Malati and Sudharma on the GBC led to serious discussion of women's role in the organization. At the annual meeting in Mayapur (West Bengal, India) in 2000, SOMEBODY called for...". I think you need to make clear if the somebody was Malati or someone else.
  • "in the form of printed articles and women conventions" - Maybe "women's conventions"?
  • "as well as in her base" - Should "base" be explained? How is the base acquired or assigned?

Images

Other

  • No dead URLs in the citations. No dabs. This is good.
  • Perhaps it would be good to add her original name in the "alternative names" line of the persondata form. Also, a "short description" might be useful too, something like "spiritual leader".
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Narnia[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a few cleanup on it and I sort of want a GA push. The only section I haven't tried to improve is the in other media section (which I know is the worse due to a few good article nominations) which I would want your ideas on how to improve it. So I am all ears on what problems with it that can hinder it from being a good article and how to improve it some more.

Thanks, Jhenderson 777 21:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Jake fuersturm (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC): Hi, I just thought I'd leave you with a few questions/comments/observations. Someone else with more experience should still conduct a formal peer review. Disclaimer: I'm not hugely familiar with the Narnia works (more of a Tolkien guy ...), but perhaps that's a good thing: by pointing out things which probably aren't obvious to a casual reader, but which may be obvious to a C.S. Lewis fan.[reply]

I am Tolkien fan as well as a C.Lewis fan. It's possible to be fans of both because they were friends. :) Jhenderson 777 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing - might be worth fleshing-out more, perhaps discussing the inspriration behind the novels and the universe in which they are set. I realise that there's a detailed section below dealing with the influences on his work, but I'm wondering if it's not worth splitting up the personal influences from the literary influences? It just seems a little thin for a discussion on the how of Lewis' conception of the Narnian universe, and also the why (i.e. did he just do it for fun, or was he trying to get a point across about something?)
  • "The books were written in neither the order they were originally published nor in the chronological order in which they are currently presented" - grammar check. Something sounds wrong here, perhaps "The books were neither written in the order they were originally published, nor were they written in the chronological order in which they are currently presented"?
Already fixed. :) Jhenderson 777 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication history - nice succinct discussion on the American publication history, but nothing about the United Kingdom and abroad? What about foreign language translations? This is an iconic series, and it might be interesting to note the number of editions the books have been through over the years, and the breadth of it's international audience. I realise that you did discuss this (briefly) in the introductory paragraph
Th idea of adding something new sounds tough. I'll see with what I can do. I plan on finding sources eventually. Jhenderson 777 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a thought, seeing as how I've been on the receiving end of a number of firefights over notability :) ... In your case, you're likely to get a pass on that - I can't see how anyone could ever successfully (or even attempt to) argue that C.S. Lewis/Narnia isn't notable, but the general principle applies. The Lord of the Rings article is a really good example (I'm surprised no one's tried to bring that article up to FA ...) -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a FA at one time. It was delisted.Jhenderson 777 19:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Narnian universe - there are no citations in this entire section, so I'm assuming that all the summaries you provide are straight distillations of what appear in the main articles referred to?
Yes it's just a summary of main article. I did think about it just being it smaller and more of a premise of the story (sort of what The Lord of the Rings article has. What do you think about that?Jhenderson 777 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the LOTR article is B-class, and yours is GA, so I wouldn't really sweat it :) Overall I think the section just seems to be missing something, I can't quite put my finger on it. I'm not saying its bad, but it needs something extra. I'll have a thought and perhaps I'll take a crack at it when I get a chance. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both B-Classes actually. I did have plans to maybe fix up that article too if I can. Jhenderson 777 19:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of The Chronicles of Narnia take place in Lewis' constructed world of Narnia." Does this mean that most of the story elements take place in Narnia (i.e. settings switch between Narnia and Earth), or does it mean that most (but not all) of the books are set primarily in Narnia, and some in other corners of the multiverse?
Only in the book The Horse and the Boy takes place in only Narnia but every other book starts first appearing in this real world and the protagonists gets transported to Narnia some magical way. Jhenderson 777 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lewis largely populates his stories with two distinct classes of inhabitants." - When you say largely, does this mean there are others not belonging to these two classes?
  • "Lewis does not limit himself to a single source; instead he borrows from many sources and adds a few more of his own to the mix." Examples of sources?
Well I do believe the article is referring to mythology and cosmology. Just like what the section Influences from mythology and cosmology is talking about. Jhenderson 777 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography - so, Narnia is both the name of the world, and one of the nations in that world?
Correct. See Narnia (world) and Narnia (country). Jhenderson 777 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading Order - I would be inclined to move this higher up in the article, perhaps even as sub-section to Series. Closer integration of the two would make it easier to discuss how the internal chronology relates to the publication history, and the controversy over reading order [and from a technical standpoint, as it is currently structured the reader needs to do a fair amount of scrolling back and forth, and I'm reading this in 1600 x 900 ....)
I can move it. You can to if you want to too.:) Jhenderson 777 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it would help if you briefly described what each of the four categories means, before you get into the more in-depth discussion of the pros/cons for each.
  • you also state that "Under dispute is the placement of two volumes, The Magician's Nephew and The Horse and His Boy" and that "The "reading order" of the other five books is not disputed". If that's the case, then is it really all that important to include "Written Order" and "Final Completion Order"?
  • Also, I'm not really clear on the distinction between "Written Order" and "Final Completion Order". I went back to the brief summaries for each book, but it wasn't apparent to me the difference between The Magician's Nephew and The Last Battle in this context, unless you mean that of the two, that although TMN was published first, TLB was actually written first?
Not really one of my statements. Would you rather those two orders be removed? Jhenderson 777 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christian Parallels and Influences on Narnia - Have you considered somehow integrating the two? I'm thinking that a discussion of the influences would have more meaning if placed within the context of Lewis' Christian faith (and since he was an adult convert, I'm guessing that his perspectives on Christianity would be quite different from someone who had been raised from birth as a Christian).
Sounds simple. :) Jhenderson 777 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yeah, I realise that it's easier said than done :P - I'll have a think about how that might work -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Block quotation beginning: "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself ..." - needs a cite ref
At least I know it's from From Other World. So a cite book might work. Jhenderson 777 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Influence on popular culture - this is probably the weakest section in the article, and needs to read a bit less like a list. Perhaps flesh out the discussion part, and discuss the importance of Narnia on shaping popular culture
  • Controversies and Reception: influence of religious viewpoints - another area where I think more closely integrating the discussion would benefit by providing context from one to the discussion of the other
  • Narnia in other media - Perhaps it would make more sense to scrap Influence on popular culture entirely and integrate the various examples here instead.
That can be done. :) Jhenderson 777 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps! Cheers, Jake

  • Is there a reason why there's no "Characters" section? Figure that at least Aslan, the Pevensies and a few others deserve a brief mention, but I don't want to add one in until I know that there wasn't a specific reason for this omission. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will be honest I did think about that. And you can go right ahead and do it if you like. Aslan, the four Pevensie children, Eaustace Scrubb, Jill Pole, Digory Kirke, Polly Plummer, White Witch are just a few of good examples that can be added. Even though most of the important ones are linked on the Chronicles section. Jhenderson 777 19:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSE PEER REVIEW REQUEST - Per discussion with Jhenderson777 (see: User talk:Jake fuersturm#Peer review Narnia) we have agreed to close the peer review while we continue to restructure the article, and will resubmit when we think it's ready. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy in Love (Beyoncé Knowles song)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to take it to FA soonest possible. This is hopefully the second PR the article will be getting. I promise i will do my best to better this article. I really want Beyonce to be one of the artist having the best articles on Wikipedia.

Thanks. Jivesh • Talk2Me 19:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is not a complete review, just a few comments.

Lead

  • "After having been added to US radios on May 18, 2003, Columbia Records released the song as the album's lead single on May 20, 2003." - Columbia Records wasn't added. Maybe "After US radio stations began playing the album on May 18, 2003, Columbia Records released the lead single on May 20"? Or something like that.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crazy in Love" was critically lauded, with music critics complimenting the assertiveness with which Knowles delivers the lyrics, the horn sample and the guest appearance of Jay-Z in the song. - To avoid suggesting that Knowles delivered the horn sample and the guest appearance, perhaps this would be better: "Crazy in Love" was lauded by music critics who complimented the assertiveness with which Knowles delivers the lyrics. They also praised the horn sample and the guest appearance of Jay-Z." Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

  • The Manual of Style deprecates fancy quotation marks. For quotations of four lines or more, blockquotes are better. WP:MOSQUOTE has more info. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chart precession and succession

  • I would not make this chart collapsible because it might be inaccessible to screen readers. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • File:Beyoncé e Jay-Z.jpg is licensed as free on the Commons, but the source page on Flickr says that all rights are reserved. Unless the uploader to the Commons owns the copyright, he or she can't make a non-free image free. Is the image really free? How can we tell?
The Flickr upload bot uploaded the image, which means that it was under a cc-by license, but the owner has since made it "all rights reserved". Since Flickr free-use tags are irrevocable, it is fine to use on Wikipedia. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that two non-free images pass WP:NFCC #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The second image, "File:Crazyinlove.jpg", appears to be purely decorative.

Other

  • The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds three dead links in the citations.
Only one dead link remains. I will replace it later. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are very helpful, my friend. I shall made the necessary changes soon. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I need feedback on what else is needed/need to be changed to pass GA nomination.

Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article currently holds GA status. I hope to eventually nominate it for FA status eventually. As such, i would like to know whether the article satisfies the FA criteria. I am especially interested in knowing whether this article satisfies WP:NPOV and also whether it is ambiguous or vague in certain areas. Thanks. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 10:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting and generally well-done but not yet ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

  • I found a fixed quite a few small problems such as commas missing from triple dates, no-break codes missing from combinations like 19 century, and the like, as well as minor tweaks of the prose. However, I did not have time to do this as carefully as possible. I think that the article would not quite pass the "professional prose" requirement at FAC and could do with at least one more copyedit. You might find a willing copyeditor via WP:GOCE#REQ or the general copyediting list at WP:PRV.
Article has been copy-edited by User:Philg88.
  • I think it would be helpful to readers outside India if all of the money amounts in the article were also given in either British pounds, Euros, or U.S. dollars.
It would be impossible for me to do that. For instance, i do not know how many rupees Rs. 3,30,000 in 1785 (of Tipu's kingdom) amounts to in modern times. I should first be able to figure out it's value in modern Indian currency before being able to transform it into British pounds, Euros or U.S. Dollars.
  • WP:MOSQUOTE deprecates the use of fancy quotation marks such as those in the "Criticism of Tipu" section. Blockquotes for quotations of four lines or more are preferred.
Fixed the concerned quotes.
  • The long quotations at the end of the article are much too long and tend to repeat information already covered. I would say that they also are not neutral in that they repeat the awful details, which do not need to be repeated. I would simply delete them.
I beg to differ! The Holocaust and Nanking Massacre articles provide such quotes as well, repetitive in my opinion.
  • Directional images generally look better if facing into the page. File:Tipu Sultan BL.jpg would be better positioned on the right side of the page.
Fixed!

Under the Wodeyar Rajas and Hyder Ali

  • "Hyder's army consisted of several Catholic soldiers... " - Quite a small army. Perhaps "included" rather than "consisted of"?
lol. Fixed!
  • "where French generals used to offer prayers and priests used to visit" - Straight past tense; i.e., "where French generals offered prayers and priests visited"?
Fixed!
  • "because it was the punishment to be awarded to the people who betray the sovereign" - Perhaps "because it was the standard punishment for betraying the sovereign"?
Fixed!

Causes

  • "by the orders of the Bombay Government" - Should "Bombay Government" be briefly explained? Readers may not know what it refers to.
I don't see why they should not know. Every individual familiar with this era of Indian history knows that the troops were subject to the British East India company. So obviously, it refers to the government comprised by the British East India company in Bombay. In Indian schools, we learn about it in history classes.
  • "Firstly, when the French soldiers laid down their arms because of the Peace of Paris (1783) treaty" - More background would be helpful here too. What did the treaty have to do with Mangalore?
It had nothing to do with Mangalore, but with Tipu Sultan. Those interested on this treaty can refer to the Tipu Sultan article or those of the Anglo-Mysore wars. I think given the context, it is sufficient to state that the Christians refused to fight for Tipu.
  • "amounted to over three to four lakhs" - Could this also be expressed in terms familiar to readers worldwide?
Impossible for me to do so, as stated above.

Execution of orders

  • "ordered a fine of 3 crore rupees" - Most readers will have no idea how much this is.
Impossible for me to do so, as stated above.

Fifteen-year captivity

  • Would it be helpful to briefly explain or translate risalas and dhoolies?
Risalas is already translated above. One English prisoner related that two risalas (regiments of soldiers) arrived daily in Seringapatam to select girls they could take as prizes to join their harems. I have translated Dhoolie. It is a Hindustani word for palanquin.
  • "Scurry also reports that Tipu relented the demand of the captive girls, when one captive fell from his beast and expired on the spot through loss of blood." - This does not make sense as written. "Relented" is not the right word, but I'm not quite sure what is meant. Perhaps it means that Tipu stopped ordering the capture of girls when one captive fell from his beast and expired... ".
The word "Relent" means to "abandon or mitigate a harsh intention or cruel treatment." I've reworded it as follows: Scurry also reports that Tipu relented on his demand for captive girls, after one captive fell from her beast and expired on the spot through loss of blood.
  • "Unable to stomach the indifferent camp food, Balthazaar of Belthangady, a Mangalorean Catholic nobleman, offered to make a chutney, which came to be known as the lengendary "Balthazaar Chutney" for the captured Mangalorean Catholics." - Since the rest of the paragraph is about mistreatment, this sentence seems out of place. Would it help to re-phrase it as "Because the food was so bad in the camp, Balthazaar... "?
Reworded as As the food in the camp was sub-standard, Balthazar of Belthangady, a Mangalorean Catholic nobleman, offered to make a chutney for the captured Mangalorean Catholics.
Fixed!
  • Link palanquin and polyandry?
Fixed! Palanquin is already linked above.
  • The link-checker tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dead link in the citations.
This is odd! Checklinks shows it as dead. However, upon opening it, it seems to be just fine. I have not used the link as reference, but as an external link. http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/2525/4/UOM-1996-902-3.pdf
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to conduct a review. Your comments were appreciated and proved very helpful. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 12:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is close to Featured Article standard and is obviously of high importance to the project. The most recent country article I found that had passed the criteria was Israel in September 2007 and that has since been delisted. Australia and Canada have both recently been up for review so would probably provide the best set of standards, even though they didn't pass with flying colors. At least one non-New Zealand editor would be useful to identify any Kiwi-isms etc. New Zealand editors would be useful in identifying any content lapses. The requirements for passing country articles seems high so I welcome a thorough and critical review.

Thanks, AIRcorn (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis[edit]

Country articles are extremely difficult to do, so good luck. Just as an overall, it seems to be very well sourced, so well sourced that in places it may go into slightly more information than necessary!

Points dealt with
  • First off, rename Stewart Island / Rakiura to just Stewart Island, the title doesn't need both names. It messes up the New Zealand lead slightly.
    • I'm not sure if I'm following you correctly, but if you mean that the article itself should be be moved, I think that would at least need some prior discussion on the article's talk page. The relevant naming convention says that the dual name should be used as the title if it "has usage beyond mandatory official usage", and it seems to me that it does. See e.g. [4], [5], [6]. If you're just meaning that the NZ article should link using the Stewart Island redirect, then I agree. --Avenue (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting naming convention. Anyway, per "Links to the article need not use the dual name" the NZ article should just link to Stewart Island, and probably should appear as just Stewart Island when it is mentioned in Geography too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed link to Stewart Island. AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Need not" does not mean "should not": why should the island be referred to as "Stewart Island"? "Stewart Island/Rakiura" is the name of the island, it's been that way for over 12 years now. Same with Aoraki/Mount Cook. There are some contexts in which "Stewart Island" is perfectly fine, but in the lede of the main New Zealand article (and throughout)? Personally, I think not. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The island has a dual name. That means that official documents must use the dual form, but we are not producing official documents, so we can choose whichever form (Maori, English, or dual) suits our needs best. The English name seems most accessible to a general English-speaking audience (i.e. including international readers). Together with its dominance in current English usage, that's why I think the English form is best for the New Zealand article. (Aoraki / Mount Cook is different, in that current usage is more mixed.) Why do you believe that the dual form of the island's name would be best? --Avenue (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix the Britain wikilink. Current one is a redirect, but I'd recommend directing it to British Empire, to get the historical picture.
  • "plays a leading role among Pacific Island nations" how so?
    • I reworded this slightly to "strong political influence", but it is probably still not ideal. Will try and elaborate on this within the Foreign relations section. AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, explaining this would require more detail than desirable in the lead section. I've shortened it to simply claim "close ties" as with the countries listed earlier. --Avenue (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a "Founding member of the UN" isn't that special, neither is being a member of the UN really.
    • The last couple of sentences snuck in between my submission and your review. I will remove them, although there may be some merit in tying the lead off with a sentence about New Zealands current state. AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be useful to finish the lead with a summary of current international status, as that seems to be common. I'm not personally sure what would be most relevan for New Zealand though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

  • "The use of the term to describe the whole country only occurred post-colonially and it is now commonly used in New Zealand English" That sentence needs clarifying somehow, I think it is saying that the former name for North island is now applicable to the whole country?
    • Yes. I've tried to make this clearer. --Avenue (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The New Zealand Geographic Board discovered in 2009 that the Islands were never officially named and is seeking to formalise the names North Island and South Island." I'm pining for more information here. Does it mean that they never received official name under law?
    • Yes, they were not officially named by legislation or by the more common method of gazetting by the NZ Geographic Board. That's not uncommon, but it is a bit surprising for such major features. --Avenue (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The board is also looking for alternative Māori names" Alternative Maori names? If it means alternative to English, then simply "Maori names" would suffice.
    • Alternative names are different from dual names. The cited source[7] explains the distinction fairly clearly. But we do not make the distinction clear, so I agree dropping "alternative" is probably best. --Avenue (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • If there's one thing most FA country articles have in common, it's a short simple undivided history section. I'm not going through this whole section for now, but I think there's a bit too much detail in areas such as Polynesian migrations. Information such as "Busby...did oversee the introduction of the first national flag on 20 March 1834" seems somewhat trivial.
    • I gave this a trim last night before the internet died. I am not sure how confident I would be taking too much more out. There might be some potential in trimming and combining the third and fourth paragraphs. I am wary of removing the justifications of the early Polynesian arrival times, most of the evidence agrees with the figure, but there are some researchers with differing opinions. I don't think they carry enough weight to be mentioned in this article (there is a mention in the History of New Zealand) and I don't like the idea of using "most evidence" or something equally ambiguous. AIRcorn (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

  • "The Parliament of New Zealand is the supreme legislative power" Supreme could go there, it doesn't really add anything and the situation is explained in the next sentence.
    • Changed to The Parliament of New Zealand holds legislative power
  • "The House of Representatives is democratically elected" Democratically is probably unnecessary, I would assume an election is democratic unless stated otherwise.
    • Would The House of Representatives is elected by New Zealand citizens work. It doesn't read right if we just remove the democratically.
      • Not as it stands, because permanent residents can also vote. "[...] citizens and permanent residents" would probably work; I presume we don't need to specify "adult". --Avenue (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister, is the highest policy-making body in government and is formed by most of the ministers" Most of the ministers? A bit more information would be helpful. Additionally, state somewhere what exactly the Cabinet is. This sentence is the closest I can see that explains it, and from reading the article I'm still not exactly sure.
    • All members of cabinet are minister, but not all ministers are members of cabinet (Ministers outside of Cabinet). Removed "most of" as formed by ministers covers this and the details are probably best left to the main article. My take on cabinet is that it basically makes all the big decisions, but they are not law so the individual ministers or Prime Minister do not have to follow them, but if they don't then they run into trouble. I added a sentence and expanded another to try and make it clearer, but welcome anyone else to tighten it up.
  • "Where she goes, we go; where she stands, we stand." Clarify she means Britain somehow, I understood it, but I'm not sure it's immediately clear.
    • I think the rest of the sentence makes this clear enough already. We could expand the quote ("[...] we range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes, we go. Where she stands, we stand."[8]), but this seems unnecessary to me. --Avenue (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the Local Government section confuses me. It carefully explains how New Zealand went from provinces to a highly centralised state, then states in the last sentence "Since 1876, local government has administered the various regions of New Zealand."
    • The local governments are subject to legislation formed by the central government. This should be clear now. AIRcorn (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the problem is that "local government" does not seem to include provinces to an NZ reader, but the distinction might be lost on others. I've tried to reword it to make this clearer. --Avenue (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still not clear to me, probably because I'm not a kiwi and unfortunately have never gone to NZ. Perhaps just make that last sentence the first sentence of the next paragraph? That would probably provide a better distinction. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good idea, I think that helps a lot. --Avenue (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New Zealand is part of the monarchy" I don't understand what this is trying to say.
    • Removed as this is mentioned as the very start of the politics section. Jump straight into talking about the realm AIRcorn (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason to italicise free association? I don't see what it adds.
  • Mention that all those in the realm have New Zealand citizenship, even citizens of the Cook Islands and Niue
  • "The Ross Dependency is New Zealand's Antarctic territory" I'd add "claimed" before Antarctic territory, as antarctic territories are generally unrecognised.
    • Now reworded as "territorial claim in Antarctica". --Avenue (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Environment

  • First time I've seen an article that places Geography under Environment, instead of the other way around. I think just make the Geography section the level two subsection.
    • Maybe? As a layman the current headings makes more sense to me. I have always assumed the Environment covered all of nature while Geography dealt mainly with physical features. AIRcorn (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My layman take is the opposite, but I don't think it will be a huge issue. Leave it if that's consensus, if it does end up coming up in FAC, easy fix. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was hardly strong consensus, I changed it and no one reverted it.... yet. Like you say it is an easy fix and if someone decides to change it I won't complain. AIRcorn (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the comparisons with other countries sizes necessary? I don't see any value.
    • Probably not. They do give an indication of the relative size of New Zealand, but saying a little less and a little more is not very accurate. AIRcorn (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed AIRcorn (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stewart Island/Rakiura again.
  • "Chatham Islands (named Rēkohu by Moriori)" The Maori names for everything don't need to be given throughout the article.
    • And they aren't (e.g. Aotea/Great Barrier Island and Rangitoto Ki Te Tonga/D'Urville Island, in same sentence). Rēkohu is Moriori, not Maori. I think it deserves a mention, as the indigenous name for that people's homeland. But it does get mentioned earlier (in the History section), so I've removed it here as redundant. --Avenue (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking along the same lines and added it to the history section (where it fits much better) with the intention of removing it from this section. AIRcorn (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, that explains why that bit didn't seem familiar. Thanks! --Avenue (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The island's north is a flatter area, once covered by huge kauri trees." Once being? What happened?
    • Short answer: people came. Much was burnt off by Maori, both before and after European contact, and almost all the rest was logged during the 19th century. I'm looking for good sources, but haven't found much on Maori impacts yet. --Avenue (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The latitude of New Zealand corresponds closely to that of Italy in the Northern Hemisphere, but its isolation from continental influences and exposure to cold southerly winds and ocean currents give the climate a much milder character." Another seemingly irrelevant comparison.
  • Move the kiwi photo up to the top of the biodiversity section.
  • "220 islands larger than 5 hectares were marked as possible sanctuaries by 2009." 2009 has come and gone. What happened since then?
    • Well, that statement seems to have been incorrect in the first place. The source cited actually says that "The Department of Conservation now manages or has an interest in more than 220 islands larger than 5 hectares." DoC manages a lot of land that hasn't been marked as a possible sanctuary. I've replaced it with a broader statement. --Avenue (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

  • "New Zealand has a relatively high standard of living, comparable to that of Southern Europe." Again, not immediately obvious how this helps the article. I'm not sure a reader will know how high the standard of living is in Southern Europe, and standards vary throughout southern europe.
    • Removed that sentence and replaced it with an up-to-date reference to the UN HDI. AIRcorn (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of trade seems...not to be about trade. I'm not even sure it's needed in this article, seems like too much detail.

Demographics

  • The last paragraph in the ethnicity section seems not to be about ethnicity. Just move it above the ethnicity section, under the main demographics header.

Culture

  • I like this section, but the art subsection seems excessively long. It may be worth combining the first and third paragraphs. The fourth paragraph seems like it would be better suited as a standalone Literature section.
    • Seperated Literature paragraph.

Good article, hopefully shouldn't take much. I'm watching this, so if there's any confusion about anything I've said just ask under the bullet! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast... You make some excellent points. I will work through them elaborating or changing anything I think relatively uncontroversial and making comments of my own if necessary. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it another run through when I have the time, have a better look at the sections I skimmed. Sorry if my ignorance of names has caused such an issue, although coming off that it might be worth noting that many official names must be dual names in the languages section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, dual names can be a minefield. Many people seem to have strong opinions on the subject (see e.g. Talk:Mount Taranaki/Egmont). You weren't to know, though.
I've now mentioned dual names in the Language section. --Avenue (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take two[edit]
  • "New Zealand is notable for its geographic isolation" Not sure if this is encyclopaedic, maybe a better idea to simply detail its isolation.
    • Reworded, getting rid of "notably". --Avenue (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • "New Zealand was one of the last major landmasses settled and concluded a long series of voyages through the southern Pacific islands." I would prefer this reworded slightly, perhaps saying "was the concluding point" or "was the last point" instead of "concluded". I just read it and wondered how New Zealand managed to make such a voyage, although that's probably me being weird.
    • I've moved the "New Zealand was [...]" part to the beginning of the paragraph, which I think works much better. --Avenue (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The resulting Musket Wars encompassed over 600 battles between 1801 and 1840, killing between 30,000–40,000 Māori." Clarify that these wars were inter-Maori.
  • "and Hobson moved the capital from Okiato to Auckland" This can probably be deleted, it doesn't add and Okiato comes out of nowhere. If not deleted, it should be reworded, explaining the dates of each establishment.
  • If anything significant has happened since 1973, perhaps that can be added. A concluding sentence quickly bringing the section to the present day would help wrap it up nicely.
    • I've reorganised the paragraph slightly, and added something on treaty settlements and the current foreshore and seabed controversy. --Avenue (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Politics
  • "with a parliamentary democracy[52] although its constitution is not codified." add a comma after Parliamentary democracy.
  • "whom she appoints on the exclusive advice of the Prime Minister" Exclusive advice?
  • "The Privy Council in London was the final court of appeal until 2004 when it was abolished and replaced with the Supreme Court of New Zealand, now New Zealands highest court" The privy council was not abolished, it still exists. The "now New Zealands highest court" is redundant.
    • Removed "abolished" and "now New Zealands highest court", and added "newly established" before Supreme. --Avenue (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (Head of State, Governor-General, Prime Minister, Speaker and Chief Justice)" "Speaker" should be clarified, perhaps Speaker of the House (as I assume Speaker of the House of Representatives is too long)
    • "Speaker of the House" makes me think of the American position. Perhaps "Parliament's Speaker" would work, although just plain "Speaker" reads better to me. It's not ambiguous in a unicameral system like NZ's. --Avenue (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1951 New Zealand joined Australia and the United States in the ANZUS security treaty, while the United Kingdom became increasingly focused on its European interests." It would probably be better to flip these two statements, noting the UK's change in policy first.
  • "A large proportion of New Zealand's aid goes to the islands and many migrate to New Zealand for employment." "goes to these countries" may be better, and an average number of islanders who work in New Zealand per year would be nice, if available.
    • Changed to these countries and added more detail on Pacific migration AIRcorn (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Five-Power Defence Arrangements may be better noted in the military section? ANZUS information too now that I think about it.
    • Combined Foreign relations with military. Should avoid reshuffling the sections and they were both relatively small anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Pacific part of World War II" I think "Pacific part" is a bad way to put this. "During World War II" would suffice.
  • Strange white space in the administrative divisions box between the Chatham and Kermadec islands (pedantic, I know).
    • There's also white space between Niue and the Ross Dependency. These spaces are intentional, and are meant to help distinguish different types of jurisdictions. See the comments added in this edit for details. --Avenue (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe these distinctions should be made clearer through footnotes or something similar. --Avenue (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something to explain would be a good idea. Now that I've seen that edit difference, I completely understand the spacing, and it seems like a good idea. However, to me at least it wasn't immediately obvious, so a footnote would be very helpful. With a footnote added, it may actually be worth increasing the size of the white spaces slightly. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Environment
  • "The country has extensive marine resources, with the fifth-largest Exclusive Economic Zone in the world, covering over 4 million square kilometres (1.5 million square miles), more than 15 times its land area." Long sentence, break?
  • "The island's north is a flatter area, once covered by huge kauri trees." This still seems out of place. Are the kauri trees that important?
    • I agree. I've tried to redraft it and can't get it to seem right. I'll delete it from here. The Biodiversity section could do with something on deforestation, though. --Avenue (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I've now added something there. --Avenue (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just me, but I feel that perhaps the Tuatara deserves its own sentence. It's a classic example of unique fauna.
Economy
  • Move the mountain picture up into the main section.
  • Give a mile length for the road network.
  • Any numbers for total railway length? Highest speed on the railways?
    • Length added. I haven't found an overall maximum speed, although freight trains can exceed 100 km/h on favourable stretches. The NZ record speed is 125.8 km/h, according to our NZR RM class (Vulcan) article. --Avenue (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does information about happiness and quality of life belong here? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I don't think the "8th happiest" factoid adds much to the article. I'll remove it and see if anyone complains. Quality of life doesn't fit perfectly anywhere. It could fall under a broad view of economics, but since it is talking about specific cities, I'll try moving it to where cities are mentioned under demographics. --Avenue (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics
  • "The term Pākehā" Maori term? Moriori term?
    • Maori. I don't know of any Moriori words English has borrowed. --Avenue (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that the Moriori were important enough to mention in History, information about them should be added to demographics.
    • In 2006, 942 people identified themselves as Moriori descent (0.15% of all Maori descendants). AIRcorn (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My feeling is that the Moriori are important in historical and anthropological terms, but not demographically important enough to rate a mention in the overall NZ article. Worth a mention in Demographics of New Zealand though, given their recent rapid increase. --Avenue (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If they're not worth mentioning in demographics, are they worth mentioning in History? My concern is not about importance, but the way information in the article comes together. Seeing their specific culture mentioned in the History section made me expect further information in later sections. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added a mention about the fate of the Moriori under history "The Moriori population was decimated between 1835 and 1862, largely due to Māori invasion and European diseases. In 1862 only 101 survived and the last known full-blooded Moriori died in 1933." It will fit in better there and will hopefully explain to the general reader why they are not a significant part of New Zealands current demographics. AIRcorn (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto with the Moriori language, if it's very important.
    • It's essentially extinct, from what I gather. There are some efforts to revitalise it, but these are much less advanced than the achievements made with te reo Maori. Sorry, but I don't think it's worth including in this article. --Avenue (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Culture
  • "Early Māori developed their own distinctive culture based on the Polynesian culture." Not sure if this is the right way to put it. Distinctive version of the polynesian culture? Offshoot?
    • Maori brought the polynesian culture with them, and then adapted it to the New Zealand conditions until it became its own distinctive culture. Reworded. AIRcorn (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Māori culture was suppressed by the attempted assimilation of Māori into British New Zealanders." When did this stop?
  • "Literature, driven by debates amongst the countries poets in the fifties, has moved from a nationalistic agenda to a more inclusive version of New Zealand and a desire to obtain international audiences." I am unsure of what this is trying to say.
    • I tried re-writing it and couldn't get it to sound right so I removed it. I don't think the article loses anything
  • "many of these genres given a New Zealand and Polynesian interpretation." Perhaps say a unique New Zealand interpretation, and a polynesian interpretation? It seems obvious New Zealand Music would have a New Zealand interpretation.
    • Removed the polynesian interpretation and added unique in front of New Zealand
Overall
  • Standardise percent and per cent. According to Wikipedia:PERCENT British is per cent, and I assume New Zealand follows.
    • Based on a quick Google check, "percent" beats "per cent" by more than 2:1 in .nz domains, so I don't think we follow the Brits on that anymore. --Avenue (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, the pace of modernisation. Standardise other way then, and perhaps consider noting NZ english on the style guide page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the notes and references into two separate level two sections.
  • I originally used this formatting as it doesn't full the TOC up, but you are not the first editor to suggest changing it. Have left Bibliography as a subheading of References for now as they are linked together using Harvard style short footnotes. AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ginger[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC somewhat soon, and I'd like a fresh set of eyes before I take it all the way up.

Thanks, ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The storm developed in a large region of convection across the Gulf of Mexico and western Atlantic - This would usually imply that a surface low developed out of a persistent convective complex, which is contradictory to the MH, which states Ginger originated in an upper-level low which moved to the surface.
  • On September 14 Ginger slowed - I usually like to see commas being used sparingly, but it looks weird without one here.
  • The semicolon in that line seems to serve little purpose other than to forcefully adjoin two sentences.
  • I would link soybean.
  • Further north, moderate rainfall and winds spread through the Mid-Atlantic states - "Rainfall" usually means the precipitation that has already been produced (ie. rainfall at Raleigh reached 4 in), while "rain" is the meteorological phenomena.
  • the feature was caused by an anticyclone - The ULL or the mimic-ITCZ was caused by the high?

Just a few preliminary comments from the first few paragraphs. Juliancolton (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Hosni Mubarak's rule[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article and I wanted to run it through peer review to see what I need to work on. Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana boomer

As you said you are interested in taking this to GA status, I am looking at this article like I would if I saw it in the GAN queue. From a quick initial look, this article has a ways to go before it would be awarded GA status. Here are some starter comments:

  • At over 137 kb and 8,800 words, this article is quickly approaching the maximum size recommended by Wikipedia. They recommend no more than 6,000 to 10,000 words per article, and this article is quickly approaching that top limit.
  • For an article of this size, a lead of 3-4 paragraphs is appropriate per WP:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the information covered in the body, while including no new information.
  • There are 13 dead links in the article, most of which are marked, but some of which aren't. You can see them all by using the link checker in the toolbox on this review page. Also note that contemporary online news articles are especially prone to linkrot, so you should be prepared to replace more links over the next few months.
  • Pick either British or American English and standardize the article. For instance, there is both organize and organise present in the article.
  • The prose needs a good bit of work - this will probably be one of the biggest things that needs work before you go to GAN. For instance, there are partial sentences ("Celebratory gunfire in Gaza." in the Celebration section), lots of one and two sentence paragraphs, and a severe lack of flow. The article reads much like it was randomly tossed together by a bunch of different editors from a bunch of different sources, with no one paying attention to the overall feel of the article. It jumps from subject to subject and place to place. For instance, at the end of the Celebration section you jump from the stock market to the government to celebrations in Cairo and Giza to the rape of a reporter. Major lack of flow.
  • Text should not be sandwiched between images or images and various boxes, which it is in several places currently.

The prose and the link rot are the two largest issues to deal with. I'm also not sure a "Timeline of..." article has ever gone through GAN - you may want to post at WT:GAN to make sure that they are eligible. Hope these comments help, please let me know if you have any questions - Dana boomer (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis[edit]

As said by the previous reviewer the lead needs to be massively expanded, with a summary of events. Additionally as they noted, text should not have images on both sides of it. Move what can be moved, and delete the rest. I suggest no more than two pictures per section, probably only one in most section.

25 January
  • Don't start the list of protestor numbers with "Thousands protested in Cairo," as you can simply state the number of protestors in Cairo, and because thousands protested in other cities too.
  • "A policeman was reported to have died in Cairo, while in Suez two protesters were killed." Seems strange to note that a policeman was reported to have died, but state with certainty two protesters were killed.
  • "It was reported that many police had also been restrained in their use of violence.'"" Once again the "it was reported" is weird, if you write this you should note reported by who or simply remove it and just say that it happened (depends on the wording of the source really). In addition, this sentence is probably better placed as a contrast to "Deadly clashes broke out during the protests."
26 January
  • "although no accurate estimate has yet been made." This could be removed, or replaced by something much simpler, such as "the exact numbers are unknown".
  • "dramatic uprising" Words like "dramatic" are best avoided
27 January
  • Link Muslim Brotherhood
  • "a protester of Bedouin descent" Is the bedouin part necessary?
  • Who is Mohammed El Baradei? If this is the IAEA person, link to him, although I'm not sure how necessary the quote is.
28 January
  • Replace "Torched up" with something more academic
  • This section could do with being rearranged, and is long enough to maybe include one subsection. Perhaps military involvement could be a subsection.
  • Join together short paragraphs.
29 January
  • "The night of 28/29 January was quieter in Cairo with fewer reports of looting than in previous days." This sentence seems to be out of place, not much about nights or looting was discussed before.
  • "the position of the army in the course of events continued to be critical but ambiguous" Critical how?
  • "Many tourists sites have been disrupted, " This needs to be rewritten in a different tense. Were disrupted? Same with "Chaos had been reported"
30 January
  • Once again the tense is off in some places. For example "They, among others, have called for a new constitution and a transitional government." The previous statement is also quite a weasel word, you should name "others".
  • "Food and water were offered at the scene" by who?
  • "politically reliable nature." What is this nature?
  • Once again, rearrange and join shorter paragraphs.
31 January
  • You quote "What we have begun cannot go back" again, when it appeared in the previous section. Did he say it two days in a row?
  • "Since police forces disappeared from Cairo, and the military took key positions there, the degree of connection between the military and the current system (government, economic circles) and its position became critical." This sentence needs major rewording.
1 February
  • "with coils of barbed wire to ensure that the protesters can not get there." needs to be reworded.
  • "Demonstrators in Tahrir Square at prayer" During prayer?
  • "get cash" should be changed to "obtain money" or something of a more encyclopaedic tone.
  • "for those that have money, prices are skyrocketing as consumers flood the few open stores." needs a tense change.
  • "He also accepted the legal charges against the parliament members which means a great amount of the parliament members will be changed through the legal process."" I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. Is that quotation mark at the end of the sentence meant to be there?
2 February
  • This whole section should be rearranged. Perhaps create a subsection devoted to foreign response?
3 February
  • "Anti-government protesters were seen banging on metal railings while rocks were thrown at them." Is there any significance to this?
  • Join information about vodafone and the giving of food together.
4 February
  • Join together the short paragraphs
5 February
  • "During the night of 4–5 February, a few protesters continued to camp out in Tahrir Square, though it was largely quiet." seems unnecessary, especially as the same thing is said immediately below.
  • "(seen as a member of the liberal wing of the party)" What are the brackets and italics for?
  • "thankfully empty church" thankfully is not needed here
6 February
  • "Christians started their Sunday Mass in Cairo's Tahrir Square as Muslim protesters formed a ring around them to protect them during the service." The first half of this sentence can go, it has been covered alraedy.
  • Join up short paragraphs.
7 February
  • Who is "Ahmed Mahmoud"?
  • Fix tenses again, it reads as if it is currently happening.
8 February
  • The two political committees were mentioned the day before too. Which day were they announced?
  • "Suleiman reiterated his view that Egypt is not ready for democracy," Can this view be clarified? There are elections in Egypt.
9 February
  • "Sinani province" Typo?
  • "also accused the US of trying to impose its will" on the government of Egypt? on the people of Egypt? on Egypt?
  • Explaing Gaber Asfour more, first time the name comes up.
10 February
  • "Protesters watched in stunned silence or in anger to his speech, some crying or waving their shoes in the air" needs to be reworded in a more neutral and less emotional manner.
11 February
  • Combine the two subsections into just "Resignation of Mubarak"
  • More information about Mubarak's resignation would be useful. Did he go without saying anything? Did anyone else in the government say anything? Responses of the military and foreign governments?

This is a long article, with a lot of good content. It does need copyediting though, the word "also" is used many times when it probably shouldn't be. Perhaps ask for an edit from a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? Hope this helps, good luck with GA (if it's possible), if it's not, try A-class. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/March_2011&oldid=426712806"