Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2007

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 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 copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).

Gheorghe Muresan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I think it gives insight to the (arguably) tallest player in NBA history. Few know that a Romania has this honor, and I think that it would educate more.

Thanks, Basketball110 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs expanding. Also, it should have some references indicating where the information is from. DrKiernan 11:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • arguably
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Brawl[edit]

Next peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A peer review has been requested for this article, as new information regarding the topic in question is being released on a daily basis. However, there is substantial dissent as to what information is truly relevant. Large portions of the article also make reference to short facts about the game that serve to be more trivial in nature than serving any other purpose.

Because the vast majority of edits are being made by fans of the game, I feel it is important for somebody who is not familiar with the game to take an objective review.

Thanks, Ckjy 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend a hearty dose of patience and a conservative approach: The game's not due out for a good three months and nine days (at least here in the US), and some of the article isn't going to be written until then, particularly its reception. Nifboy 17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no explanation on what "Vs. Mode" is and the article is in need of proofreading. What to do when a reference link "goes dead". Although this is more of a issue to look at in the long run, my main concern is all of those references to the Smashbros website. If history does repeat itself yet again, the article will have a ton of dead links within a couple of years. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian National Army[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have extensively revised, rewritten, and supplemented this pre-existing article over the last six months or so, and would like fresh pairs of eyes to have a look, make NPOV, contribute, etc. Thanks,

Rueben lys 10:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seem sto be very lengthy. The ToC is overwhelmingly long.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pi[edit]

I think this article needs somebody with a lot of time and mathematical experience to review this article. It has a lot of math terms in in and I hope that people other than just me could take a look and see if anything is wrong. Thanks. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 22:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJH[edit]

As far as I can see upon a quick glance through, the math looks okay. Here's a few issues that struck me while reading the article:

  • Statements like "fascinated", "remarkable", "occurs often" and "difficult to understand" express a point of view, so they either need to be backed up with a citation or rendered more neutral in style.
  • There are a number of facts on this page that, while true, are unsourced. For example, "It remains the formula of choice for π calculating software..."
  • The constant e is first introduced without explanation, as is the gamma function Γ(1/4). e is then defined down in the complex analysis section.
  • Overall I think there may need to be more explanation of the jargon for the non-mathematically inclined. For example, the summation formula in the "Age of computers" section. Both the factorial and the summation symbols may need to be explained. Likewise the absolute value brackets in the "Naturality" section and integrals starting in the geometry section. About all I can say about the Physics section is that the formulae are meaningless without an explanation of the parameters and some clarification of their purpose.
  • Is the continued fraction really appropriate for the infobox? Shouldn't it be down in the body of the article? At first glance it would also seem rather useless, so why is it of particular note to the reader (other than as a triumph of mathematical theorists)?

I hope this was somewhat helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Station[edit]

An anon editor has asked for this article to be reviewed, but it is not clear what specific points need to be addressed. --Bduke 11:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this text from other sections to make it easier to access the automated review for this article. Awolf002 12:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here.
  • To me there appear to be far too many single-paragraph sections. There are also too many unsourced facts; I'd expect to see at least one citation per paragraph. Finally, I think it would be a good idea to stick with a single currency. Values in both US dollars and Euros are too time dependent, as currency exchanges fluctuate frequently. — RJH (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore City College[edit]

previous PR

This article has gone through various changes, since its last peer review and I am looking for further criticism in hopes of nominating it for FA. Any comments would be helpful. Thanks, Golem88991 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review. I think I have addressed most of you concerns at this point. Any other suggestions? Golem88991 22:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to offer but I wanted to give you something besides the automated review. What I'd suggest is a look at WP:CAPTION to add some weight to your photo captions (the photos are great, by the way). There are also some definite places that need more citations that should be relatively easy. For example, under Alumni Association, one of the 2007 inductees... there should be a news article or press release or something you can cite. I'm also questioning the origins for the name of The Collegian - a source would make it more convincing. Also, under Notable Alumni (and here and there throughout) there are very short paragraphs. As a rule of thumb, I usually suggest at least three sentences in each paragraph. Those are all just examples of some suggestions that can be applied throughout. Overall, though, it's a great article! I'm especially impressed by the breadth of sources - college/university articles tend to have difficulty finding third party sources, but this looks great. Keep it up! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I will work on making these improvements in the next few days. 128.252.254.17 (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left the previous comment. Golem88991 (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Swallow[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been improved since GA (map, more details, wrote article for only redlink), I'd like to get it to FA

Thanks, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has become a really excellent article—good work Jim! A couple of quick comments:
  • You might mention in the description section that Barn Swallows in significant portions of the world (Americas, much of Asia) have reddish underparts, since the only underpart colour mentioned in that section is off-white.
  • You use "Barn Swallow" through most of the article, but revert to "Swallow" in the literature/culture sections. Other than in quoted material, it should probably still say Barn Swallow.
  • Is the swallow festival of Capistrano, which is a pretty old (for NA anyway) and sizeable event, worth mentioning in the culture section? Strike this one—they're Cliff Swallows! MeegsC | Talk 08:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, went through with the proverbial fine-toothed comb—here are a few more comments! :)

  • In the lead, the sentence that states this is the “most widespread species of swallow” will probably need a reference. Putting something like that without verification seems to be the sort of info that draws fire from FA reviewers.
  • You mention it isn’t endangered “as a species”. Are any subspecies endangered? If so, which ones? If not, I’d remove the “as a species” clause.
  • Rather than “there are several subspecies which...”, you might want to consider putting the actual number. If they don’t all migrate, say something like “There are x subspecies, most of which...”
  • The Welcome Swallow, whose range overlaps some of the Barn Swallow’s wintering range in northern Australia, is another potential confusion species. Given that you’ve made mention of how to tell it from Red-chested Swallow, you might want to do the same for Welcome Swallow.
  • Has there been any consensus about how subspecies sections should be organized? Recent FA articles seem to have them in bulleted lists and it seems to be a little easier to find information that way. Not a biggie, but we may want to start building some sort of standard setup.
  • Are wintering habitats the same as breeding ones? You mention reedbeds for nighttime flocking post-breeding, for instance; are the birds more frequently found near the coast or large ponds/lakes on wintering grounds?
  • The first paragraph in the Feeding section seems to jump around a bit. Can some of the sentences be rearranged to make the section flow better?
  • There are a lot of 1-2 sentence paragraphs in the Breeding section. Can some of them be combined?
  • I would guess that the swallows nested on Native American longhouses and hogans rather than tepees—the angle of a tepee’s walls, and the fact that it is a mobile structure which is packed flat when moved would make it an unlikely candidate for a nest site!
  • Is the punctuation ending the last Shakespeare quote correct? It seems to stop in the middle of a sentence. Perhaps ellipses would be in order?
  • There was a recent spate of articles about the new cricket ground being built somewhere in South Africa for the next cricket world cup, and how it’s going to destroy a major Barn Swallow wintering area. Might be worth a mention.
  • There are a few places where there is a gap between sentence punctuation and footnote indications. These should be eliminated.

MeegsC | Talk 13:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A delayed entry. The journal references probably do not need the access date to be included as the contents are static unlike web-page citations that need the access date. Shyamal (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laozi[edit]

Seeking feedback from peers as a first step, with the intention to submit to GA review later on. Thanks, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Biography" section needs work. I would say that there are three topics to be discussed here:
    • The earliest records, most of which come from Ssu-ma Ch'ien's Shih Chi who simply repeated what he could learn & threw up his hands in despair at the end, & anecdotes found in Chuang Tzu's book which are likely fictional.
    • The various legends, providing the appropriate dates for their existence. Some may contina evidence of Lao Tzu's life, & some may contain evidence that their sources abused too many drugs.
    • The scholarly opinions on Lao Tzu. Briefly dscribed, these boil down to the question whether he existed or not. I'm far more familiar with the arguments for Lao Tzu's existence -- it's far more popular in popular accounts of Taoism -- but the other side needs to be presented for balance.
  • I don't find the footnote/sources system that attractive. To be blunt, it looks like the worse possible combination of the MLA & Harvard footnote systems. Pick the system you like best & standardize on it. -- llywrch 00:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope these comments don't come over as snide or overly negative. Improving this article is one of those things that has been on my to-do list for so long that it has somehow fallen off that list years ago; I would be happy to assist you in this. This is an important article (IIRC, it is one of the Wikipedia core articles), & getting it to FA status would be a great help to Wikipedia. -- llywrch 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments... and if you feel like helping out in fixing this article, that would be great. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Criticism is what we need, as it tells us what needs to improved. Is there anything else "off" about the article? Does it do anything that is notably "right", that could help provide guidance in improving the rest? Vassyana 08:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godsmack[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, they are a multi-platinum selling heavy metal/hard rock band, and very talented. Hoping for FA.


Thanks,

Skeeker [Talk] 22:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn[edit]

  • All album titles should be in italics, and absolutely not in speech marks. By comparison, all song/single titles should be in speech marks. A few places this is an issue- the lead, the caption of the album cover, and the section titles.
  • I recommend the use of citation templates for the references. You do not phrase the publisher on some, you do not phrase it in the conventional way on any, and you do not put the author or date on any, as far as I can see.
  • The bottom two external links- are they official? If not, lose them. I would also decap them, and lose the French one anyway.
  • On the template at the bottom, the DVDs should be in italics, not in speech marks.
  • The album cover picture isn't really needed- if you specifically discussed the album art, yes, but you don't.
  • References should be phrased like this- [fact][punctuation][nospace][citation][citation]. Basically, never a space before a citation, never punctuation after it.
  • The logo lacks a rationale, and should categorically NOT be being used outside the article space. In fact, I'll remove it from elsewhere now.
  • The other logo (the one in the infobox) is also lacking in a fair use rationale.
  • "really hit big" is POV, and an unencyclopedic tone. The paragraph could also do with a little more referencing.
  • "Robbie Merrill and Tony Rombola soon joined Godsmack"- 'Soon'? Can we be any more specific?
  • "strong reputation and following" Again, POV and unreferenced. According to whom?
  • WAAF links to a DAB page.
  • "Said Sully, "We had been selling maybe 50 copies a month at the time WAAF picked up the album."" Said Sully? Not quite certain if it makes sense, but it certainly sounds a little odd, (especially as they both begin with S) not to mention the fact it sounds more newspapery/poetic than encyclopedic.
  • "After the CD's release the band hit the road playing club shows as well as playing Ozzfest and Woodstock '99 before a crowd of 250,000. They then supported Black Sabbath." References, and links to Woodstock and Black Sabbath would be good.
  • Article seems to contradict itself. It talks about how Godsmack was released on Universal, but then the discography section says it was released on Columbia.
  • "the studio after the huge success of Godsmack" Huge success? What huge success? Perhaps you could mention the sales in the prose?
  • "The CD was a big success but not nearly as big as Godsmack, with the single, Awake." This sentence is a little clumsy, and some figures or references would be nice, explaining why/how it wasn't a success. Also, remember- albums, EPs, "songs" and "singles".
  • "later the CD would go on to sell over 1 million copies in the United States alone." Painfully unreferenced.
  • "On March 16, 2004 The Other Side an acoustic low priced EP was released. It includes several" Change of tense- keep it in the past tense.
  • "It includes several previously released songs re-recorded as acoustic versions, as well as three new acoustic tracks: "Running Blind", "Touché" which featured Godsmack's first guitar player Lee Richards and John Kosco who where in the band Dropbox who are the first band signed by Sully's Realign Records/Universal label[6], and "Voices"." Overly long and clumsy sentence- you are trying to tell the reader too much at once.
  • "On March 16, 2004 The Other Side an acoustic low priced EP was released." Doesn't make sense- you need more commas. Perhaps "On March 16, 2004, The Other Side, an acoustic, low priced EP, was released." But I am prone to use too many myself.
  • "while headlining with Dropbox in the summer. Then they did acoustic shows for their newly released album The Other Side in the fall of 2004, while still opening for Metallica." References? Also, overuse of pronouns.
  • "Their first release from the album IV, "Speak" was released on February 14, 2006, and their album IV was released April 25, 2006. The band will continue performing on their IV tour in May and June 2007. IV debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200, selling 211,000 copies in its first week. IV has since gone platinum.[9]" In a complete change of direction, this paraprah could do with more pronouns- it repeats IV a lot. More references would be nice, and use of slightly longer sentences.
  • "The album was originally intended to be a boxed set, but the band scrapped the plans so they could release a best of album. Godsmack will be following the release of the album with an acoustic tour." Reference? Also, one sentence paragraphs are bad.
  • "In an interview regarding rumors of an "indefinite hiatus", the band's singer, Sully Erna, is quoted as saying," Interview where?
  • "GODSMACK" Lowercase?
  • Links in the prose- could they not be formatted into real references?
  • "The two primary influences on Godsmack are believed to be thrash metal/hard rock band, Metallica, and alternative metal/grunge band, Alice in Chains." Believed by who? Reference?
  • "It has been believed that Godsmack took their name from the Alice in Chains song "God Smack" from the album Dirt." By who? Reference?
  • "However, many believe that this was part of Godsmack's attempt to distinguish themselves from the band that they have been compared to most frequently." Who? Reference?
  • "Godsmack have attempted to distance themselves from the Alice in Chains comparison with Erna stating in an interview with Matt Ashare, "I've just never really heard that in our music."" Reference? Quotes without references are not good.
  • "VH1 Rock Honors" is such a tiny thing that I would say it didn't deserve its own section.

Overall, I think this article is still a good way from FA, but GA is within reach. Message me on my talk page if you would like me to review further, and I would be happy to have another look. J Milburn 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've taken care of it all now. Is there anything else needed to be done? Skeeker [Talk] 00:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, time for a second wave of recommendations, starting from the top, moving down. Just before that, however- please remove the fair use images and article categories from your sandbox.

  • The lead should be two paragraphs, but expanding the first one would be a good idea. Single line paragraphs are not good.
  • I'm not a huge fan of references in leads, (it should all be referenced elsewhere anyway) but the two citations to the same place on one line- why not just have one at the end of the sentence?
  • Robbie Merrill is linked twice in quick succession- I would delink the second.
  • "The band's name as stated in the home video DVD Smack This! by Merrill, "we stole it from Alice in Chains", the song being "God Smack" from the band's second studio album Dirt." That sentence doesn't seem to make much sense, perhaps rephrase?
  • I'd lose the line "That's where we picked the name from." It sounds like the quote is agreeing with the previous line, which it isn't.
  • "The All Music Guide gave the album three out of five stars, stating that Godsmack confidently brought metal and rock to modern days.[9]" Can we please have the name of the reviewer, and a direct quote?
  • "A man" is a little vague- perhaps something like 'A father in [country]', if nothing more specific is known.
  • "situation to Rolling Stone magazine" Rolling Stone should be in italics.
  • The album titles in section titles need to be in italics.
  • "With the release of Awake they" Awake should be in italics.
  • Would be nice if you stated which country's military. I instantly thought of the UK's Army adverts, which certainly did not use them.
  • There are a lot of single line paragraphs in both the Awake and Faceless sections.
  • The Scorpion King should be in italics, not speech marks
  • "wrote and performed was titled, "I Stand Alone" and became" No need for the comma.
  • "due to personal differences[2], Godsmack" Reference should go after the comma.
  • "The lead single "Straight Out of Line" received a Grammy nomination for "Best Hard Rock Performance", losing to the Foo Fighters' single All My Life." Reference please, and "All My Life" should be in speech marks.
  • Put the big quote in with the prose. You seem to want to have used {{blockquote}}, but that would be inappropriate due to the fact it is two quotes from different places. In fact, what on Earth is the relevence of the quote? It's just a typical 'sex, drugs 'n' rock 'n' roll' anecdote, nothing to do with the album name.
  • "It includes several previously released songs re-recorded as acoustic versions, as well as three new acoustic tracks: "Running Blind", "Touché" which featured Godsmack's first guitar player Lee Richards and John Kosco who where in the now broken-up band "Dropbox", who were the first band signed by Erna's Realign Records/Universal label,[20] as well as the song "Voices"." I'm still not loving this sentence, for a number of reasons. How about- "It includes several previously released songs re-recorded as acoustic versions, as well as three new acoustic tracks. One new song, "Touché", featured Godsmack's first guitar player, Lee Richards, as well John Kosco, who were at that time in the now defunct band Dropbox,[1] The other two new accoustic tracks were "Running Blind" and "Voices". The song "Asleep" is actually the acoustic version of "Awake" from the band's second album Awake.[2]" That sentence fixes grammar, spelling, formatting and clumsy sentences. If you were to use that suggestions, (and otherwise, I suppose) a reference for the other two songs being new acoustic songs would also be needed.
  • Are you going to put tours in speech marks? You have for some, but haven't for others.
  • "Jar of Flies EPs. Which is one of the" Change 'Which' to 'This'.
  • "well known producer and engineer, Andy Johns," Lose the first comma.
  • Again, bring the blockquote into the prose, in the same paragraph as the line before it.
  • Same's true of the next quote.
  • "It will include a cover of the Led Zeppelin classic Good Times, Bad Times, as well as the group's acoustic performance in Las Vegas." "Good Times, Bad Times" is a song, so should be in speech marks, not italics. Also, 'Godsmack's' would be better than 'the band's', seeing as you just mentioned Led Zeppelin.
  • Lose the one sentence paragraphs!
  • The references could still do with some expansion- Link (presuming it's an online source), title, accessdate and publisher are essential, author and date would be nice.

Ok, that's it for now. I'll take another look once these things are dealt with. J Milburn 14:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All taken care of. Anything at all to help this article and I out is good. I want this to be FA someday but I really want GA right now, so please tell me what is needed for that. Skeeker [Talk] 04:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the references the best I could and got as many dates, authors, and publishers as possible. Third review? Or possibly GA? Skeeker [Talk] 03:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad[edit]

Needs a lot of work for FA -

  • Lead should be two paragraphs
  • Along with major-American success in their albums - POV remove this sentence
  • as a lead singer - implies there will be two lead singers :S
  • his previous band for more than 23 years. 0 I'm sure you can find the name of this band in an interview
  • In 1996, his new band Godsmack - you never told us where he got the other members or who they are
  • Hit songs such as - Hit song is POV
  • In early works you mention a bassist and guitarist joining the band, so who was the bassist and guitarist when they played in bars (above paragraph)
  • each album section is small, too small. Mention quotes from reviews of CD's/chart positions/tours
  • So most of Awake -> So most of Awake
  • The lead single "Straight Out of Line" received a Grammy nomination for "Best Hard Rock Performance". Who did they lost to?
  • The band ended the "IV tour" - you never told us they went on tour
  • To celebrate ten years as a band Godsmack - comma after band
  • as well as the groups acoustic -> group's
  • You refer to a person with their last name after their first mention
  • References need to mention the publisher outside of the title as done with reference 11
  • alphabetize categories

It just needs a lot of expansion to be more informative. M3tal H3ad 02:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that is needed to be done now is expand the album articles. Can somebody review again. Skeeker [Talk] 03:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Skeeker [Talk] 11:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok second review;

  • Are you using American-English or British English? You first state they are a band, then say the band has, implying a singular and are means more than one.
  • They have sold over 10 million albums in the U.S., and 11 million worldwide.[1] They have had two #1 albums (Faceless and IV) on the Billboard 200. They have had thirteen top - very repetitive and written poorly
  • he CD was recorded in just three days for $2,500. US dollars?
  • D'arco left the band , do we know why
  • All Music Guide -> All Music Guide
  • 5x Platinum - should platinum have a capital? is there a link to platinum that tells the reader its for 1+ mill albums sold
  • due to profane lyrics - what does profane mean here? it doesn't mention what the lyrics contained, swearing? racism? etc
  • In 2000 Godsmack returned to the studio after the multi-platinum success of Godsmack to start recording Awake. This is the only information about the album we get, how about some chart positions, reviews. It got Number 5 and this isn't even mentioned...
  • The Scorpion King, the third installment in the Mummy saga, It is a spin-off prequel off the mummy series
  • The bands -> band's if you are referring to Godsmack
  • With references like this - ^ SMACKFANS.COM - GODSMACK FANSITE - make it lowercase (should also avoid fansites as sources)
  • The biggest problem is you overuse the quote template; just merge the quote into the text
  • he overall sound of the band's first two albums sound similar to the sound of the Alice in Chains album, Dirt. who's opinion is this?
  • Godsmack's logo is similar to the sun logo of Alice in Chains. Again, who claims this?
  • For FA you will need to have a section on style, you do this by quoting critics on elements in their music, comparison to other artists, and critics opinions on how the band's music has changed overtime.
  • On March 16, 2004 The Other Side an acoustic EP was released from the band - missing a comma or needs to be reworded
  • simply titled IV, followed by a tour that would go on through August 2007, simply titled "The IV tour".
  • 10 million albums in the U.S., and 11 million worldwide -> I know i reworded it, but does this mean 21 million all together or only an additional 1 million worldwide?
  • It will include a cover of the Led Zeppelin song "Good Times, Bad Times" (see, "Good Times, Bad Times (Godsmack song)) The link to the Godmsack song tells the reader nothing

It would fail FAC and with a bit more work can become a GA, although you will be waiting ~a month for a GA review. it looks A LOT better since you started work on it M3tal H3ad 04:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm content on GA for now, but soon I want FA. Thank you a lot for helping. I've seen the stuff you do to slayer articles. Skeeker [Talk] 04:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet[edit]

This is the most recent collaboration of the Shakespeare WikiProject on the way to FA status. Ideas for improvement to that end will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Wrad 23:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the incorrect hyphens to endashes on page number ranges in the citations. Also, review all image caption puncuation per WP:MOS#Captions and solo years shouldn't be linked unless the year article give specific WP:CONTEXT for this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Outriggr

Wow, you'd think this topic would garner more peer review. At the moment I am looking at the section Religious [contexts] and have a few small comments:

  • "In the First Quarto, the same line reads..." A bit rough as a new paragraph, being a continuation of the previous thought, but then I can also see why this choice was made.
    • I rearranged some things to make the paragraphs more logical. Wrad 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The play's Protestantism lies in its location in Denmark"... abstract "lies" and concrete "location" are jarring. Could this be reworded?
    • Changed to "derives from" Wrad 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “unfit 'to keepe subjects in obedience to their sovereigns”... is the apostrophe misplaced?
    • Yep. Fixed. Wrad 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that both types of quotation marks, curly and straight, were present, and the search and replace might as well be done now if you're submitting to FAC. :)
Thanks for the Shakespeare articles. –Outriggr § 03:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like you fixed that last one. Wrad 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'll keep adding comments here:

  • "This same line of Hamlet's also introduces theories of existentialism." I think there is a better word here than "theories", and can it be made clearer that existentialism wasn't...existential...at the time?
  • "Hamlet is perhaps most affected by the prevailing scepticism in Shakespeare's day in response to the Renaissance's humanism." This strictly says "Hamlet is affected ... in reponse to ... humanism", so shouldn't it be reworded with a ", which was a response to..." or such?
  • "They argued that man was the God's greatest creation." Do you intend "the God's" here?
  • Not sure about formatting the words that link to a speech, but I would think that "What a piece of work is a man" is better with quotes. (Did this myself in this section.)
  • I don't follow the argument in "A double-meaning can be read into the word 'is'..."—which could be my fault—but it is very Bill Clinton-esque. :) –Outriggr § 05:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Roger Davies[edit]

  • I've started a copy edit, which'll take another day or two.
  • I'll mention copy matters arising on the talk page.
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Roger, are you still copy editing? If so, I'll try to avoid that area in my review, as I sure you have that well in hand. Awadewit | talk 10:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. It's been a nightmare week real-life-wise and I haven't been able to devote a big slug of uninterrupted time to it. Things get better tomorrow.--ROGER DAVIES talk 19:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review
  • This article is well-referenced and extremely comprehensive (perhaps too comprehensive, in fact). It seems undecided whether it is aimed at general readers or the specialist. There is so much supporting material in sub-articles that I think this ought to be limited to introducing the play and the main veins of scholarship to the general reader. Clear focus will make editorial decisions about inclusion/exclusion of material easier.
  • The lead dwells on a few main points. As some of these are out of context, the general reader is easily confused. Instead, it needs to introduce the content in general terms (for example, referring to Hamlet's origins in legend and the Ur-Hamlet in brief outline only). It needs an one-line summary of the play's plot in the opening paragraph. [Done-RD]
  • The "Sources", "Date" and "Texts" sections are each long and, because of their close reference to plot elements, should follow the synopsis (as they discuss plot points before they have been introduced). This will help cut down on duplication. (I'll move the sections about shortly.{Done.-RD])
  • "Sources" is better in two parts - legend and Ur-Hamlet - for digestability. [Done-RD]
  • "Date" has been the subject of discussion; consensus seems to be for a brief summary of a sub-article.
  • "Texts" is again long. Strangely, there is no discussion of length of the play (most of its contemporaries ran about two hours) or what the implications of this are.
  • "Synopsis" is choppy and can be much more tightly written.[Done a quick CE. More later-RD]
  • "Analysis and criticism" is repetitive, repeating material that appears further on.
  • "19th century" doesn't follow chronological order. It might be better divided into main tours, major performances and (perhaps) literary influence paragraphs.
  • "20th century" overemphasises the first half of the century and again doesn't follow strict chronological order.
  • The article contains many act/scene/line references (3.2.87–93, for instance) that don't appear to be tied into an edition. These would be better footnoted.
  • "Philosophical" doesn't distinguish between philosophies Shakespeare is believed to allude to, and modern philosophical overlays. The "To be or not to be" paragraph is obtuse.
  • "Political" doesn't mention Shakespeare's astuteness in blowing with the prevailing political wind (Henry V, Richard III etc). Even when he satirises, he pokes fun rather than savages.
  • Alas! Poor Yorick is sidelined. Which is pity. The skull scene is highly memorable (and often lampooned). (Never mind.)
  • A specific reference to Shakespeare's depth of characterisation of Hamlet is needed (because it is this that makes the various analyses possible).
  • The early editions are variously initial caps and lowercase. (I'll make these more consistent later today.)

--ROGER DAVIES talk 07:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He he. We mentioned a lot of the same things. :) Great minds think alike. Awadewit | talk 08:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Chuckle] Indeed.--ROGER DAVIES talk 10:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addenda
  • "Madness" I'm not sure this is adequately explored. Shakespeare uses madness frequently for a variety of reasons: dramatic tension from the conflict that arises; psychological study as with Gloucester; humour as with Malvolio's perceived madness. Hamlet needs to be viewed as part of the larger landscape.
  • We used to have a Themes section where themes like this were discussed in depth, but we decided to remove the section and let the Critical approaches to Hamlet article cover the specifics. The article was getting too big. We just want it to provide an overview of criticism and critical approaches, not look at themes in depth. -- Wrad (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Revenge tragedy" is a specific genre which Hamlet postdates.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 11:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, but what are you getting at? -- Wrad (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether to characterise it it as a tragedy or a revenge tragedy. I prefer the former as the latter is a specific genre into which Hamlet doesn't happily fit. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. I think we go into more detail in the sources section on that anyway. Wrad (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit[edit]

Very impressive article! Here are my comments.

  • The lead assumes the reader knows Hamlet; some sentences regarding the plot need to be inserted early on.
  • I think we need the date of the play in the first paragraph.
  • With 4,042 lines and 29,551 words, and taking over four hours to deliver, Hamlet is also Shakespeare's longest play. - These details are best left to the body of the article, in my opinion.
  • Many readers of this page will be unfamiliar with Hamlet, so I would suggest putting the plot synopsis first. The "Sources" and "Date" sections would be easier to follow if one has read the synopsis.
  • "Any dating of Hamlet must be tentative", Edwards cautions. Scholars date the play between 1599 and 1601. - I feel like these ending sentences should come first in "Date" and then the detailed explanation - the thesis and then the evidence, so to speak.
  • Agreed and done. Some of the footnote stuff can be moved into the body too.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Another theory holds that Q1 is an abridged version of the full-length play intended especially for travelling productions (the aforementioned university productions, in particular). - What university productions?
  • Claudius is the King of Denmark, elected to the throne after the death of his brother, King Hamlet. - Was he really "elected" to the throne?
    • Yes, discussed briefly here, and here. AndyJones 12:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interestingly, Scandanavian monarchs are still elected, though these days it's in the form of ratification by parliament of the heir apparent.--ROGER DAVIES talk 12:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critics in Shakespeare's day focused on these themes in their understanding of the play; these aspects were portrayed more violently than they would come to be in subsequent times. - This sentence shifts between what critics thought of "these themes" and the portrayal of violence. This is too big a shift, in my opinion.
  • I think what this means is that critics of the day were mesmerised by the madness, which was acted up at the time, to the exclusion of all else. Is this right? --ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Copyeditors mistakenly combined two unrelated facts. Originally, this was two different statements: 1) Critics in Shakespeare's day focused on Hamlet's madness and melancholy more than anything else, and 2) Performances of the play at the time were more violent than in later periods. Wrad (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 19th century saw critics focused on Hamlet's individual drive and internal struggle; he came to be regarded as a political rebel and intellectual rather than an over-sensitive melancholic. - The comparison is unclear - when was he viewed as oversensitive melancholic?
This sound right? "Tender and nobly descended, this royal flower [Hamlet] grew up under the direct influences of majesty; the idea of the right and of princely dignity, the feeling for the good and the graceful, with the consciousness of his high birth, were unfolded in him together. He was a prince, a born prince. Pleasing in figure, polished by nature, courteous from the heart, he was to be the model of youth and the delight of the world.... A beautiful, pure, noble and most moral nature, without the strength of nerve which makes a hero, sinks beneath a burden which it can neither bear nor throw off...." Goethe, Wilhelm Meister, Book V, 1795--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, a copyediting error. The original idea was that the Romantic period viewed Hamlet as an internal, individual play, and also saw Hamlet as a hero despite his faults. Wrad (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamlet departed from contemporary convention. - As the first sentence of a section, this sentence needs to say in what he departed from convention.
  • This refers to the play not the person though I've clarified it anyway. I'll put the play title in quotemarks throughout later to better disambiguate, unless there's been a discussion elsewhere to the contrary.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Caption: Hamlet's statement in this scene that his dark clothing is merely an outward representation of his inward grief is an example of his strong rhetorical skill. - Which scene?
    • The scene in the picture. It wasn't meant to refer to a scene in the play. Wrad (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somehow that must be made clearer. Awadewit | talk 23:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC
  • The "Language" section probably needs examples to demonstrate to readers the various styles it outlines.
  • All quotations from the play need line numbers and there needs to be some sort of indication which edition they are being cited from.
  • If we can arrive at consensus over the edition, I'll order it and do this myself.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • I have the Arden, if that works for everyone. It is an excellent edition. Awadewit | talk 11:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the 2006 Arden also. I can deal with this unless Roger would like to order the book anyway. I also own the second volume, which will be good for F-only (or even Q1-only) quotations. AndyJones (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be grateful if you did it, Andy. I'll order the book anyway.--ROGER DAVIES talk 12:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilco. I'll have a look in the next few minutes. AndyJones (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you have a look at the way I've done those first few cites and let me know if that's the right way to lay it out, in your opinion? If no, feel free to adjust and I'll use your alternative. I'm off Wikipedia for a few hours, from now. AndyJones (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps say the "Arden Hamlet" but otherwise fine. It might be appropriate to replace the textual refs with handmade cites (ie "a" next to the text and a "aArden Hamlet 2:2:34") in their own Citations section. It's a bit of fuss but it looks very elegant. Feelings? --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll let that get discussed here, I think: I'm not up to the technical aspects of achieving it. I'll work through the article and check the citations, then allow others to decide on the best format for them. AndyJones (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. At least, I've done what I've just said I would do, with every quotation I saw on scanning through, fairly quickly. AndyJones (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psychologists have since associated heavy punning with schizophrenia. - Why is this included?
  • It asks more questions than it answers ("Oi! What's this about schizophrenia I thought you said he was oedipal"). I'll remove it.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • One of the more famous lines in the play related to Protestantism is - The article must explain why these quotations are related to Protestantism.
    •  Done Explained. Wrad (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link between predestination and individual conscience is not clear in the "Religion" section.
    • I'm not sure what you mean. Wrad (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link between the two concepts - it seemed like the article was trying to link them. Awadewit | talk 23:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even today, scholars continue to debate the importance of the religious context on Hamlet. - This is an empty sentence - it provides no real meaning.
    • What do you do with a meaningless sentence? You remove it!  Done Wrad (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A double-meaning can be read into the word "is", which introduces the question of whether anything "is" or can be if thinking does not make it so. This is tied into his "To be, or not to be" speech, where "to be" can be read as being or existing. - Poorly explained
  • If Montaigne isn't a direct influence on Shakespeare, I'm not sure the extensive quotation from him is justified.
  • During this period, political satire was discouraged and many notable playwrights were punished for "offensive" works - At the beginning of a section, restate the referent - which period?
  • I'll fix this later. I want to abbreviate the material about Burghley and Polonius, undue weight etc. There's material about Anne of Demark that could be consolidated there too.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Done.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • The "Political" section is a bit tediously laid out (first, second, third, fourth, etc.). Also, why is the Oxford issue brought up at this point and not refuted?
  • "Other interpretations" is not a very informative section heading.
  • Changed to Context and interpretation, and moved it further up the hierarchy.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Hamlet is torn between love adultery and hate incest as he scolds his mother for her sexual relationship with Claudius while simultaneously wishing (unconsciously) that he could take Claudius' place. - Needs to be reworded for clarity.
  • The psychoanalytic section promises Freud and Lacan, but we only get Freud. I understand the editors' wariness in tackling Lacan, however a promise unfulfilled....
  • Chuckle. On the to do list. --ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Lacan now added. I have been stalled on this as the great difficulty here was providing a clear brief summary that covered the essentials (which may be a forlorn hope). I could easily have written five times more and made it no more accessible for the general reader. I didn't, for instance, tie need, demand and desire into the Real, the Imaginary and the Symbolic nor did I properly explain phallus. Best, I think, is to whet the appetite, with sources indicating routes for further exploration.
  • Explaining "the Real" is fruitless. Awadewit | talk 11:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also, I think, undue weight (in terms of relative length) on Freud. This is not to downplay his contribution but is instead a reflection of overall space constraints.
--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Feminist critics have focused on the gender system of early modern England, pointing to the common trinity of maid, wife or widow, with whores alone outside the stereotype. - Very abrupt beginning to the "feminist" section. Lead the reader in.
  • Now done. I consolidated material from an earlier section, with the happy outcome of a prefabricated lead.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Shakespeare provides no clear indication of when his play is set but, following the theatrical conventions of the time, it would have been performed at the Globe in Elizabethan dress. - The logical connection between these two clauses is weak.
    • Yes, this is one of those communal-editing problems. Gary Taylor (the source) says something along the lines of the story being set several centuries earlier but being performed in what was then modern dress. Another editor comes along and, disagreeing (perhaps reasonably) with the assertion that Hamlet is set at any particular time, changes the first half of the sentence, leaving two unrelated thoughts behind. -- AndyJones (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, here's what Taylor actually says: "Although the plot (like the source story) belongs to an epoch many centuries before, when England paid tribute to Denmark, the characters wear Elizabethan clothes."
      • I assume, though, that Taylor has give more background on Elizabethan theatre at that point, so the sentence makes more sense in context. In the Hamlet article, the reader cannot be assumed to have knowledge of Elizabethan theatre, so I think a sentence explaining the assumption behind the statement is warranted. Awadewit | talk 21:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In stark contrast, William Poel's production of the first quarto text in 1881 was an early attempt at reconstructing Elizabethan theatre conditions; he set the play against red curtains. - I don't see the connection between these two clauses.
    • Here is the rather longer thought which I was trying to embody when I wrote that sentence: In stark contract to the "pictorial" style of Shakespeare which was all the rage at the time, in which lavish sets and costumes were the norm, scene changes were lengthy and cumbersome, and music and tableux were inserted frequently; Poel was one of the first to attempt a performance in a "reconstructive" style where Elizabethan stage conditions would prevail: costumes would be simple, there would be no representational scenery, and the action would flow continously and at pace (the choice of the shortest text, Q1, adding to that last effect). To that end, the play was presented simply against a backdrop which consisted just of a pair of red curtains. -- AndyJones (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about something like this: "In stark contrast, William Poel's production of the first quarto text in 1881 was an early attempt at reconstructing Elizabethan theatre conditions; to achieve this effect, he used only a set of red curtains rather than the ornate sets typical of the nineteenth century." Awadewit | talk 21:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've condensed this a bit to avoid duplication with the previous sentence.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Most of the illustrations need artist information.
  • The highest-grossing Hamlet adaptation to-date is Disney's Academy Award-winning animated feature The Lion King: although, as befits the genre, the play's tragic ending is avoided.[144] - Whose opinion is it that tragedy shouldn't happen in animated features? Bambi, anyone? This is highly POV, in my opinion.
    • I don't think it's just talking about tragic endings. It's talking about the specific ending of Hamlet, where everybody dies through various intrigues. That would definitely be a bit over the top in a movie about cute little lions (or deer). However, it does sound like OR to me, a bit. -- Wrad (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took the tragedy bit out. Wrad (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neat fix. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to these adaptations, there are numerous references to Hamlet in other works of art. - Empty sentence.
    • I'd suggest we lose it. Not only is it an empty sentence, as Awadewit rightly identifies, but also its raison d'etre is to link to References to Hamlet: an article which I don't really approve of linking to from the main article when it's in such dreadfully poor shape. AndyJones (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link is valuable because someday that page may be good. I don't think we can institute a policy of not linking to poor pages, since most wikipedia pages aren't very good yet. :) Awadewit | talk 03:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The link is available in the template at the bottom. Since there isn't any way to work it into prose well, I'd also suggest we remove it. Wrad (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Sources" section needs to be summarized even further, I think; there is still too much detail in it (although I personally love the detail, I wonder about our readers).
  • I've done this now. I've mostly removed "parallels" as they require close understanding of the plot. They can in any event be found in the supporting articles. I've also restructed the article slightly to try to improve the flow. My apologies if this has ruffled feathers; I thought long and hard about reducing the length and this seemed the best way forward. ROGER DAVIES]] talk 10:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 19th-century performance section becomes a list of names and is not ordered logically - Booth returns, for example
  • FWIW, I don't think the lack of chronology in these sections is necessarily wrong: I started drafting them in chronological order and realised that by doing so I was producing an illogical sequence: leaping from continent to continent and from topic to topic, which I fixed by pulling together Japanese productions, political productions, North American productions, psychological productions, whatever, just using the chronology as the marker to put those sections in order. The reappearance of Booth didn't seem illogical to me when I wrote it, I mentioned his birth in the sentence about his father then mentioned his performance later on, in its chronological place. I don't suppose I'm saying anything more than that if this is to be fixed, someone other than me is going to have to do it, since I gave it my best shot the first time around. AndyJones (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. Perhaps it just needs to be structured differently to overcome the feeling that it ought to be chronological. That's the line I have been thinking along anyway. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the 19th and 20th centuries have been re-jigged a bit—mostly using different (themed) groupings—to break up the apparent chronology a bit. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholars introduced in the prose must be initially introduced by first and last name and identified by field, so the reader has a reason to trust them. Subsequently, they can be referred to by last name only.
Not yet finished[edit]
  • Hamlet is a revenge tragedy by William Shakespeare. It is one of his best-known plays, one of the most-quoted works in the English language, and one of the few works universally included on lists of the world's greatest literature. - These opening sentences seemed a little stilted to me. As they are the opening sentences, I think we should strive for eloquence.
  • Yeah. Will leave re-write til later--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • I've started moving stuff into the lead for an eventual rewrite. It'll get worse before it gets better :) --ROGER DAVIES talk
  • In my opinion, there is too much detail on the sources in the lead and not enough detail on other sections of the article. Overall, I think the lead does not reflect the weight given various sections in the article itself.
  • Yeah, when the lead was written the criticism sections weren't fully developed yet. Wrad (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article and very close to FA, in my opinion. After a close copy edit and some further explanation at points, I think it will be ready to take to FAC. Awadewit | talk 00:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've do some of the changes and will do the rest later.--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your great work on this, Roger. Awadewit | talk 09:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Just let me know when to reread the entire article again. I know it has changed substantially. I would like to do one more read-through at the end rather than tons of piecemeal checks. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'll probably be ready middle of next week (18th/19th/20th) for a final re-read. If you could be kind enough to put aside some time for this I'll make sure all my final bits are in place for you. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm currently in the middle of grading final papers and final exams. I'll need a break after I finish. I think I can get to it by the 21st or 22nd, though. Awadewit | talk 06:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nit-picking from Unimaginative Username[edit]

Hamlet is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, believed written between 1599 and 1601. -- literally means that W. Shakespeare was written between 1599 and 1601. To say that Hamlet was written between etc., rm the comma. If that sounds funny, go ahead and fill in the ellipsis:

"Hamlet is a tragedy by William Shakespeare that is believed to have been written between 1599 and 1601."

. If you still wish to ellipsize the sentence, the comma stays out as in the full-worded example:

"Hamlet is a tragedy by William Shakespeare believed written between 1599 and 1601."
I would still keep, at the very least, "to have been", but prefer the full sentence. Usually, brevity is better, but not if it leads either to ambiguity or stumbling. I didn't "fixitmyself" because with so much editing happening, it might be better just to add this input to the mix. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the comma, use "which", which differentiates "it" (the tragedy) from "who" (Shake): "Hamlet is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, which was believed written between 1599 and 1601." Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. "William Shakespeare's Hamlet is a tragedy, believed written between 1599 and 1601." --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps the brevity while removing any possible stumbles. Well done, Sir! Unimaginative Username (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rumble (1994)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to pass a Good Article review. I would appreciate any suggestions that would help its chances of passing the review as well as any other feedback that you feel would be helpful. Thanks, GaryColemanFan 15:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's looking good. There are a couple of websites used as sources that I have never heard of. I'm not asking you to argue their case or anything, but make sure they aren't fansites, dirtsheets, and they have a staff of writers who fact check. Nikki311 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked over the websites, and I think they all seem okay. Nothing really screamed DIRTSHEET to me. You might want to ask the project, as some of them may be more familiar with the sites that you have used. Nikki311 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just posted this exact thing on the peer review for King of the Ring (1994): the lead must be sourced. Even if the information is sourced in the body of the article, the lead must also be sourced as it is the first time the information is mentioned. Nikki311 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Ring (1994)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential to reach GA status. I would like to nominate it, and I would appreciate any opinions about the quality of the article and any improvements that can be made. Thanks, GaryColemanFan 18:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is unsourced. Even if information is sourced in the body of the article, it needs to also be sourced in the lead. Nikki311 —Preceding comment was added at 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Manchester City F.C. managers[edit]

The latest in the long line of List of X F.C. managers articles to aim for featured list status. It has a longer prose section than most articles of this type, so I'd like feedback on that part of the article in particular. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi Oldelpaso, here you go...

  • Odd position for image placement, particularly on narrow width screens, I'd put it right at the top...
    • Done.
  • Joined the football league - which division?
    • Done.
  • "...any other man." odd phrase...
  • A couple of choppy bits of prose, consider flowing:
    • "During Peter Swales' time as Manchester City chairman the tenure of managers was frequently short-lived." and "Between 1973 and 1994 Swales appointed eleven managers.[10]"
    • "Les McDowall became manager in 1950, and managed the Blues for more League seasons than any other man.[7]" and "His achievements peaked with an FA Cup triumph in 1956." etc..
  • "upturn" and "downturn" in a single sentence reads rather awkwardly.
    • Reworded.
  • "...with friend ..." cite friendship as this has undertones of nepotism.
    • I've removed it. Like large proportions of the Manchester City support and many a journalist, I firmly believe it was nepotism (how else to explain the appointment of a relegation specialist who he had known since his schooldays?), but of course in this context it is giving undue weight to a particular point of view.
  • "setting club records for goalscoring in the process" - such as? citation required.
    • Cited and made more specific.
  • 6th July 2006- 6 July, 2007.
    • Done.
  • Why isn't the table sortable and similar to the other FLC's, utilising {{sortname}} and {{dts2}}?
    • Because the sorting syntax confuses me :) I'll read up on the instructions.
      • Now fully sortnamed and dts2'd (thanks for the info Struway!). {{nts}} can wait a while, there's only so much repetitive template work one can do in a single sitting.
  • It's not going to hold it back, but I'd consider writing a stub for the league cup final which is currently red-linked.
  • Frizzell started before McNeil ended?
    • Upon doublechecking, the date for McNeill was wrong. Fixed.
  • What happened between January and July 1979?
    • A grey area. Allison returned in a coaching position in January, and Book's title changed to "general manager". Allison became manager in the traditional sense in July, but Book still held the title of general manager until October 1980. The Hall of Fame book states "Peter Swales brought Malcolm Allison back as a "coaching overlord" in 1979 and although [Book] was still officially the team manager Allison was given the authority to control the destiny of the Blues on the pitch." I'll put Book until July with an explanation in the text, and check the statistics.
  • Consider a notes column for the various references which are currently dotted around.
  • Use en-dash for page ranges in the references.
    • Done.

I'm done, for now. Hope the comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the League era. Why capital l? Plus further uses later on.
    • I generally use League when referring to The Football League as a proper noun, and league when using the word as a common noun.
      • I understand why you've done it, but the League isn't a proper noun, it's The Football League that's a proper noun. If you use just the league to refer to The Football League you can still wikilink it but I would opt for a lower case l. Peanut4 (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of October 2007. Sven Goran Erikkson was appointed in July was he not?
    • Its an As of... in the WP:ASOF sense. I've reworded the sentence to clarify.
  • Tom Maley became first Manchester City manager. I presume there's a missing the in here. I would also change one of the win / won later in that sentence.
    • Yes, a typographical error. I've removed the "won.
  • Over time Mercer's assistant Malcolm Allison gained influence Seems a bit vague to me this.
  • How about adding flags for the manager's nationality in the table as other lists - and hence backing up the point about Sven Goran Erikkson.
    • I'm not a fan of putting flags everywhere, but as the featured lists all have a nationality column containing flags I will follow suit.
      • I wouldn't add flags just to follow suit. If you don't like them then they're strictly not necessary. Peanut4 (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the history section is good and no problems about it being longer than any other such lists. Peanut4 (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)
  • By 1889 the club had moved to Hyde Road and renamed to Ardwick A.F.C. the renamed to is ungrammatical.
    • Reworded.
  • the tenure of managers was frequently short-lived Can you have short-lived tenure? brief, perhaps.
    • Reworded.
  • You have Magnall, linking to Ernest Magnall which redirects to J. Ernest Mangnall, with an extra 'n'. Which is it?
    • As is sometimes the case with figures from that era, sources are inconsistent. After looking through my books, Mangnall appears to be the more common spelling, so I've changed it. Sam Omerod/Ormerod is another of these, but in his case it is about fifty-fifty.
  • Does the Swales era need more referencing?
  • You might want to split the 1996-97 season sentence into two.
  • To sort the names, if you use {{sortname}} for the ones with articles, and for the others format e.g. Frederick Hopkinson as <span style="display:none">Hopkinson Frederick</span>Frederick Hopkinson , that should sort the unlinked ones on the (non-displaying) surname-first version and display only the surname-last version.
  • I always ask people if they really need dashes in otherwise-empty honours column entries.
  • have the courage of your convictions and leave out the flags, I would ;-)

IMO, your lengthy managerial summary provides balance to the article, so that prose and table are complementary, excellent standard for us to try and live up to. hope some of the above helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more things,

  • You might want the numbers centred rather than left-justified.
  • If you want to italicise the nationality for caretakers, it works if you put apostrophes round the template (sorry if I'm telling you something you already know). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks all, the article is definitely stronger after your comments. I am now going to submit it to FLC. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shapinsay[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed GA and I would like to see it become a Featured Article in the near future. I'm looking for suggestions to help achieve that.


Thanks,

Lurker (said · done) 15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jza84:

Generally a sound article, broad in coverage, (almost-)neutral in prose and has a good layout. There are a few issues though that need addressing should this article be going for FA in the near future:

  • Images shouldn't generally have their size set when accompanying text - that tier of formatting should be removed (see WP:IMAGE and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images).
  • According to Orkney, (and a cursory look at Google!) "Orkney islands" should be capitalised to Orkney Islands.
  • Perhaps link Scottish baronial style in the lead? I wasn't sure if it was a real style of architecture.
  • Shapinsay has a population of 300 - source for verification should be made clearer from the start.
  • Geology and Flora and Fauna (perhaps itself renamed to Ecology?) become subsections of Geography? They are sub-studies of geography.
  • Demographics should be renamed Demography. Demographics is poor grammar, and the other sections would otherwise be named Histographics, Geographics, and Economics.
  • Lots of stubby one-sentence paragraphs, which are a no-no for FAC.
  • Per WP:MOSDATE (and WP:HEAD) 18th Century should be titled 18th century. Under Folklore, 1905 should be unlinked.
  • "Balfour Castle dominates the south-west of the island" - I know what you mean, but perhaps describe how. Is it in terms of built environment, or land use. "It is also the first building that visitors arriving on the ferry will see" - I'm being pedantic, but how can you be sure? Are there never exceptional circumstances (mist, night, vision impairment, change of course)? The statement isn't quite supported by the source.
  • There is alot of grammatical redundancy and innocent POV. "The highest point of Ward Hill is only 64 metres (210 ft) above sea level" - 'only is neither helpful, neutral or needed. Other words like "still, many, also, greatly, only, much, has, some", are all symptomatic of a lack of a copy-edit.

I hope these points help rather than hinder. They are, of course, just suggestions, -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I don't agree with it all, but have implemented a lot of your suggestions. Lurker (said · done) 12:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Chalukya Architecture[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the Western Chalukya architecture is an important topic in the development of South Indian architecture. The Western Chalukya architecture of 11th and 12th centuries is considered a conceptual link between the 8th century architecture of the Badami Chalukyas and the Hoysala architecture of the 12th and 13th centuries. All three idioms flourished in medieval Karnataka, southern India. The topic is well referenced, cited and follows a similar style as the FA - Hoysala architecture that I wrote earlier. Please provide constructive feedback on format, grammar and presentation.

Thanks, Dineshkannambadi 20:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow! another gem from the DK factory! Have not yet gone through the article. ooks to be all set for FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine de' Medici's building projects[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because architecture isn't my field (history is; and art, a little bit) and I need to know if the article contains any bloopers and if it reads coherently. I originally dipped into this subject only to help me fill in the arts section of the Catherine de' Medici article. It's a blurry and difficult area because most of the architecture hasn't survived. Late sixteenth-century French architecture and art are murky fields altogether (but all the more reason to try and bring them into focus). I quickly realised that I could only hope to get a handle on this subject if I read up on it properly; as I did so, I became more and more fascinated, and this article began to emerge, growing in prickly layers like coral. I'd really like to make it a featured article, if I can; but first I need to know if it's in the ball park and what needs to improve. Many thanks in advance to anyone who reviews it.

Thanks,

qp10qp 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just wanted to let you know that I saw this and I will be giving it a read in the next week. Am exhausted at the moment... Awadewit | talk 08:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My goodness. That is the shortest script assessment I've ever seen. That means you've avoided all the usual traps, I think. Impressive! Carcharoth 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, knock me down with a feather, a Sandy review! I've always thought you were avoiding me. With your eye for formatting, this should be shipshape in a jiffy, and no mistake.
I've kicked off the article properly now, per your advice (smacks one's wrist).
I've shortened the captions as much as I can. I like to make captions meaty and characterful, where possible, but I notice that guideline urges succinctness, which is a shame, given this is such a visual article (I couldn't cut much out of that Silvestre caption, because the explanation there is so bound with the drawing). I suppose I had put the full stops in to avoid inconsistency. Anyway, I have now followed the guideline (drat it), with full stops for full sentences and none for fragments, though I had to torture the syntax in places, where a sentence fragment had preceded a full sentence! --qp10qp 05:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course I avoid you on review; your articles are usually perfect :-) No, no, no, I didn't mean you needed to shorten the captions, I only meant to remove punctuation from the very short sentence fragment captions! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the "avoid periods at the end of image captions" only applies to "extended phrases" (whatever they are), and not complete sentences. My rule of thumb is that if the caption is long enough, or complex enough, to need punctuation (eg. commas), then finish it with a period. It jars my copyediting eye to see a sentence with a comma in it and no period at the end. I would prefer to see the captions rewritten as sentences and a period used, but others may differ in their opinion on this.
I'm also in favour of detailed captions, as relying on readers to click through to the image page to find out things is not good practice, in my opinion. See Wikipedia:Captions for more details on how to write a short-but-still-detailed caption. Sometimes making the picture bigger makes a large caption less overwhelming, but then the section needs to be large enough to accomodate that larger picture. If there is something in the picture that would warrant a paragraph in the article, then my all means do this, but keep the picture close to the text. Also, for historical pictures, the origin of the pictures is sometimes important encylopedic information. Carcharoth 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to have a timeline or list of some sort within the article? The lead does list four of the projects, but the article mentions two more. It would be nice to have a reasonably comprehensive listing in one place if possible? Also, if there are other free pictures of the buildings or projects, could a Commons category be created and linked? Carcharoth 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this. I haven't seen a timeline and would have to make one up myself with original thought. As the article indicates in places, it is not always clear who designed what or how they overlapped; the timing is actually quite vague in places. It is easier to hedge around this in prose than in a line. A new category on commons is a good idea, and I'll do it next time I upload some pictures.qp10qp 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my replies there. qp10qp 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggested locations for a map would be:

Three Paris locations (maybe a close-up map with a map of France for the above three?):

Please add any more that might be useful. Failing a map, you could provide a table of geographical co-ordinates, and people can go and look at the places on Google Maps. The still-existing chateaux can be clearly seen. Carcharoth 08:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider a map but thought it would look very dull—you would have Paris and some dots around it, with Blois, Chambord, and Chenonceau a bit further down to the left. Another thing is that whereas the chateaux close to Paris were in the country, these days they are in greater Paris, even Fontainebleau. Still, a map would do no harm, I suppose, and wouldn't take long. When I build up the article on Charles IX, I am looking forward to doing a map of his progress (in fact, I'd like to do an article on that progress itself one day, because it was the last of the great French royal progresses and was spectacular—thanks of course to Catherine, who masterminded it). qp10qp 16:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel the need for a map of the Tuileries/Louvre/Pont Neuf. I haven't found one of Catherine's time, though. I would have to create an original-thought map which removed material from later maps to show what the situation might have been in Catherine's time. And the trouble is, I don't think we know, really. I suspect that more was built than we think, or else how could Catherine have held the grand ball at the Tuileries for the Poles? The only evidence we have is du Cerceau, who is well known to be unreliable, plus the parts of de l'Orme and Bullant's wings that survived to the nineteenth century, each of which fitted a different plan (de l'Orme's for a self-contained building and Bullant's for an extension towards the Seine and a putative galerie. I think it's all too fugitive for a map.qp10qp 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, I'm not sure all of our readers know that all of these places are little dots near Paris. :) That kind of visual information is useful, I think. Other maps for later articles sound good as well, but even a small, if necessarily incomplete, map of Paris and its environs would be good for this one, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 07:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Will do. qp10qp 22:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit[edit]

  • The first paragraph seems abrupt - the sentences don't quite flow together.
No, they were rather pushed together in response to a comment above. The opening is rewritten now, but it's still rubbish. I'm hoping it will gradually get better as new wordings occur to me. qp10qp 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. I usually leave the rewriting of the lead until I have finished redrafting the article. Awadewit | talk 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In particular, she launched a series of grand building projects. Catherine's aim as a builder was to enhance the grandeur of the Valois monarchy at all costs. - Valois comes out of the blue for the uninformed reader - the name needs to be attached to the people mentioned somehow
Changed to just "monarchy". qp10qp 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She grew up as an orphan in Florence and Rome under the wing of the Medici popes, Leo X and Clement VII. - Perhaps "orphan" is a bit too poetic?
I dunno, since I've been reading that Mary Shelley, I don't know what's come over me. The word "orphan" cut in two places.qp10qp 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Architecture was Catherine's favourite art form. She supervised each project personally.[1] The architects of the day wrote books on the subject knowing that she would read them. The poet Ronsard accused her of preferring masons to poets.[2] Catherine spent colossal sums on the building and embellishment of palaces. - Too many small, punctuated sentences in a row (and the first one strikes me as simplistic somehow).
I think I spotted that myself and dropped the Ronsard line to notes even before I read this comment. The sentences are a bit longer now, and one of them may even have turned into too much of a whopper. I want to keep the point about architecture being her favourite art form, because it partly justifies this article. There's much less information about Catherine and the other arts; without the valve of this article, the planned article on Catherine and the arts would have to be terribly unbalanced in favour of architecture. qp10qp 02:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there is a more elegant way to say "favourite art form"? It sounds like "favourite ice cream flavour", if you know what I mean. Too lowly for something so grandiose as architecture. Awadewit | talk 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've dropped that. Her enthusiasm for architecture in any case comes over well enough.qp10qp 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This meeting of Italian mannerism and French patronage bred an original style, later known as the first school of Fontainebleau. - Could you offer a sentence or two describing the style? (Also, I noticed that sometimes "mannerism" is capitalized in the article and sometimes it isn't. I think it should be, since it is a specific style, right?)
All capitalised now, I think.qp10qp 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence or two describing the school of Fontainebleau is a tall order, so I've just added the physical aspect, which I believe is fairly recognisable. Art criticism, though, seems to implode on contact with Mannerism and the school of Fontainebleau, so no two people define it the same way.qp10qp 02:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have run into that problem with Mannerism myself and one of my art history professors even mentioned it as one of interesting facts about the "style". Can you just pick a definition from a well-respect art historian, like Gombrich? Awadewit | talk 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the plastic distinctiveness is now shown. Of course, though the school is Mannerist, it is a sufficiently idiosyncratic offshoot not to be covered by definitions of Mannerism in themselves. If I find another good definition, I'll add it. (I'm finding this fascinating, by the way, having until very recently found Mannerism and all its offshoots aberrational and inferior. Now I'm starting to understand—just. Not so much a lightbulb being switched on as a series of candles being lit in a cathedral of tiny mirrors.) qp10qp 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about adding a few sentences at the beginning of the "Valois Chapel" section to prepare the reader for the three subsections and unify the whole section?
Done.qp10qp 20:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The circular design allowed the royal tomb to be viewed in the round. This solved the problems faced by the Giusti brothers and Philibert de l'Orme, who had built previous royal tombs - What problems?
I've added an explanation, based on Blunt's analysis. The older tombs were only designed to be viewed front on or side on, apparently, which meant that the design did not work when seen from intermediate angles.qp10qp 17:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the monuments built for the chapel have survived. - Since this is a new section, remind the reader which chapel we are talking about.
Done. Thanks: I'm blind to this sort of thing. 17:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • His style has been interpreted as a reflection of a society torn by religious conflict and civil war. - The reader will need a bit of an explanation about the historical events - a sentence or two with wikilinks, I think would be sufficient.
I've added a wikilink and a clearer reference to the French Wars of Religion, but I am reluctant to further unbalance what is intended as an interpretive rather than a documentary paragraph. I will see about adding something about the civil wars (which are horribly difficult to summarise) to the lead.qp10qp 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something about the civil war to the lead. But the sources do not actually elaborate on the point that Pilon's style reflected a society torn by war, etc., so I must resist souping up the synthesis. However, it seems to be a commonplace (the point is also made about other artists, for example the painters Caron and Cousin, and I think there's something in it). There's surprisingly little analysis available, at least in English, on Pilon. Amazon produces no books in English with his name in the title, and only two obscure French ones! I've a feeling that Blunt and Zerner, whom I have, are as good as it gets. (I think I'm outawadewiting Awadewit in the obscurity of my subject here!) qp10qp
I don't know if these two rather obscure sources would help at all or if you would be able to get them, but they are what my library has:
  • Germain Pilon et les sculpteurs français de la Renaissance : actes du colloque organisé au musée du Louvre par le service culturel les 26 et 27 octobre 1990 / sous la direction de Geneviève Bresc-Bautier
  • Germain Pilon, par Jean Babelon ... biographie et catalogue critiques, l'oeuvre complète de l'artiste reproduite en quatre-vingt-deux héliogravures
Sometimes these kinds of things have little bits that are helpful. Awadewit | talk 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Yes that first one is one of the two on Amazon, not that they're available. The Babelon is a 1927 book that I think is taken into account by Zerner and Blunt. Of course, it may have a vivid phrase or two of its own. I'm pretty confident that I've read all the best sources, though, since I took Knecht's bibliographical essay as my guide. I remember you saying that eighteenth-century children's literature was a scholarly black hole, and I'm sure French art of the second half of the sixteenth century offers similar opportunities for scholars. Knecht says that Blunt is still the standard work, which considering he wrote in 1957 seems to me amazing. It's clear to me that the subject is full of black holes and grey areas and, I suspect, flat-out misinterpretations.qp10qp 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Marshal Tavannes, she planned the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in the Tuileries gardens, where she would not be overheard. - Explain in a phrase or two what the massacre was.
Done. qp10qp 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another of Catherine's projects was the palace of Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, to the south-east of Paris. - Beginning an entire section with "another" is weak, I think.
Fixed. qp10qp 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about writing an "Overview" section? Is there a reason for the ordering of the sections, for example? Right now, they seem like a list. It would be nice if they flowed into each other better. An overview might guide the reader a bit better through the article.
It's difficult to write an overview because I can't find many general statements about her architectural projects, other than that they were expensive and largely haven't survived. (I would love to essay an original-thought analysis, though, because one reason I became so fascinated with these projects was the insight I think they give into Catherine's whole strange, difficult-to-grasp career. The relatively random and opportunistic approach, the abandonings and switches of attention, the reversals of policy, the grandiosity, the acting from hope rather than realism, the lack of foresight—all these are deeply typical of her political career too. But no one makes this point, so shucks!)
Despite the lack of sources to help with an overview, the article does have a carefully thought-out scheme. It starts with influences, and the last influence it mentions is that of the death of Catherine's husband. For that reason, the article goes straight to the tomb and chapel in Henry's honour: in that section it moves from the greater design (architecture) via the tomb-work to the particular (statues). I couldn't find much out about Montceaux, but since Catherine had the grotto built for Henry there, I put that next. As that work was done by de l'Orme, I moved on in the next section to de l'Orme's major work for Catherine, the Tuileries, begun shortly after Henry's death. The story this section tells leads the reader from de l'Orme to Bullant, who took over and changed the style. It was natural then to move on to the Hôtel de la Reine, Bullant's own great project. I can't find much about Saint-Maur, but since there is a theory that this was worked on by Bullant at the end of his life, I added it next. That section also gave an opportunity to start to focus on du Cerceau, since he brought out his two famous albums of plans in 1576 and 1579. His drawings then lead us on to Chenonceau, another Bullant project but known through du Cerceau's drawings. Since so much at Chenonceau was to do with gardens, this last main section opens the article out, I feel, at the end of a sequence of main projects: chapel, unfinished palace, finished palace, palace and gardens. Despite the overlaps, this more or less represents a chronological progression, since Chenonceau was the last project that Catherine began. qp10qp 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you can't do what you want (too bad!), I think a partitio or "roadmap" of the article would help the reader. Awadewit | talk 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking a map might be nice, too, showing where all of these different places are (might I recommend User:Kmusser).
See my comments to Carcharoth higher up. I'm not keen, but I intend to do a map for the Catherine article, and that will show these places, so I could add the same map here then.qp10qp 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the images bleed into the next section on my screen - I think it looks tidier when they don't do that. It is also easier to tell what section of the article they are illustrating. You might think about repositioning some of them. Awadewit | talk 07:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's depressing, because I aligned the images with the text and made sure they were on the correct side of the section divisions. Needless to say it all looks perfect to me. I've just tried putting "clear" templates in, but they wrecked things, so I don't know what to do. I'll maybe ask Scartol or Carch (though they didn't mention this). 19:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it is depressing. Sometimes I go around campus looking at pages I've worked on to see how they look on Internet Explorer and other browsers. :) Awadewit | talk 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you do this late at night, carrying a candelabra? qp10qp 22:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for these very useful and perceptive comments. I'm going to have to get to them in a few days, because I am locked into John Knox copyediting and reviewing at the moment (what did you get me into there!). I need to stick at that or I'll never get it done. Knox has the potential for an FA, though, so it's worth it. I'll drop you a line when I address your points. qp10qp 14:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting there, definitely.qp10qp 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by D. Recorder[edit]

First off I'd like to say that this is a very interesting article, is well written and illustrated, and I would support it at FAC. As a subpage of Catherine de Medici, there is a slight essay aspect that seems inescapable for subpages, yet, due to the fact that it is of high quality and overall interest I'm looking past that. As this page attests, the Medicis were prodigious art and architecture patrons [1] shows and links to some of their villas. One project that springs to mind that I couldn't find in this article that might be worth noting, is the Medici Chapel. I'm wondering if there may be some relationship worth noting in the influences or in the statuary of Valois section. There is mention of the Valois chapel's debt to Michelangelo in the figures, but I'm really seeing the composition of the two reclining figures divided by an elevated central one owing to the figures of the New Sacristy[2] of the IMedici chapel, in the tomb of Catherine's father Lorenzo, also sculpted by Michelangelo. I know it is blurry but this picture shows the composition,[3], compare with [4] Here is an example that says that Valois was an imitation of her family's chapel in Florence.[5] However, most important for this article is clearly defining and describing Catherine's role in the buildings and projects that she helped create, much more so than hypotheses about influences, which may be interesting, but the details of her commissioning of projects are paramount to this article. D. Recorder 22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as an essay aspect is concerned, I'm not aware of arguing anything on my own account; as you know, sources for architecture, and particularly for sculpture, contain arguments and aesthetic interpretations, so I feel that it's OK to sample these so long as they are well referenced. I've deliberately omitted the more excessive theories of Henri Zerner and Jean-Pierre Babelon, though, which are somewhat too arty farty to be encyclopedic.
Even though I built up this article after researching for the arts section of the Catherine de' Medici article, I don't regard it as a sub-article. I regard it as a main article, with a summary (not written yet) in the other article. The title may seem a bit clumsy or subtitly, but this results from the uniqueness of Wikipedia, in my opinion, where articles overlap and partake of each other on separate pages. The more Wikipedia grows, the more pages like this there must be. qp10qp 21:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any specific mention of influences from the Medici Chapel, but, of course, Primaticcio, who designed the Valois Chapel, was Italian and must surely have been aware of such precedents. Great spot about the sacristy!!!!! It really is hard to believe that these statues weren't an influence, given that they relate to her father. We know that Catherine tried to commission Michelangelo to sculpt an equestrian statue of Henry II after the latter's death. She must have known him in Florence, too, where he helped with siege defences against the empire when she was a girl. Anyway, I've added that Michelangelo designed the tomb and statues for Catherine's father; I don't think I need a source for that, since the tomb is, in effect, the source, and it's a factual statement rather than a value judgement (infuriatingly, I couldn't bring up any extracts in your link to the Batiffol book). qp10qp 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following the links, I was intrigued to come across pictures of the Medici villa at Poggio a Caiano, because Catherine often stayed there as a girl (she took refuge there when rebels took over Florence, and they came and removed her from the villa and stuck her in a convent for three years). I can see elements in the design that remind me of de l'Orme's mixture of classical and Renaissance styles. I don't know of any documentation of the specific connection, though, of the sort we have for the influence of the Pitti Palace and the Uffizi. It's fascinating to see what that villa looked like. For some reason, it never occurred to me to look it up.qp10qp
On the general point about Catherine's commissioning, I have included what information I can find. For example there are the quotes from de l'Orme, both in the text and the notes. He is valuable in telling us about her involvement in his schemes, but we can only piece together much of her commissioning and changes of plans. qp10qp 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From §Montceaux:

  • For this commission, Philibert de l'Orme built her a "grotto". - Why is grotto in quotes?
Fixed. qp10qp 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From §Chenonceau:

  • In return, she gave Diane the less lovely chateau of Chaumont.[59] "less lovely" sounds like pov, like an aesthetic judgement. If it was Catherine's pov then make that clear.
This was from a source. Another book says "less delightful", another says "less desirable". I am considering cutting it, in view of what you say, but I hesitate because the lack of a value judgement at this point may make the reader wonder why this was a bad thing for Diane. I don't think we have any record of the two women's opinions, but clearly they both preferred Chenonceau to Chaumont. qp10qp 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've come to a decision and changed it to "less prized". qp10qp 23:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reading, I noticed two prose details that I thought might need emending. D. Recorder 22:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these comments. Very much appreciated. I will be addressing them, along with those of other reviewers, in a few days, when I should have the time. qp10qp 05:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scartol[edit]

Smashing work as always. I like reviewing articles like this because I don't have to think too much about deconstructing the larger structure. Some idle comments:

  • A philosophical question: What, in your mind, are the risks of referring to her as a "builder"? I usually associate that term with the people who actually do the grunt work. (How many bricks did Jefferson himself lay into Monticello?) Obviously a much larger question than what appears here, but I'm interested to know your thoughts.
I've cut down the use of this form now: Francis is still called a compulsive builder once, and the word "build" is still used twice in connection to Catherine. It's a normal enough usage, I think, which appears often in the sources. On the philosophical question, the masons, of course, do the building (not even the architects), so I suppose this is a form of shorthand. Ronsard says "The queen must cease building", but he throws in a jibe at the masons and stone carvers as well. qp10qp 18:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: Is it incongruous (or perhaps even subconsciously discriminatory) to refer to the male architects as "du Cerceau" and "de l'Orme", while referring to de Medici as "Catherine"? This is not a rhetorical question; I'm curious to have your take on it.
It's just the way it's done. We do the same with male monarchs: "Francis instructed de l'Orme to..." qp10qp 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, I realized that about an hour after I posted the comment. My bad. – Scartol · Talk 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Francis set his daughter-in-law an example of magnificence… I know this is technically appropriate, but it sure makes me stumble as a reader. Is there some more "just folks" way to put it?
Changed to "an example of kingship and artistic patronage that she never forgot". qp10qp 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I actually meant the first part. How about "Francis set an example for his daughter-in-law…"? – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influences

  • Maybe a word of nationality and/or profession to situate Jean-Pierre Babelon?
Done. qp10qp 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though she kept in touch with her native Florence, her taste matured at the court of Francis I. Which was where? Also, Francis I links to a disambig.
Geographicalisationed and fixed. qp10qp 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She later copied Francis' policy of setting the grandeur of the dynasty in stone, whatever the cost. I'd love a concrete example here. (That's a pun too! Get it? Concrete? Har!)
Checking my three source pages for the point that Francis' building policy influenced Catherine's, I find that none of them give a concrete example at this point. I assume that he influenced all her projects and so I've decided not to add one particular example here. qp10qp 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the Louvre, he began extension works that continued throughout Catherine's lifetime. This sort of makes it sound like he worked specifically during her lifetime for some reason. Is this the case? If not, probably best to clarify.
Dropped part of this to a note. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He added a wing to the old… This begins three sentences which all begin the same way, without transition words – stylistically vivid, but will probably raise hackles at FAC. (I'm curious to know if this is intentional, or the result of the piecemeal origins of the article?)
I've mixed this up a bit. It was intentional: I suppose I like simple declarative sentences, to use a Hemingwayism. The piecemeal build-up of the article is no excuse for anything, as I've revised the prose several times; so mea culpa. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • …and took as her emblem a broken lance. I'd much prefer: "took a broken lance as her emblem." Feels more natural to me.
I did this to avoid chance of a miscue. qp10qp 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. – Scartol · Talk 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No interpretation on that, eh? I saw a Freudian reading a mile away. :) Awadewit | talk 23:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the blockquote at the end of this section be in a slightly smaller type?
Well, it is smaller in my font. I don't know if someone has changed it since you pointed this out.qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Windows (at least the setup I have at school) renders blockquotes strangely. I must have been reading this at school. Sorry for the confusion. Mea culpa on me this time. – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valois Chapel

  • …Catherine decided to add a new chapel to the Basilica of Saint Denis… Oops! Should I have left basilica uncapitalized?
I wouldn't call it an "oops" because a lot of thought has been wasted on these decisions. I was struck by the fact that in French this is "Basilique Saint Denis", without the "de", and so I wondered if the whole thing has to count as a name. But the best way round this is probably just to call it "Saint Denis", which I might do. Actually, this is a move I'm considering for the chateaux, too. Just "Chambord", or whatever. qp10qp 06:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a few c words and made all b words lowercase, since I noticed that it is done like that in Zerner, whose publisher is French. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems like a fair approach. – Scartol · Talk 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if this note would be better represented with the title and page # first?
Done. Actually, I've now got a copy of the English translation of Zerner and was expecting to convert these Knecht quotes of Zerner into direct ones, but, blow me, I can't find them or anything like them in the translated edition, so I am sticking to Knecht's translation of the original French. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, ever since I made that comment, I've been finding footnotes in books which follow the opposite model (comments first, page # last). Yeesh! Pick a style, ivory tower! – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Catherine is sculpted in a rounded style, while Henry is posed strikingly, with his head thrown back. This sentence feels incongruent – Catherine's described in terms of the roundness of the style, while Henry is described vis a vis his positioning. Maybe I just don't follow what's being said. (I can be dense sometimes.)
Yes, that incongruence is in the source; I'll find a better wording. qp10qp 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the first part to say that Catherine is sculpted as if asleep (Zerner), which matches better with the second half, I think. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primaticcio's decorations at Fontainebleau seems to have influenced Pilon more than earlier French sculpture. Unclear: His decorations influenced Pilon more than earlier French sculpture did, or His decorations influenced Pilon more than they influenced earlier French sculpture?
Tweaked this and brought in the Goujon point after a semicolon, to make the sense sharper. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuileries

  • After the death of Henry II, Catherine abandoned the palace of the Tournelles, where Henry had lain after a lance fatally pierced his eye and brain in a joust. Could not the two parts of this sentence about Henry be combined?
I don't think so. I don't mind restating a subject where it is necessary. The only way to simplify here, I think, would be to split the sentence into two sentences rather than conflating. But this would involve restatement too. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your judgment on it. – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This arrogant genius had been sacked as surintendant… Isn't this POV? And I think it would be less awkward in any case to say: "An arrogant genius, he had been sacked…" And if we're not using château, then how is surintendant allowed? =)
I knew that if I just said he was sacked, someone might asked why; but I don't think this is known. A source said that he was arrogant and upset people, which is why I added it. I am not of the school that believes words like this this (or "lovely") are POV—not if they can be justified by the sources (why should Wikipedia be different from scholarly sources in its use of affective language?). But I might add quotes to the notes for these two, then, to show that I wasn't just getting carried away myself.qp10qp 06:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a note calling him "haughty" to the one calling him "arrogant". I think that nails the "arrogant" home and I'll be happy to argue the point. I've read some of his writings and, to lapse into original thought for a moment, I'd say that "arrogant" is an understatement. He visits Rome, for example, and goes round pointing out how the great classical and Renaissance architects might have done a better job if only they had understood architecture properly. Like him. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think making the distinction somehow is all that's called for. I agree that we're right to use affective language, but I also know there are some very strict NPOVers out there who bristle if it isn't fascistically demarcated. (Hey, I made up a word.) – Scartol · Talk 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously failed in my explanation at the top of the article's talk page that even if I used "château", it would be as a naturalised English word. "Surintendant" is a French word, so it is not comparable. Nothing wrong with using French words, and both "surintendant" (French) and "château" (English) are used alongside each other in the sources. You see why it would be unwise for me to re-add the circumflex; because then people would equate "château" with "surintendant", on the grounds that they were both French words. And the italicising would set in. I am going to adopt Awadewit's suggestion about putting a note on the edit page.
But there is an easy way round this particular word, because I have also seen "surintendant" given as "chief architect", so I shall use that. Translating it as "superindendent", by the way, is not an option for me, partly because I have not seen this done and partly because in England it's the name of a police rank, which would add an unwanted nuance (but it gives me the idea for a mystery series about a sixteenth-century architectural French detective. Maybe instead of being sacked, de l'Orme was sent undercover by Catherine de' Med to find out who was sabotaging all her building projects and solve the many assassination mysteries of the French wars of religion. qp10qp 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, yeah. I do think "chief architect" would work better. The distinction in this paragraph above does make sense, but I think the average reader would still get thrown to see the one and not the other. – Scartol · Talk 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have now found "superintendent" used, so I'm going for that. And, give the cat another goldfish, I've put the chapeaux back on the châteaux into the bargain. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like my asinine peevishness needs encouragement. – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you stopped short of jejunosity. qp10qp 23:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He notes, however, that in this case he added… the "he"s are getting confusing. Do they all refer to de l'Orme?
Added another marker.qp10qp 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added another Bullant link, since it had been a while.
  • Only a part of de l’Orme’s scheme was ever built. This consisted of the lower section of a central pavilion, containing an oval staircase, and a wing on either side. I'd enjoy seeing these combined with a colon and the removal of "This consisted of".
Good call. Done. qp10qp 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • De l'Orme's original plans do not survive. "Have not survived"?
Done. qp10qp 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well as flowerbeds, they included… This is totally WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but this construction has always irked me. Maybe: "In addition to flowerbeds…"?
I've cut flowerbeds. I mean, what gardens wouldn't have flowerbeds (Well, Zen gardens, I admit. And octopuses' gardens, maybe)?
Water garden? (I admit, I went looking.) – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the remaining four sections this evening. (If all goes to plan.) – Scartol · Talk 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review and comments much appreciated. I'll get to all the stuff on this page in a few days, when I'll have the time. I've also got to finish copyediting and reviewing John Knox first (the things that Awadewit gets us into!). qp10qp 05:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Maur

  • The house was to stay single-storeyed… This may be technically correct, but it sure looks awkward. How about: "The house was to remain as one story…"?
Done.qp10qp 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hôtel de la Reine

  • I think without a wikilink (I assume there's no page on it) we need a touch of explanation of what the Bourse de Commerce is?
That's a bit tricky, because I haven't any good sources. I've made a red link for the time being and might translate the French wikipedia article sometime. qp10qp 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The staircase inside leads to a platform that holds three persons… Capable of holding three persons, or holding three statues or figures? Maybe it's just me, but given the earlier descriptions of molded person-figures, this might need clarification.
Changed to "can hold". qp10qp 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

  • Are those en dashes after sixteenth and seventeenth? WP:MOS doesn't have anything on it, but I was under the impression that this is done with hyphens.
Good spot. Can't even remember doing that. Will sort anon. qp10qp 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. qp10qp 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on this, and for calling me in; I enjoyed reading it! – Scartol · Talk 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)#[reply]

Some highly useful points and spots. Thanks for taking the trouble. Much appreciated. qp10qp 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume a lack of response from me to your replies above indicate they look good from here. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa the Simpson[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have someone else's opinion on how to improve this article in case I'd like to nominate it for FAC some day. Thanks, ✗iℎi✗(talk) 00:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs exspanding. Buc 12:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although some people (without thinking thru the consequences) have condemned linking to other pop culture articles, this article not only needs links to the articles on the other major Simpson's characters, but probably a disambig link at the top explaining that this is about the episode, not the character. Okay, I admit I thought this article might be about the character -- but only because I've seen some poorly written Wikipedia articles, & as hard as I try to assume good faith, people do make some embarassingly bad mistakes in Wikipedia articles, so one never truly knows. -- llywrch 00:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-operatives UK[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, as with Pauline Green, I have substantially expanded it and would appreciate a fresh pair of eyes looking at it.


Thanks,

JonStrines 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - will get to work on them. JonStrines 09:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salem witch trials[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been doing a lot of editing to improve it over the past two months, and I need some feedback by more experienced Wikipedians to give me an idea what I still need to work on. I've added a good assortment of images, cleaned up the prose, migrated some sections into articles of their own, included many citations, etc. I'm just not clear where the article stands now, by Wikipedia standards, so that I can figure out what else needs to be done.


Thanks,

Ogram 13:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 UEFA Champions League Final[edit]

I'm going to try a model this on 2007 UEFA Champions League Final. But since this was a far more eventful match that may not be enough so I'm giving it this PR too. Buc 12:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few quick points from a skim read.
  • The article needs a very good copy edit. There's lots of typos, spelling mistakes and capitals in middle of words. I reckon it needs bring into line with WP:MOS. I'm sure 1st game should read first game.
  • There seems to be lots of WP:POV in there. E.g. A great defensive performance in Turin, Milan were the better team in extra time.
  • Needs some more references for some comments, E.g. 'In the second round Andrea Pirlo's shot was saved by Liverpool's goalkeeper Jerzy Dudek, although controversy later arose over the goalkeeper's supposed movement off his goal line before the ball was kicked'.
  • Some emdashes need putting in.
  • The references need putting into line with WP:MOS too. Peanut4 00:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes[edit]

Please consider taking a look at this article and provide some feedback on how it could be improved to be a featured list. Thanks. -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 03:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game genres[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… Over a year has passed since it has been placed on WP:CU. Significant improvement has occurred since it has been done. It is a very large article that significant effort has been placed on. I believe it could use some suggestions for improvement.


Thanks,

Marlith T/C 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article, realised that it lacks inline citations, but when I started adding {{fact}} tags I realised that probably every other sentence needs a citation, so I simply stopped. I suggest you to start working in this direction. Also, some images in the article need a proper fair use rationale. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Barton[edit]

I haven't worked on this article as much as my other GA, nevertheless I think the community has brought this up to a very good standard, so I thought as the first PM of Australia i'd see how a Peer Review/GA nomination goes. Comments welcome. Timeshift 09:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond film locations[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I dont know how to format tables in the list


Thanks,

Vikrant Phadkay 15:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenEye 007[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because its already above GA level.


Thanks,

Vikrant Phadkay 15:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood[edit]

The article was previously reviewed, and has cleaned up considerably since then. Perhaps some insights on what remains to be done before nomination? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aiming for a GA of FA nomination in the near future? Which? Wrad 04:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA to begin with, and eventually FA. Why? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caulfield Grammar School[edit]

This article is a former featured article, demoted after this review in April 2007 and most recently peer reviewed in 2005. I'm trying to fix the problems stated in the April FA review, and have recently worked to get more citations and clean up prose. I need some help on specific problems with prose and/or POV, as well perhaps as suggestions of things that are missing. Reading the old peer review and successful FAC, you can see that some stuff like school song or leadership programs were seen then as unimportant (I still agree with this) but were raised as possible inclusions in the FARC. Any suggestions? Thanks. Harro5 13:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty Years[edit]

  • Dislike the vision statement, makes the article seem like an ad. Does it really add anything to the article, does anyone care? no.
  • The school uniform doesnt seem too notable, alot of private schools have a colours system, and a blazer and tie combo too. Id just cut the section all together.
  • The alumni section needs more than just a link to the alumni page, some info on the old boys association would go well there, and some breif prose on some of the alumni of the school.
  • Dislike the list (4 bullet points) in the sporting section, just seems messy. It is expanded on further in the section.
  • The virtual campus starts off with some POV, and well, it simply is boring and doesnt add anything to the article.

The rest seems good, just improve the refs, get rid of the cite tags, and the article will easily pass GA. Twenty Years 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Kefalas[edit]

First in an attempt to systematically create good articles for all Colorado state legislators (a tall order, I know -- but a worthwhile one, I believe). These are tough... they involve synthesizing information from a multitude of sources (as you can see from the refs section) and trying to strive for balance when almost every source may be incomplete or biased. What am I still missing, where have I gone off-track? -- Sethant 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert (character)[edit]

This article's been listed for cleanup, and while it has seen a lot of improvement over the past few months, I'm hoping that a peer review will give a better idea of what still needs work. Any advice or opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Shoemoney2night 09:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Falun Gong[edit]

Request for a peer review of this article, which has come a long way. A fair amount of work and cooperation has gone into this article, which the main editors feel still may have some issues, and would seek critical evaluation as to its merits (or otherwise), with the aim of submitting it for GA or FA. Thanks,

Ohconfucius 07:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Chess Championship 2006[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is well written and it is a very important mement in the history of chess. I believe it could reach GA level with few improvements. Thanks Nergaal 05:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:
  • The "Bathroom controversy" section consists of many short paragraphs. It could use regrouping or rewriting. It's in a timeline style, lacking a summary.
  • The "Background" section could account for more previous unsuccessful attempts at organizing a reunification match, for example, the Prague agreements.
Conscious 06:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angels & Devils[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've made numerous improvements to it and feel like its been arranged in a useful, user friendly manner. The album is still new, and there will be more information to add in the future, but I feel that for now, with the information available, that the article is top quality.


Thanks, Darwin's Bulldog 18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's Bulldog 18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Manchester United F.C. managers[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it is very close to FL standard. I do believe the lead might be a bit wordy, and should probably be splintered off into a "Managerial history" section, but other than that, I'm quite confident that it only needs a little touching up before it gets promoted to FL status. Thanks, - PeeJay 01:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a lot of statements in the lead that will probably need references. Those that jump out include-
Chapman received a telegram from the Football Association on 8 October 1926 informing him of his suspension from management for the rest of the season; no reason was given. [done, PJ]
Matt Busby, who had just turned down the opportunity to join the coaching staff at Liverpool [done, PJ]
United allowed Busby the responsibilities he requested [included in previous ref, PJ]
McGuinness struggled in his new post, however, and Busby was convinced to return for the second half of the 1970–71 season [done, PJ]
It was soon discovered, however, that Docherty was having an affair with the wife of the club's physiotherapist, and he was immediately fired, [done, PJ]
but after his disastrous start to the 1986–87 season [done, PJ]
Since his appointment, Ferguson has been credited with the distinction of making some of the most shrewd purchases in Premier League history, with the signings of Peter Schmeichel and Eric Cantona, each for less than £1.5m. [done, PJ]
Manchester United are also one of only a few top-flight teams never to have had a manager from outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. [should be apparent from the table that they've never had a foreign manager, PJ]
Very true but maybe add a reference that other top-flight teams are managed by foreigners whereas United haven't. Unless I'm just being pedantic. Peanut4 02:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence also appears to be incomplete
While Busby was in hospital recovering from the injuries he sustained in the air crash, his assistant, Jimmy Murphy. [fixed, PJ]
  • Otherwise I think it's excellent and don't see why the lead / history section is too wordy. Peanut4 01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I've dealt with all of thoe original concerns. Cheers for the speedy comment, man. - PeeJay 02:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hi Peejay, good work so far. Funnily enough I was looking at this just yesterday thinking about pushing it to FL so you beat me to it! Right, on with the comments...

  • "The most successful person ..." et seq seems oddly positioned - you talk about the secretaries back in the day picking the team, then mention Fergie, then head back to Mangnall again. [fixed, PJ]
  • I really like your synopsis of the managerial history but it still lacks serious citation in my opinion. Specifically...
    • "...after succumbing to a bout of pneumonia." [done, PJ]
    • "...the club's highest position during his reign being 12th." [done, PJ]
    • "...also left Busby fighting for his life." [done, PJ]
    • "...as a lack of respect between him and some of his best players caused him to resign with three years still to run on his contract." [done, PJ]
    • "...behind Liverpool, who have had eighteen managers in their history, and West Ham United, who have had just twelve." [done, PJ]
  • "no fewer than four " so "four" then? [done, PJ]
  • Presumably you could wikilink to Busby Babes? [done, PJ]
  • "he had won the FA Cup for the first time in 15 years." - which year please? [fixed, PJ]
  • "...credited with the distinction of making some of the most shrewd purchases ..." - who credited him with this distinction? [cited, PJ]
  • If you have a notes column, why are refs [8] and [19] not in it? [I have no idea what you mean by that, PJ]
    • You have a notes column for each manager. You have a couple of references next to the manager's name instead of in the notes column. Seems inconsistent to me. Does that make more sense? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pity the Man Utd navbox is slightly different width to manager navbox. [Yeah, nothing we can do about that without re-doing the Man Utd navbox, but that's a different task entirely, PJ]

That's about it. Let me know what you think and when you take it to WP:FLC... All the best! The Rambling Man 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with all issues. Let me know if you have any more comments. – PeeJay 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)
  • Why have you decided not to wikilink seasons, FA Cup final years, etc?
  • Too many sentences starting However,, where the However doesn't add anything. I'd lose the Chapman, definitely Munich and possibly Docherty ones.
  • Too many replacement or replaced by. Vary it a bit, successor, followed, the next...
  • Lal Hilditch in the prose, Clarence Hilditch in the table, which do you prefer?
  • Crickmer. You don't really want to effectively repeat first spell/stint as manager, I'd just replace the His first stint as manager with It
  • Busby. Try Before the war ended, and lose the , rather (so you get more responsibility ... than).
  • his retirement from managing proved to be permanent is awkward, try He retired permanently from management that summer and was succeeded...
  • O'Farrell. Your reference doesn't mention lack of respect and says he was sacked, not resigned.
  • Ferguson. Move Aberdeen forward in the sentence, winning the Scottish First Division title with Aberdeen three times in six years, and twice finishing as runner-up.
  • credited with the distinction... who by? your ref is a celebration of Ferguson's best signings, doesn't mention anything about Premier League's shrewdest signings.
  • a feat that no other manager has managed, try achieved, and it probably should be referenced.
  • despite a number of promises of retirement, he still continues to manage the most successful English club of the last 15 years sounds a bit celebratory. The promises of retirement need referencing.
  • Last sentence. To be honest I'd lose it. I'm not sure MUFC being 3rd out of the current PL teams in terms of low managerial turnover is interesting. Also, it's not really maintainable. No-one's going to want to check through the details of every promoted team to make sure they haven't had fewer full-time managers (whatever the definition of that is), even where the information's available to compare like with like. Also, it says in your lead that MUFC have had 18 full-time managers, which wouldn't put them behind Liverpool's 18?
  • Why is Albut's information unavailable? did he start mid-season, or something?
  • do you need the little dashes in the empty honours boxes?
  • I'd separate the two general references into a references section separate from the footnotes, but if you don't want to, they do need a line each.

That's more than enough ;-) I much prefer this style of list, where an informative introductory section and the table complement each other, well done. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've dealt with your concerns adequately. If you have nothing more to add, I hope I can count on your support when I take this article to FLC. – PeeJay 22:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably if I reviewed your list now, I'd ask whether you needed to link all the standalone years to yyyy in football (soccer). My preferred style for linking is to link seasons where mentioned, and to link the year of major finals to the corresponding wiki article, but I don't link to yyyy in football unless there's a good reason for doing (reorganisation of divisions, something like that). How much an editor chooses to link is a matter of personal style, which is why I asked why you hadn't linked anything, rather than saying you should. Hope that explains my point of view, I only intend to offer suggestions, not instructions.
Also, I've taken the liberty of adding n/a to Albut's start date, with a non-displaying dts(1878) so the column still sorts properly, hope that's OK. See no reason why I wouldn't support at FLC. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Changban[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know if this article has any possibility of being a GA or maybe a FA, and recommendations. Thanks, Armando.Otalk • Ev 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Everything has a possibility of making FA (eventually); but there's still quite a bit of work to be done here before you're really ready for that:

  • Citations! An article that's not thoroughly cited stands no chance at all of passing FAC, or even GAN. I'd suggest focusing on this as your top priority.
  • The repetition of names in the "Combatants" and "Commanders" fields in the infobox is somewhat clunky; I'd suggest, at the least, changing the combatants to be "Forces of Cao Cao" and "Forces of Liu Bei".
  • The lead should be quite a bit longer.
  • After the major issues are resolved, some thorough copyediting will likely be needed; there are some pretty rough spots in the prose.

Hope that helps! Kirill 04:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu–German Conspiracy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… This article, in my opinion, is comprehensive, as well as quite long. I have been the main contributor, although, through the links that connect to this page, there are more editors who may have knowledge of the topic. It is also neccessary to ensure it is NPOV. The references section has a comprehensive list of Academic and peer reviewed journal articles as well as published books which can be used for fact verification.

Thanks,

Rueben lys 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotavirus[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done all I can with it at this stage and need some feedback.


Thanks,

GrahamColm 15:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia[edit]

Hi, Graham, I'll start a section here and add to it as I'm able. I went through last week and made sure most of your WP:MOS issues were in order and that your referencing style was correct, so I don't expect to find much there. I'll add more points as I read; you do *not* have to respond back to me on each issue.

  • The "Vaccines" section refers to Rotavirus Vaccine Project, but the WP:LEAD refers to the Rotavirus Vaccine Program–two different names. Also, the second occurrence is wikilinked, when it should be linked on the first occurrence. Since it's in the lead, I always like to see the article stub created, but that's not strictly necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Boys are twice as likely to be admitted to hospital than girls."
  • "(For and explanation of reassortment see Virus). "
  • Note typo, but more importantly, avoid sending readers to and fro to find information they need here. Find a way to avoid this, either by defining the term or linking to something directly that does, avoiding the parenthetical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1960s, the epidemic (sic) diarrhoea of infant mice (EDIM) virus was discovered."
  • The reader isn't told why the (sic). If the "epidemic" was a misnomer, why not just leave it out? Or somehow address this to make it easier on the reader. If it's not a direct quote, do you need the sic? If not, can you avoid the entire issue somehow?
  • The "Pathogenesis" section says:
  • Childhood mortality caused by rotavirus is relatively low in the U.S., with an estimated 100 cases per year, but reaches over 500,000 cases per year worldwide (as of 2005).[citation needed]
  • but "Epidemiology" says:
  • About 120 million rotavirus infections occur every year, causing the death of 600,000 to 650,000 children.[49]
  • And the lead says:
  • In America, rotaviruses cause an estimated 1 million episodes of gastroenteritis which result in 150 deaths each year.
  • Conflicting info on number of deaths in US and number of deaths worldwide. Also, I'm not sure why this info is covered in two different places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead introduces a term that is not defined (double-stranded). You either have to link or define it for us dummies, or find a way not to have to mention it in the lead. I worked earlier on reducing WP:OVERLINKing of common terms in the article, but you have to be sure to link or define technical or relevant terms that some readers (like me) don't know.
  • The lead says, "and the USA Centers for Disease Control", but elsewhere in the article you use "U.S."—consistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a stand-alone summary of the entire article, hitting all the highlights (have a read of the Lead article). It doesn't touch on all the important points, yet it does mention veterinary aspects, a topic which is barely addressed in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "VP" is first introduced in "Rotavirus proteins",
  • There are six viral proteins, (VP) ...
  • but VP is used and discussed in the two preceding sections. The term/acronym should be defined on first occurrence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a lot of wikilinking in the first few sections; the remainder should be reviewed.[6] Have a look at WP:MOSLINK for guidance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin[edit]

  • The lead sentence should make it clear what Rotavirus is (a genus of virus). A quick glance at other virus/genus articles shows there is some inconsistency in whether to use singular (rotavirus is a ...) or plural (the rotaviruses are ...). Is there any standard for this among your sources?
  • Does the vaccine protect against all the human-infecting groups (A, B, C)?

That's all for now. Might get a chance to read some more later. Colin°Talk 13:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Colin, thanks for taking the time to read the article. Yes, the lead does need some more work. I actually prefer the plural Rotaviruses but the fashion is to use the singular because it also works as an adjective; people are said to have a rotavirus infection, (strictly this should be rotaviral infection). Your second question is an important one. Vaccines have only been developed against group A rotavirus, (?rotaviruses) because they cause over 90% of infections of humans. They afford no protection at all against the other groups. I will work this into the article.

GrahamColm↑Talk 20:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Thank you for all the very helpful comments. I have edited the article and incorporated all these points and now I the article is much improved. There are still a few minor tweeks and edits that I can see need to be done, but any further comments are very welcome. I will be taking the advise of User:SandyGeorgia and nominate Rotavirus for GA status at the weekend. Thanks once more --GrahamColm(Talk ) 19:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.B._Funkeys[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a new style of game where you have little hardware pieces that affect how you look in the game. I am looking for a broader group of editors that are more experienced than my myself to help me refine the article. Especially since the article has already undergone extensive work.


Thanks,

MahaPanta 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. That is very helpful. This is the first article I've tried to improve, so I am learning how Wikipedia works as I go along. I've basically adopted this article and I am becoming a better wikipedia user and learn how to make good articles as I improve this one. Now that I think about it, this would be a good exercise for all new wikipedians, and imagine how much better articles we would have, because I knew nothing about editing wikipedia articles before I made my first contribute to this one. --MahaPanta 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet for My Valentine[edit]

This article was in really bad shape so i decided to completely re-write it. Hope to make it a Featured Article. M3tal H3ad 11:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan[edit]

Comments;

  • "...below Guns N' Roses and Funeral for a Friend.[13] Other tours the band embarked on include opening for Metallica and Guns n Roses for six weeks of the summer in 2006,[14]" - The band name Guns N' Roses needs consistent spelling. LuciferMorgan 12:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following provide info on Metallica covers by BFMV; link one and two. LuciferMorgan 12:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article refers to their first two EPs. Can the article mention that the second EP only contained one extra track than the first EP? LuciferMorgan 12:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you add any critical feedback for the EPs (which I personally count as the same EP)? LuciferMorgan 12:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. M3tal H3ad 04:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn[edit]

  • Sorry to mention the same trivial thing twice, but does the logo have to be that big?
  • Considering how important so many people consider it, perhaps a reference for the metalcore claim?
People aren't concerned about the metalcore thing mainly when someone adds thrash metal/other genre. M3tal H3ad 04:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kerrang! is a periodical, it should be in italics.
  • "A record deal"- the definite/indefinite article should be avoided in page and section titles unless part of a proper noun. 'First record deal' would be a better section title.
  • "A second EP (often referred to as a mini album) entitled, Hand of Blood, was released" The comma use isn't quite right here. I think the comma after "entitled" should be moved to after "EP".
  • "The Poison" should be in italics, even in the section title.
  • "Since its release, the album has sold 330,000 copies." Perhaps this should add "as of [date]".
  • "Promoting Poison"- Since the album is named The Poison, this section should probably be entitled 'Promoting The Poison'.
  • "the larger Snickers stage,"- I'm unfamiliar with the stage; do we have an article? If not, could you perhaps explain in the article?
  • Barfly links to a DAB page.
  • "tours the band embarked on include opening for Metallica and Guns n Roses" Probably best to change that to "Guns N' Roses".
  • "The Poison: Live at Brixton"- That should be in italics, I think.
  • "Vocalist of fellow support act Lacuna Coil, Andrea Ferro, attributed the behaviour due to inexperience; "Probably they got some different kind of success in the U.K. in the beginning and they think that they paid their dues, but I believe that they still have to pay their dues, like everybody.[18]"- You forgot to close the speech marks.
  • Some tours have been put in italics, some haven't. I am actually not sure if there is any consensus on this, but it would be best if the article was consistent.
  • "Machine Head replaced the band as supporting act." Perhaps link to Machine Head?
  • "Scream, Aim, Fire", the section title, should be in italics if the section is about the album (as I suspect) or perhaps speech marks if you think it is about the single.
  • "from the band's upcoming album of the same name" 'Same name' doesn't need to be in italics.
  • The blockquote appears to be unreferenced.
  • "what our fucking hair looks like"[2]." The reference should be after the punctuation.
  • "The Sun, the band were 'booed' when receiving the 2006 Metal Hammer" The Sun and Metal Hammer are both periodicals.
  • "Metal Hammer and Kerrang, and stories in Revolver, Outburn, Penthouse, Rock Sound, NME, Hit Parader, Guitar One, and Alternative Press" Many more periodicals, not to mention Kerrang! should have the !.
  • The bottom of the table isn't showing in the discography section, it probably just needs an additional |}.

Very well written article, as usual. Well done. J Milburn 19:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comments. M3tal H3ad 04:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romania[edit]

I would like opinions on the general state of the article. I have added myself some {unreferenced} and {fact} tags for people to reference if they can. Also I have added a section (Traditions) that is empty for now. But except for these, what do ppl think of the article? Thanks Nergaal 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old review

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 12 meters, use 12 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 12&nbsp;meters.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), harbor (A) (British: harbour), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), colonize (A) (British: colonise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), enrolment (B) (American: enrollment), cosy (B) (American: cozy), mold (A) (British: mould), molt (A) (British: moult), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • “In the year [of] 2006”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 11:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too long. The details should be branched off into subarticles, see Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Everton F.C. managers[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's undergone the WP:FOOTBALL list treatment and I think it could be close to heading for WP:FLC. I think it's as accurate as it can be given the variety of sources available, and I hope the lead is vaguely entertaining. I'd like to receive comments from anyone, particularly Everton fans! As always, thanks in advance for your time... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattythewhite[edit]

Good work. Some comments:

  • Jimmy Gabriel's Scottish and then English!
  • Also, he was caretaker during both of his spells according to Everton Stats.

Nothing else really. Mattythewhite (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matty, both comments attended to... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude[edit]

As ever, first class work from TRM, with very little to pick up, just the following minor points:

  • was the club secretary for the club's first season - remove one of the usages of the word "club", probably the first
  • the club enjoyed their first prolonged period of success - enjoyed its, surely....? Everywhere else you use the word club as a singular noun
  • Following success in the Charity Shield twice before another League championship - I'd replace "before" with "and", personally
  • Former Everton player and Oldham Athletic A.F.C. manager - any reason why the Oldham link isn't piped to remove the AFC?
  • Injury crises and players such as Andrei Kanchelskis being sold led to Royle's resignation in March, 1997, - ends with a comma but then a new sentence starts immediately afterwards
  • He was replaced with fellow Scot - I'd say "replaced by"

Hope this helps!!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, as ever, thanks. I've made all your suggested changes. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros.[edit]

I recently got this article up to GA-status and now am planning on improving it to FA-status. Any comments on how to go about this would be appreciated. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Corrs[edit]

This article is currently a good article nominee. I am aspiring to change the article from a "Start-class" article last month to a featured article within these next few months. So, I would like some feedback on how to improve the article. Any corrections, constructive criticisms would be grateful.

Many thanks,

σмgнgσмg 04:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouble with Trillions[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have someone else's opinion on how to improve this article in case I'd like to nominate it for FAC some day. Thanks, ✗iℎi✗(talk) 00:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My take: The lead should be expanded, with one sentence or so for each subsection, summarizing those sections. The "Reception" subsection could use info from one or two more sources. Check out A Streetcar Named Marge for further examples, overall its pretty good now. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • There's simply no more receptions. As I mentioned, the episodes I covered have just about no references except the three main ones. And, I can't really change the lead into anything else, as the episode's reception isn't large enough to add much there, and I don't think any of the production could fit there. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girly Edition[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have someone else's opinion on how to improve this article in case I'd like to nominate it for FAC some day. Thanks, ✗iℎi✗(talk) 00:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First time commenting on a review, so I hope I am doing this right. So, basically, the title seems to me to be a punning reference to Early Edition. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article in some manner? Waltham, The Duke of 14:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would, but there's no sources that back that up. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 21:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. I keep forgetting that. Thankfully for all, I never add content to articles (I mostly identify myself as a WikiGnome). Pity though; to me the connection is plain obvious.
        PS: Your signature needs fixing. Unless the three squares were placed there on purpose. Waltham, The Duke of 11:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Hill (The Simpsons)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have someone else's opinion on how to improve this article in case I'd like to nominate it for FAC some day. Thanks, ✗iℎi✗(talk) 00:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Little Wiggy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have someone else's opinion on how to improve this article in case I'd like to nominate it for FAC some day. Thanks, ✗iℎi✗(talk) 00:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyavazhi[edit]

This article is about an Indian belief system. I request for comments and advices from users here for improving this article to FA.

Thanks,

PaulRaj 12:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Shamblin[edit]

The article on Gwen Shamblin goes through a lot - from vandalism to well-meaning edits that can take away large chunks of information. I've been adding cites to this for a couple of months, but would really like some feedback on how to make this article the best bio of a living person it can possibly be. Also, extra feedback would help me get sections and ideas tacked down with unbiased input from others. Please let me know what I can do to even out the tone and keep information on Gwen Shamblin as comprehensive and NPOV as possible.Efkeathley 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate comments. 11:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ferreira[edit]

I hope that a Peer review will give some feedback on what needs improvement. I hope that the article can attain a GA for now.Abebenjoe 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate comments. 10:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rodriguez[edit]

Good Article. Has had editing problems in the past, but is stable now. Jeffpw 10:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate comments. 10:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerball mac Dúnlainge[edit]

The 9th century version of six degree of Kevin Bacon: a fairly obscure Irish king of the 9th century who was incorporated into many Icelandic genealogies long after he died. With improvements to the Icelandic section and a map, I think this could reach FA class some day, so I'd appreciate any and all comments, especially as regards the narrative flow of the main section. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. 10:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chaser APEC pranks[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like other editors to rate the article and offer any advice on improving it to GA status.

Thanks heaps,

Jasewase 05:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Sorry all, the name of article has changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasewase (talk • contribs) 11:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Tucker[edit]

I'm requesting some feedback for this article. I am trying to get it up to good article status, so I'm just looking for some feedback. Cheers, Qst 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Saint Louis[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am not sure whether to nominate this for GA or FA. It would be helpful to see what others think needs expanding/shortening or fixing in the article.

Thanks,

Karanacs 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future of air transport in the United Kingdom[edit]

This article was originally titled Air transport in the United Kingdom, and a precipitous attempt at FAC highlighted the lack of a history section as a problem. As a result I've retitled this article to more accurately reflect the subject matter. I'm hoping to submit this article for FA review and would like to run it through a peer review first to pick up on any general issues that need improvement. Thanks.--FactotEm 11:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel the shortcomings that were pointed out during a "Good Article" nomination review last year have now been corrected.


Thanks,

Blanchardb 12:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BirgitteSB[edit]

  • Lead Way to short. See WP:LEAD. Orisons should be bold synom here.
  • Forms of prayer Aviod phrases like "The great spiritual traditions", that is an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Bullet points need to be converted to prose. Also avoid weseal words like "Some anthropologists believe . . ."
  • The act of prayer No references. Lots of weseal words.
  • Prayer in Abrahamic religions The various subsections here should be summaries of the main article. For example look at Prayer in Christianity: main topics are The Early Church; Liturgical; Vocal; Meditative; Prayer of recollection; Contemplative prayer; Physical posture; Charismatic prayer: Speaking in tongues; A Christian philosophy of prayer; Christian Science Prayer; and Epistemological issues. Less than half of these topics are summarized. Your summary of Christian prayer in this article should only need small additions and tweaking to be the lead over at Prayer in Christianity. The same issue needs looking into throughout this section. No references for this section.
    • How is neopaganism an Abrahamic religion
  • Prayer in Eastern religions Same issues as last section. Also I am noticing the lack of animist traditions. Having only an Eastern section and a Abrahmic section means other traditions are left out.
  • Approaches to prayer Needs more references.
  • Experimental evaluation of efficacy of prayer This is slighty out of context without an introduction to the whole idea of Prayer healing. BTW Prayer healing is a redirect to this article and probably should be addressed directly and bolded.
  • Historical polytheistic prayer This is the first the first mention of scrafice related to prayer. Despite the earlier section of "Prayer in the Bible" The whole section seem out of place. Why leave out the Aztecs or the Vikings? And what about non-historical polytheistic prayer? No references
  • Etymology I would think this section would be first rather than last. No references
  • Misc For some reason Prayer Warrior and Prayer group redirect here they should probably go to Prayer in Christianity but they are not really dealt with there either.--BirgitteSB 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has little on Japan. I've listed some topics related to Japan on the article's talk page. Fg2 11:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Greek forest fires[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see where the article stands. Does it need section expansions, additions, rewriting, further sourcing, etc.? I hoping to atleast take it to a GA and maybe further. Any comment, both automated or from a user would be helpful.


Thanks, El Greco(talk) 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting and on the whole well-written article. Some comments...

  • The biggest observation I have is that in many cases it reads like a current event. Examples include "Various countries have responded to the call and have sent help.", "The first fire is still uncontrolled...", "By August 31 there are fires still burning in Arcadia and Laconia." Does this article need a general update now?.
  • There are a number of single line paragraphs, most noticeably in the sections September 2007 and Alleged arson, which would read better if almalgamated into a single paragraph.
  • Does the Consequences section need to be a bulleted list? It would read better as a single piece of prose.
  • The Alleged arson, Consequences and Financial assistance sections might be better amalgamated into a single "Aftermath" section.

Hope these help. --FactotEm 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does it looks now? I haven't implemented all the changes yet, but I just want to know how I'm coming along. El Greco(talk) 16:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany[edit]

This is an article I wrote a while back, but didn't source it. I've added a fistful of sources now. Since this is sort of a pet interest of mine, I'd ultimately be interested in getting this article up to GA snuff. For now, I'm looking for both general and specific comments on the article.

  • What in this article needs to be expanded? What direction do you think the sections / article should go?
  • Are there more things that ought to be cited? Having lived in Germany, I am afraid I may take things for granted which should be cited for a wider audience.

Note that this article is meant to deal only with West and contemporary Germany.

Thanks a lot

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 16:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs some images. I know it't be hard to find some relating to censorship but that needs to be looked inot anyway--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vega[edit]

This article on a notable northern star (I'm sure many of you have seen it) has been significantly expanded during the past few weeks. It still needs a longer lead and a handful of additional references, but I think it's starting to shape up fairly decently. What else would you like to see covered herein, and what would you recommend for improvements?

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jeff[edit]

Lots of sources and good technical details are strong points of the article. The most important thing to work on are fleshing out the short, stubby paragraphs. For example:

  • "In about AD 14,000, ..."
  • "The Lyrids are a strong meteor shower ..."
  • "The unusually low metallicity of Vega ..."
  • The cultural significance section.

And others. The idea should be to: 1) give better context for the information, and 2) use prose to introduce, connect, and summarize ideas. Example paragraphs that need context badly are:

  • "Professional astronomers have used Vega..."
  • "From the Earth, Vega is seen from within 5 degrees of its polar rotation axis..."
    • Okay I've tried to address all of these except the cultural significance section. That will take some more digging. — RJH (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions:

  • "There is some question as to whether Vega displays..." a weak lead sentence. Better to say something along the lines of "John Smith and Sally Smart, astronomers at State University, report measuring variability in Vega's luminosity..."
  • Consider expanding the Physical properties section
    • Done.
  • "Vega can often be seen near the zenith in the mid-northern latitudes during the evening in the Northern Hemisphere summer,[15] and during these times from mid-southern latitudes it can be seen low above the northern horizon during the Southern Hemisphere winter" This sentence is really complex. I'd split it into two sentences: "In the Northern Hemisphere...In the Southern Hemisphere..." and reduce the complexity please.
    • Done.
  • "...when the Egyptians named it Ma'at, the Vulture-star" Find a second source to back this up. I've studied ancient Egyptian history extensively, and I'm not aware of any connection between Ma'at and the vulture. When you say "ancient Egyptians" this could potentially be anything from 5000 BC to 350 AD or so. If it is a specific Greek-Egyptian writer from the Ptolemaic period, probably should say so.
  • "...represented as an eagle or vulture among the lore of ancient Egypt and India." This seems to mash up the difference between ancient Egypt and India. I checked the source, which gives a mushy statement. We need precision here; the ancient Egyptians and India probably didn't share anything close to a similar tradition about this star.
    • I tried to clarify this and added more references.
  • "and, under the influence of the Spanish, the last component of this star's name gradually changed to Vega." Seems vague
  • "The name appeared in Christian Europe in the Alfonsine Tables" Can we have a year? 800AD? 1600 AD? What is "Christian Europe"?

A very good start to a technical subject. Overall, I'm looking for more context for the facts. Use prose to introduce, explain, and connect ideas, especially true for complex ideas. Consider writing a better history section, detailing how the star was studied over the years. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 07:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jeff, that was helpful. — RJH (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Law Olmsted[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Olmsted is an important figure in urban planning, landscape architecture and other fields. I'd like to some outside opinions as to what I or someone else could do to improve this article.


Thanks,

-- John Reaves 09:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Chris.B[edit]

Nice, instresting article. Just some things:

  • There is either a glaring typo in the second sentence or I suffering from a severe bout of vision deficiency. "Other projects" I would say.
  • The article is obviously referenced, but still requires inline citations.
  • No need to link individual years like 1895.
  • There are a couple of stray citations in the "Academic campuses designed by Olmsted and sons" and "Other notable Olmsted commissions" that need formatting.
  • The popular culture section is basically trivia. It might be a good idea to remove it altogether or integrate it.
  • Book sources require page numbers.

That's about it. Hope that helps. -- Chris B • talk 17:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- John Reaves 18:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Petraeus[edit]

The general has recently been mentioned very often in the news and elsewhere. The article itself has gone through some major edits for content, tone, and references-- I don't know where to go from here. Revolutionaryluddite 02:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My main concern is with the citations. I'd like to see them all replaced with citation templates for consistent formatting and information. The in-line external links should likewise be converted to citation templates with the text unlinked or a red link. (E.g. "Airborne.", "Iron Rakkasans" and "Ahmed S. Hashim") Also the citations should follow punctuation without a trailing space. ("1983[4]," - "facial hair[7]," - "2007[11]," - "general. [13]", and so forth.) Finally the "External links" section seems a little too long. Can some of those be worked in as citations? Otherwise the article seems in pretty decent shape. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left a series of sample edits; there are quite a few issues of WP:MOS cleanup that are needed.[7] Please see my edit summaries. In particular, review footnote placement per WP:FN (I fixed), WP:MSH capitalization on section headings, WP:MOSDATE on date formatting needed throughout, WP:GTL on excess article links in See also that should be removed, and WP:MOS#Captions regarding punctuation or not of sentence fragments or complete sentences in image captions. Also, pls remove the author links to him, as this is his article and those are causing incorrect bolding. External links need to be urgently reduced to only the most essential and should be minimized: see WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Also note that you don't *have* to use citation templates, but you should consistently, fully and correctly format the citations by whatever method you choose (see WP:CITE/ES). Also, you have external jumps in the body of the article; external jumps (with very few exceptions) belong in external links. If a topic is notable, it should have it's own article, with the website given there, or the website should be converted to a citation, but external jumps to outside websites shouldn't be in the body of the article. Most of the cases I saw in this article are terms that should probably have their own articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Response) Thanks, I see that many technical edits need to be done. Still, though, what do you think about the content of the article? Does it look like anything needs to be added or tweaked? Besides fixing the grammar, etc., is there anything keeping this article from good article status? Revolutionaryluddite 02:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Clambake[edit]

This article was recently successfully nominated and listed as a Good Article. It cites (67) WP:RS sources, and utilizes (5) images - 2 of which the copyright holder has expressly stated can be used on Wikipedia, and 3 of which are free-use images, either from Wikimedia Commons or released to the public domain. I am now looking for feedback and suggestions on how to touch up this article in order to further improve its quality status. Thanks, Cirt 02:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing points from semi-automated peer review

I will list the points from the semi-automated peer review, and address them side-by-side, here below:

  1. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?] --  Done - I looked through the whole article, but could not find any dates linked that were not full dates. Cirt 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] --  Done - I looked through the whole article, but it looks like all years with full dates are wikilinked, and those without full dates are not. Cirt 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), meter (A) (British: metre), offense (A) (British: offence), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), program (A) (British: programme), sceptic (B) (American: skeptic). --  Done - Checked this. All usages are American English spelling, unless cited originally with British English, within a quotation or citation. Cirt 05:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  4. The script has spotted the following contractions: isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. --  Done - Checked this. Only two appearances of "isn't" - and one is inside a quotation and the other is inside a citation. Cirt 05:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 19:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC) -- Thank you for the review, I will make sure the article gets a good copyediting look through. Cirt 05:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Transformers (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this a Featured article. It is currently a Good Article. I want to make this an FA because it is very comprehensive. Any comments or advice on how to improve this article to FA status should be very much appreciated.


Thanks,

Greg Jones II 02:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Hello, I've also wanted to list this article for featured article, because I think all the imformation are useful to nearly all readers. Please improve this article as much you can.

Thanks,

Ghazy Padmakoesoema —Preceding unregister user comment added by 76.247.63.137 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names are linked too much. Michael Bay is linked in every section (11 in total), as is everyone else. You should refer to Steven Spielberg as just Spielberg after his first mention, as with other names. You don't need their full names every mention. Bay is also excessively linked in references. References like "STEVE JABLONSKY MORPHS HIS MUSIC TO SCORE TRANSFORMERS" should be lowercase. M3tal H3ad 07:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tell-Tale Heart[edit]

Looking for feedback on this well-known short story by Poe, possibly to reach Good Article status. The strongest section is, clearly, the Analysis section - but I'm curious if readers feel something is missing. Also, please review the lead and, if possible, style of referencing. Really, any feedback is welcome and appreciated!! Thanks in advance! --Midnightdreary 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The narrator is described both as 'genderless', but also as 'he'? -Malkinann 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's a difficult one. Both "genderless" and "he" are assumptions. If we choose to keep "genderless," however, should we use "it" instead of "he"? I wonder, though, if pointing out that the gender is not pointed out is worth the effort. I feel like this is a catch-22 here, but I'm okay with removing the term genderless entirely. --Midnightdreary 01:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do scholars commenting on The Tell Tale Heart call the narrator? -Malkinann 04:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen "she" but assuming it's male is more revealing of male-centricism than of scholarly interpretation. Granted, there's no textual evidence that it's a female, but neither is there evidence that it's a male. Even so, I've changed "genderless" to "nameless." I think that skirts the issue entirely, but it's more in keeping with Poe's typical nameless narrator motif. --Midnightdreary 01:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "indefinite masculine" is entirely appropriate in a literary context. For the sake of clarity, you can mention that the narrator's gender is never explicitly stated, but it's grammatically okay to refer to someone as "he". A lot of people don't like it, but it's the literary / scholarly custom. (And every piece on this story I've ever seen calls the narrator "he".) - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit of a copyedit. I agree that your analysis section is very good, but there a couple of points where it might be pulled back to appear less like original research. (Specifically, you mention that the reader is "convinced that he is truly mad.") That is to say, you admit that there is great ambiguity in the story, but seem to be advancing a specific viewpoint in spite of that ambiguity. I think you've done a good job here, though. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy edit! It looks great! I see your point about the Analysis; I'll get back to it in a day or two. Also, I like your suggestion for dealing with the gender, and it was well-stated. Thanks for dropping in! --Midnightdreary 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chaser's War on Everything[edit]

This recently passed GA status, and I would like to see it go further on to FA. Any suggestions.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  03:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peripitus[edit]

A nice article on a topic that I enjoy. Just a few style comments to start as I have not read the article in depth yet.

  • Multiple wikilinks to the same place (eg: ABC_TV) should usually only be linked in the first instance. 2006 is linked in the lead for some reason.
  • Expand certain abbreviations unless in quotes. didn't -> did not, hadn't -> had not,
  • 'Thank God You're Here' - should this be double quotes ?
  • Reference issues, ref 2 misses mentioning that it's from the Sydney Morning Herald, ref 3 and others should use Template:cite web and note the publisher. Check the rest for consistent formatting.
  • copyediting for redundancy and other things is required (these are examples only - needs better eyes than mine)
  • at the time of 11 pm -> at 11 pm (11pm is not likely to be anything but a time)
  • moved it to the timeslot of Wednesdays at 9 p.m -> moved it to the Wednesday 9 pm timeslot.
  • Broadcast section. "New segments have also been developed" - incorrect tense. have -> had and "also" is redundant as it is implicit in the context.
  • "The move to a prime time position ultimately resulted in an increase in the show's ratings, despite being in direct competition with high performing shows on commercial networks, with ratings close to 1.5 millions viewers each week" is a convoluted construct that needs work. Try
"The move to prime time resulted in a ratings increase, reaching almost 1.5 millions viewers each week. This was despite direct competition against well rated programs on commercial networks."
  • "Due to the popularity of The Chaser rising, largely due to the controversy of the APEC motorcade stunt, many international countries currently broadcast the show." after reading the reference I would tend to write this
"After the controversial APEC motorcade stunt, the show's profile was greatly increased and international broadcasts expanded." Although I'm not convinced that the reference shows the stunt led to the first set of countries broadcasts or just the subsequent interest.
  • "There is a possibility that re-edited versions of the show would be broadcast" -> "Re-edited versions of the show may be broadcast" says the same thing without the redundancy\
  • "On some occasions, other cast members may join them"
  • "Some include Prolix Songwriter" -> Including Prolix Songwriter
  • "A few days later" -> "Days later" again says the same thing and few is too vague to be useful
  • The article seems somewhat unbalanced. While the point of view is fine the creation/writing/broadcast/funding/technology/staffing and other aspects of making the show only get a small look in. The article is primarily about segments and stunts. There are many aspects of making a TV series that are not even mentioned.
  • British/American spelling - User:AndyZ/peerreviewer has told me that there is inconsistency but my spelling is not good enough to find this easily. Probably the issue is with things like offense/offence
  • Lead paragraph 2. Dates should be wikilinked for date preferences to work, the phrase "and has been running since" is unneeded as it is implicit in the context, do not use "is currently airing" as this ages very fast.

- Peripitus (Talk) 11:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behaviour (B) (American: behavior), metre (B) (American: meter), offense (A) (British: offence), realise (B) (American: realize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), any more (B) (American: anymore), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, Don't, aren't, didn't, hadn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Park Race Track[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this for WP:GA and have been told to get a peer review first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jeff[edit]

This needs a lot of work to make it a GA, and I won't restrict my comments only to things necessary for successful GA. The major issue is the coverage; the article needs expansion to include more details. Were there any famous horses that raced here? Was any particular year notable? How about giving more details about the track's later years? The content feels thin.

  • I have found a famous track President. and some details of the organization.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington Park Race Track is the name of a former horse racing track that was originally located in the location now occupied by the Washington Park Subdivision of the Woodlawn community area, in Chicago, Illinois and then was relocated in Homewood, Illinois" Run on. How about:
  • "The Washington Park Race Track was a popular horse racing venue during the late 19th and early 20th centuries (better yet, just fill in the years) originally located in...." Just simplify the sentence, the original sounded awkward.

This needs some work on the prose too because the strings of short sentences make for a choppy read. Once the article has been expanded and worked over some more I would be happy to take another look. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reel Affirmations[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because 1) It is comprehensive in nature; 2) contains inline citations; 3) contains practically every citation I can find; 3) contains quality images which relate specifically to the content of the article; and 4) I think it'll be a Good Article candidate fairly soon. This is the first step toward that. Thanks! - Tim1965 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Garden arena[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review, as I'm hoping to take it to WP:FA. Just became a good article; I think the coverage is fairly complete, and referencing is good. (Enlighten me otherwise).

Things I think need fixing/improvement, to start:

  • As always, copyediting and prose improvement
  • A few more pics (working on getting some--someone I know has some pics that they want to upload under GFDL, working to make that happen)
  • As mentioned in the GA review by, some more content on musical (and non-Blazer) acts may be appropriate.


Thanks,

EngineerScotty 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H. S. S. Lawrence[edit]

No request beyond the listing was made - I moved the semi-automated PR run by DrKiernan to the proper page.

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Heaven (song)[edit]

This is a GA song article under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music. While short, it's comprehensive as can be and we're curious if this has the potential to be a Featured Article. FAC thoughts and suggestions for grammar fixtures and the like welcomed. Thanks, WesleyDodds 10:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discrete Bipolar Transistor Biasing[edit]

I've written the majority of the content on this page. I'd like to see how the article has shaped up. To me, the article seems complete content-wise within its scope. But I'm just a student, if it isn't, please forgive my errors. To all the editors, please consider my sincere request to review the article and tell me how best to improve.

Thanks,

xC | ☎ 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


From my novice point of view: I can follow the calculations, but I only see selfcontained circuits, while they are being classified as amplifiers. Which nodes represent inputs and outputs? Are these voltage or current amplifiers? Multiple times references are made to "increased impedance as seen from base" : this is not made clear mathematically. Also "swing" is not explained mathematically (the circuits seem static except for AC feedback), I assume this is about swing in the input, if so then inputs and outputs are obscure in this article.

Perhaps an introductory section could explain the possible variations of beta in the lines of the following:

beta, although specified in a specific transistor's datasheet, has both a component dependence and a temperature dependence: in the following assume beta = beta_specific(T), where beta_specific at a reference temperature would be close to a listed beta, and the temperature dependance is increasing with T. One major issue in designing with transistors is making the circuits behaviour resilient enough to both component variability and temperature deviations...

Jack the Ripper[edit]

We are looking for some guidance on how the article's structure could be improved - heck, we are looking for guidance on any part of the article, as there is little in the way of current consensus for changes to occur. We need fresh eyes (and not in the 'with a side of fava beans and a nice chianti' sort of way) to help us find new ways to improve the article. Thanks in advance for your invaluable assistance. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (webcomic)[edit]

This article has recently been promoted to GA status, and I want to try to get it FA status. My main concern is find reliable sources of reviews and interviews with it's creator David Hopkins. So far, I have found two main reviews and a site containing several smaller reviews. However, if anyone can find any better reviews or an interview, that would be much better.

If anyone can think of some other ways to improve the article, please let me know.

Thanks,

ISD 08:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massospondylus[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because someone not familiar with the material needs to go over it for clarity, prose, and other potential problems that someone who has read the article a million times wouldn't catch.


Thanks,

Firsfron of Ronchester 00:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Poland[edit]

I've just finished expanding this article to what I believe is an FA level. I'd like to have it peer-reviewed before I nominate it. No automated peer review, please; I can run it myself, too.

Thanks in advance — Kpalion(talk) 20:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Nathan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this a Feautred Article, yet I know I have a ways to go with it yet. Any help is appreciated.

Thanks. Wizardman 17:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting, I'd like at least one non-automated look. Wizardman 14:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Wizardman, you've got your wish. :) I read the whole article. Its rating as a Good Article is well-earned. I learned some things about Nathan that I didn't know from just reading the baseball pages in the Boston Globe or New York Times. I especially enjoyed the trivia that he replaced Barry Bonds on the Giants roster. In all seriousness, there's no serious flaw with the article. It's not missing any information that needs to be there. The only issue I might have is that it's a little more prosaic and boring than your typical featured article. If you could track down one of those Sunday-morning type long interviews to shine a light onto this guy's personality, that might make for a more interesting reading experience. Otherwise, the best way to evaluate its readiness for FA is to try FA and see why people say no. Oh, and for guidance, you can look at Lee Smith (baseball player), which is featured. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Look at WP:CITE and improve the references - each should give the source, publication date, and author. (by Jimmy The Greek, Sports Illustrated, May 1996.)
  • wikilink Division III to explain it to people who don't know why it's a big deal that "only div iii colleges showed interest"
  • Similarly wikilink, rephrase, or explain (probably wikilink, because that allows readers who don't know to look it up, while doesn't get in the way of readers who do know): Academic All-American, Bellingham Giants, what it means to have your number retired, shutout inning, major-league decision, reliever, closer, American League Co-Player of the Week, Major League Baseball Delivery Man of the Month, MVP, ERA, and similar baseball jargon
  • "This transition came with marriage as well" - eww. You're implying his marriage was strongly tied to his promotion; either back that up with a source that specifically says that, or rephrase. In fact, I'd break the family life into a separate section, unless, again you can show that his family life is strongly tied to his career. "With the end of the first season came the birth of his first son, Cole," ... eww. I can just imagine it now: "And you, son, came at the end of my first season. I value you just almost as much as that third trophy on the left there - don't get smudges on it!"
  • Give some text feedback: words rather than just numbers. What do sports writers say about him? What makes him impressive besides just stats? Does he throw fastballs, curves, sliders, spitters? Does he know when to walk, when to try for strikeout? Is he particularly good at shutting down power hitters, or does he tend to serve them up homers occasionally? You've got some terms there that could use more verbiage - what makes him a "saves leader", a "delivery man"? Is he consistent, erratic, flamboyant, conservative, reliable? What does he do outside the game, does he have any interests in activism, politics, charities, hobbies? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll modify the article based on the latest comments, I don't see any I disagree with doing. Wizardman 20:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and the Potters[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review again because, the past review was not comprehensive enough. I have taken note of the past assistance, and would like to know how I can achieve featured article status in this article. Hpfan9374 07:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Theory[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I first saw it as a slump of an article that I felt needed improvement on sight. (This is how it used to look) So I did something in August. However, I felt it wasn't complete. So I spent September looking for lots of sources, including one copy of Rolling Stone from 2002 I found in my room. (I came up with 52 refs!) And I spent time in October keeping a draft of my work that I worked on every day and saved every day in Windows Notepad. And when it was finished on Saturday, 3 November, 2007, I made some minor changes, error fixes etc. And today, at about 4 in the morning I shifted the text into the article. And a few minutes before I added sound samples and an image. I think its ready for FA. Some copy-editing may be needed though, I'm not very good at that. Some improvements may still be needed.

Thanks,

(SUDUSER)85 14:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce[edit]

Fire away. This article has failed FA, then GA. Both times, I got minimal feedback of where to improve. -- Zanimum 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For one thing, it needs, if possible, a good screenshot from the episode. And the lead section should be a 3-4 paragraph summary of the rest of the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing is, this episode was never aired, and has never been even bootlegged and circulated among fans. Unless Sesame Workshop were to be really, really nice, this never sees the light of day.
Good point on the style, though, fixed. -- Zanimum 18:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the article really should establish what the subject is. Say something along the lines of ""Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce" is an unaired episode of the American television show Sesame Street." After you establish what the article is about then the introduction can continue with background, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medvedenko (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. How's it look? -- Zanimum 18:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priestfield Stadium[edit]

I don't know if there's enough content for a FA, but GA's got to be worth a punt, so once again I throw myself on the tender mercies of the Peer Reviewers :-)

Thanks, ChrisTheDude 14:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments de The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hi Chris, with GA/FA in mind, my comments.......

  • Comma after first 2007.
where's that? the first 2007 is in the "(known since 1 June 2007....)" sentence, and I can't see why a comma would go there.....
  • Why "football (soccer)"? In deference to the "bigger" sport of American football? Be bold.
 Done
  • Perhaps a touch of over wikilinking of Gillingham F.C. in the infobox...
 Done
  • "...current stadium, the club has..." - I'd say Gillingham F.C. instead of the club, especially as you've just talked about a "nightspot"
 Done
  • "...at an as-yet unconfirmed date." - not keen on the wording - is it needed at all?
 Done
  • "Rainham end" - was it called that or is that simply the geography of the situation? The caption for the 1908 image has it as Rainham End...
I have no idea (or source) when that stand was formally dubbed the Rainham End (as opposed to just "the Rainham end of the ground"). It certainly has a great big sign on it saying "The Rainham End" now, but prior to the 1990s it was most likely just an unofficial, albiet universally accepted, designation. I've changed it to "the Rainham end of the ground" in the photo caption to make it less ambiguous
  • "In 1914 the club" - comma after 1914?
 Done
  • Same after "In 1948..." et seq.
 Done
  • Maybe need to emphasise that early days capacity was mainly standing only. Ironic that a stand was for sitting in... (just trying to help the non-expert here).
 Done
  • Just a thought, consider a plan of the stadium with stands named, I just got to "Gordon Road" side and wondered exactly where that was.
 Done I think it looks rubbish, personally, but it's the best I can do with the tools available to me since my wife broke my home PC :-)
  • Is that a brown Cortina in the 1986 photo? Class.
Can't go wrong with a Cortina :-)
  • "...which has completely transformed..." feel nervous about the wording. Future proofing would say just "...which completely transformed...". Perhaps the same with "...has also caused...".
 Done
  • KRBS Priestfield Stadium - bold in lead, italics in history section. Just wondered why?
no idea  Done
  • Yeah, definitely think a modern plan would be good for Structure and facilities section, helps visualisation.
 Done see above
  • "players' accommodation" - my ignorance - what is this?
I think it means lounges for them to relax in after a strenuous hour or so of training (it's such a tough life) but I'm not 100% sure so I've taken it out  Done
  • Have you thought of having a fiddle with the 80s images to improve contrast? I'm guessing they're scans of old photos, just wondered what you could do with them?
Don't currently have access to any software that could do this, I'll see if anyone else that can help
  • " This stand is currently a temporary one..." - this stand is currently temporary?
 Done
  • Put a colon before ref 32 (the quote).
 Done
  • Surely full England Ladies is more significant than England Youth? Reorder in order.
 Done
  • I think there's room for expansion (a little bit at least) for the Brighton sharing era.
 Done Added a little bit about the dispute the clubs got into and how unpopular the move was with the BHA fans....
  • This may sound cheeky but I guess you're sure that Brighton never got a bigger crowd than Gillingham there?! Just that your graph and that section concerns itself only with Gillingham. You have a peculiar situation with the groundshare...
 Done Just checked and their highest attendance at Priestfield was 6,339, so nowhere the Gills' levels....
  • I may have said this before but if you repeatedly cite a book, you could cite it fully once and then just rely on author name and page number in subsequent refs.
 Done
  • There's been some discussion over the correct use of the date field in cites, it's heading towards the standard 14 November, 2007 format rather than the 2007-11-14... You choose!
My brain's about to melt down and run out my ears so I think I'll leave that as it is :-)

Hope some of that helps. Let me know if I can do anything more, explain more or just pipe down! The Rambling Man 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Strang[edit]

I would like to request a peer review of the article on James J. Strang. I am hoping to get the article to "FA" status someday, so that other Wikipedians can read more about this very interesting man from Mormon and Michigan history. I would be interested in any suggestions on any part of this article that could improve its quality, and make it a better candidate for a "FA" nomination. Thanks!! Ecjmartin 21:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Preuss School UCSD[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is already a GA and I hope to try and attempt to make it one of the few FA-quality high school articles. It is pretty highly referenced, but if there are any statements that show bias I would appreciate them being pointed out. I am also looking for any advise on any general problems or suggestions that could be made to make the FA-nomination as painless as possible.

Thanks, SorryGuy 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would also add that many of the references are internal to the school which makes them much less valuable as far as verifiability goes. Most good FA candidates have closer to fifty references, and much more extensive histories. Print sources are valuable as references as well. I agree that the prose could stand to be improved, and that the citations need a little work. Adam McCormick 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I addressed below, it is my feeling that links from the university of UCSD should not count as internal to the school. Plano has 42, Stuyvesant has 68, Hopkins School has 15. I feel as though those articles are all far longer too as they are far older of schools. This also accounts for the why they have much longer histories and books on them. SorryGuy 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty Years[edit]

Here are some of my suggestions:

  • Section 1.1 is named "Controversies", it sounds better as "Controversy". Another issue is that the Controversies section is about half the length of the history section, might need to be looked at in terms of undue weight.
    • I don't think it does, just considering the amount of coverage for the negative issues as for the positive ones. A google news search should show how the two controversies have the most references, by far. SorryGuy 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information on the schedule is plain boring. The length of the class day and days in the school year is good, but the rest if worthless. Merge the good info somewhere (possibly student life).
  • Faculty has some slight problems: Mentioning the name of the staff member who leads the self-development is Janis Gabbay is slightly strange, just remove it, its going to change eventually, so just get rid of it now.
    • I only mentioned it as she was a national teacher of the year, but you're probably right. SorryGuy 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References, now this is the biggest issue. It appears that most of your references are to sources internal to the school, which simply doesnt cut it for GA or FA standard. This needs to be addressed.
    • This isn't actually true. There is only one reference to the school website. There are references to UCSD's news service and the student paper on campus, but neither of those are really linked to the school. I think they satisfy reliability requirements. I'm open to opinion on it though. SorryGuy 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictures would be nice, possibly a picture of an athletics team (for athletics section), and a picture of a significant building (for the history section)
    • I have pictures of at least hallways. I could probably get one from outside a building if that's better? SorryGuy 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need furter clarification on any of these issues, just contact me on my talk page. Thank you. Twenty Years 15:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty Years (2)[edit]

  • Agree, a picture of the outside of a building/s would be good. Generally the administration block is the best, any heritage listed buildings, or the first building erected on the site. Hallways, probably not worth it.
  • A reference is needed for the student numbers. Im from Australia, and generally our government education departments have statistics on student numbers, possibly the school will also publish them on their website.
  • Generally, its very hard to get a school article to FA status, good to see you have got GA. Keep up the good work. Twenty Years 04:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SR Merchant Navy Class[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the article should eventually be promoted to FA status. This is primarily due to the fact that this particular class of locomotive was the prototype of the SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes, an article that has already reached FA status. It also represents a completely new concept to steam locomotive design in Britain when the first class members were constructed in 1941.

Thanks,

Bulleid Pacific 20:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have done all the relevant bits that were suggested by the programme for the article. --Bulleid Pacific 11:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Prime[edit]

previous PR Since the article recently failed at the FA, I'd like to know what else needs work in the article. igordebraga ≠ 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1999 Sydney hailstorm[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... I wish for suggestions to improve it, with the hope to have it become a featured article. Thanks, Daniel 02:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived at 10:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC) by Allen3 (talk · contribs).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bradford City A.F.C. seasons[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been putting the list together over the last few days and would like to know what else might need doing to get it towards WP:FLC particularly if more references are needed.


Thanks,

Peanut4 02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi, good start, my comments:

  • I'd start with writing some articles, even stubs, for the top scorers which are either unlinked or red-linked, without them the list looks somewhat incomplete.
    • I'll get on with this asap. I should have the info easily at hand to at least start most of them, if not all, as stubs. Peanut4 20:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War I/II should be First/Second World War - British English please!
    • Totally agree. Done with haste. Peanut4 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References need full stops after them.
  • Some refs can be expanded and cited, e.g. lost to "X F.C." in the playoff semifinals...
    • Done. Unless you can think of any more need expanding. Peanut4 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for repeated wikilinking of cup competitions, the list isn't sortable so link the first instance of each and remove the others.
    • Done. Though would you add a new link when a competition changes its name or just put the generic name instead? Peanut4 20:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another question about the links or moreover repeated ones. Would you add repeated links of top scorers? Other X F.C. seasons do but it doesn't really follow that you ought to do. Peanut4 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did BCAFC never have a league top-scorer? If so, show in bold. If not, I apologise!
    • Bolded scorers who set or equalled club's record number of goals in a season. Peanut4 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's often requested (by Struway2 mainly) that league changes are shown in bold to assist those who have difficulty in dealing with the colour scheme, so I'd suggest that as well.

That's about all I have for the moment. The Rambling Man 13:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • A quick note regarding ongoing top-scorer. In some ways I think it's a good idea, but it is possible for a new player to become the club's overall top scorer but not be that season's top scorer, so will hold off until then. Any suggestions if this happens? Peanut4 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact said situation has happened. John Forrest was the club's top scorer in 1904-05, but he jointly held the club's overall top scorer with John McMillan, who had been the top scorer in 1903-04. Peanut4 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the ongoing work to create entries for the club's top scorers, I've just got the above questions regarding the use of repeated links (see above). Otherwise all these points have now been addressed. Peanut4 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Lead section

  • …in English football - English and European football, surely, if you've got it, flaunt it!
  • commas. …in English and European football from 1903, when the club was formed and elected to the Football League Second Division, to… (I'd lose the 'immediately', it doesn't add anything).
    • I've changed immediately to 'before it had played any fixture'. I want to make the point that City - along with Chelsea - are the only team to have been elected to the league on spec. I'll have a look when I've got a bit more time and probably try expand this a bit better. Peanut4 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • … to the present day. If you actually mean that, someone's going to have to update the list every game. You may want to go with the approach adopted in other featured lists, which go up to the end of the last completed season.
    • Changed and hidden current season on the chart. Peanut4 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd para - I'd split into 2 sentences. 1st something simple like The club has been promoted eight times and relegated on ten occasions. (the reader doesn't want to start going through the prev para adding up promotions). The second half needs to get rid of the 'current' bias. Something like Three relegations in seven seasons made 2007-08 the club's first season in the fourth tier of English football for over 25 years.
    • Good point. Done. Peanut4 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • have a look at the lead sections of other featured season lists, see if you get any ideas about anything else you might want to mention

sorry if that lot makes you feel you're back at school :-(

    • No need to apologise. I didn't expect quite this many points but it's all very good constructive critcism. And very much appreciated. Peanut4 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • you have the PL and FL season articles linked to the League positions column. Man Utd seasons originally did the same, but they were moved to the Division column following opposition at FLC. Subsequent featured seasons lists have linked to the Division column. (You already link the division abbreviations from your key, so it wouldn't cause a conflict if you lost them from the column. Also, you're absolutely right to believe that just because it's been done a certain way before, doesn't mean you have to blindly follow, just so long as you can defend your way if it becomes necessary.)
  • I'd use the generic rather than the sponsored name for all the little cups, on the basis the reader won't know whether the Simod, ZDS and LDV are 1, 2 or 3 different comps or which comps they are.
    • I tend to agree and changed it. Peanut4 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top scorer

  • If more than one top scorer in a season, have them on new lines rather than with &s for ease of reading
    • Yeah I agree. I nearly did this when I set up the list but decided against it. Changed it. Peanut4 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • you asked above about repeated linking, this has been discussed at several FLCs and consensus is they should be linked every time, as it isn't user-friendly to find a name and then have to scroll up trying to find where he's linked.
  • If you're using Soccerbase for goals totals after your book runs out, make sure it actually includes all you want to include, they are gradually making it more complete but there are still some omissions and anomalies, especially with early rounds of minor cups.
  • Your footnote doesn't mention goals scored in the Premier League (neither did mine until yesterday ;-)) or in the Intertoto.
    • Changed it to include Premier League. I've already got European competitions in there. Unless you think I need to change that to Intertoto. Peanut4 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Not at all, i just didn't spot the European competition bit :-)
  • Footnotes - wikilink things like play-offs, two-legged match the first time they're mentioned. I'd note things like your last-day escape from relegation 2000(?) (but then I actively enjoy footnotes, some people think they're a waste of time, there's probably a sensible approach somewhere in the middle). Actually, rather than a note no-one will read, that could sit very comfortably in the middle of the 3rd para of the lead, if you're looking for a bit more to go in there.

sorry I've gone on so long, hope some of it helps, Struway2 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done that. And will tie in the other bit into the lead. Hopefully will get a better lead written sometime fairly soon. Peanut4 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • also, according to UEFA site, your lot got to the SF of the Intertoto, not R3. Struway2 11:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will get on with the other points when I get a bit more time. You might be right about the Intertoto. It was the third round but maybe I didn't realise we were that close to the UEFA Cup!! Peanut4 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      it was your third round, but you came in at the second round stage. And there's no rush to do stuff - writing stubs is a pain and fiddling with table layout is a pain, but if you can alternate the two at least you get a bit of variety. glad to be of help, Struway2 13:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gondar[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I do not want to go for a good article candidacy yet, I think it is well on its way to it.

Thanks,

Dreamy § 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Act[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… the person who put the template on the article's talk page didn't complete the process.


Thanks,

John Carter 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Intro needs to be lengthened. Individual quotations should be individually sourced. A little more information on the nature of the debate would be useful. The "Provisions" section should probably be converted into regular sentence format. John Carter 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to help improve the article to GA ststus. Most of the article seems well-referenced and I am looking for suggestions and comments on what to improve. Any help would be appreciated.


Thanks,

--Hdt83 Chat 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anberlin[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review. I wish for the article to someday be a GA, and peer review will help a lot. What needs to be done so that the article could achieve this rank?


Thanks,

Liscobeck 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powderfinger[edit]

archived peer review

Pauline Green[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was a stub when I started, and I've expanded and referenced but now I've gone blind on it: any other views on required changes to meet wiki guidelines greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

JonStrines 08:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that: will work my way through the suggestions. JonStrines 09:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Borough of Croydon[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of I need some creative feedback on how to make this article a Good Article and a Featured Article. I have made substantial changes to this article since I've come on Wikipedia and believe that this could be a brilliant article. From the failed GA Review, I've changed most things, such as:

  • Taking off links that are repeated over and over again
  • Changing lists into prose and shortening or getting rid of tables altogether
  • Use full references and reference everything that is questionable or arguable.

Thanks,

Pafcool2 18:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Chris.B[edit]

It's a good start, but I feel it may need some more work.

  • As it stands now the lead section needs a slight expansion; some parts of article aren't summarised.
  • Remember that all non-free content requires a proper fair use rationale: have a look at Image:Croydoncouncillogo.gif, Image:Choice-fm-logo.gif and Image:Couls purl.jpg. Some of which are used in breach of fair use.
  • The overall layout of images looks somewhat cluttered. Consider making them all consistent by maintaining only the thumb attribute.
  • "Croydon covers an area of 86.52 km²" What's that in miles squared?
  • The article needs additional references. The "Neighbourhoods and areas" section is wholly unreferenced, as is most of the history section.
  • It needs some minor formatting changes: e.g. "Geography and Climate" → "Geography and climate" and so forth. No need for caps.

Otherwise a very exhaustive article. Keep up the good work. -- Chris B • talk 16:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ilse@[edit]

I think the non-free corporate logos and non-free images of buildings should be removed. Generally, all non-free use images need non-free media rationales to explain why the use is permitted. – Ilse@ 09:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa the Skeptic[edit]

This article was recently listed as a Good Article. I am looking for input and advice on how to improve its quality further to that of a Featured Article. This is part of a collaborative effort, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated. Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do we need FA status for articles about a Simpsons episode? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an appropriate question for a peer review, where we discuss how to improve the quality of a particular article. But I am sure the other folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive would love to discuss this with you. Also, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons for hard work done by many other Wikipedians on this topic, that currently has (14) Featured Articles. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. Will ask over there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing points from semi-auto Peer Review
  1. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] --  Done - Expanded lead to a second paragraph, summarizing subsections beyond just the plot. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 500 yards, use 500 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 500&nbsp;yards.[?] -  Done - This was easy, there was only one instance of this in the article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” -  Done - I went through and checked the article. There is one instance of "some", one instance of "few", and perhaps one other instance of another such word, but they are all used tastefully, and none of these example words are used more than once. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC) - These are, as always, great ideas, and we will continue to work on copyediting the article to improve its readability and level of quality. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Stacy[edit]

My objective in requesting a Peer review is to obtain constructive criticism, and to generally improve the article via independent critique from “another set of eyes”. This was my first article. I’ve worked on it for several months, and received useful critique during a recent GA review. I’m hoping to receive more good criticism from a Peer review, and would greatly appreciate your time, effort, and comments.

William Stacy was an officer of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, and was subsequently a pioneer to the Ohio County and the Northwest Territory. I have attempted to reference most or all books containing descriptions of Stacy. In that respect, I’ve tried to be as complete as the historical record allows. (Unfortunately, there is no available portrait, drawing, or likeness of Stacy.)

I’m hoping that a reviewer would bring a new perspective to any issues related to the article, including suggested edits, grammar, balance or point of view, and completeness. Thank you for your help. ColWilliam 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review[edit]

  • Thank you to APR for this review. Working on comments. ColWilliam 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit[edit]

Welcome to wikipedia! I'm glad that the GA process was helpful for you. This article looks quite good. I have only a few minor suggestions.

  • The lead should be a standalone summary of the article. For hints on how to write one, see WP:LEAD and WP:BETTER#Lead section. The second sentence of the current lead is much too long for the average reader.
 Done ColWilliam 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might think about rearranging the page more chronologically, so that the plaque details and other remembrances are in a section titled "Legacy" or some such thing.
 Not done - However, the suggestion is appreciated. I've generally written the article chronologically. However, I wanted to include the plaque and inscription in the section "Opening days of the Revolutionary War". The inscription helps describe the events of that time. Thanks again for the suggestion. Regards, ColWilliam 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is well-written, but some of the language is a little decorative for an encyclopedia. Watch out for phrases such as "colorful events" - they can be interpreted as violating wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. We try to have a pretty objective writing style - what that really means sometimes is boring.
 Done ColWilliam 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your bibliography is impressive, but a bit overwhelming for the average reader, I think. Why don't you list only the best sources on Stacy? Your notes will take care of the rest.
 Not done - However, the suggestion is appreciated. I have not implemented, but instead, am considering the idea of an additional section (perhaps a "Bibliography short list") to address your idea about listing only the best sources for an average reader. Also, I wanted to retain the detailed references and bibliography for those readers who are interested in historical details and/or fact-checking. Although many references are provided to the article, most references contain only a sentence, paragraph, or page regarding William Stacy. Thank you again for the suggestion. Regards, ColWilliam 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infoboxes are optional - decide whether you think this box aides the reader or not.
 Done - Retained infobox, as it was added based on a request from the initial article assessement. Regards, ColWilliam 17:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that you stagger your images on the right- and left-hand sides of the page. It is more aesthetically pleasing (see WP:MOS#IMAGES and WP:IMAGE for suggestions on page layout).
 Done ColWilliam 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any quotations need to have the inline citation placed directly after them to make absolutely clear what source they are being drawn from.
 Done ColWilliam 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might think about combining references rather than having multiple citations. That is generally the preferred method. Having five little numbers in a row can be distracting to the reader.
 Not done - However, the suggestion is appreciated. Similar to above…I have not implemented, but instead, am considering the idea of an additional section (perhaps a "Bibliography short list") to address your idea about listing only the best sources for an average reader. Also, I wanted to retain the detailed references and bibliography for those readers who are interested in historical details and/or fact-checking. Thank you again. Regards, ColWilliam 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my comments are nit-picky because you have written a very fine article. Awadewit | talk 11:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much Awadewit for your efforts and comments. Will work on your suggestions. ColWilliam 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you again. Incorporated some suggestions above and am considering others. Done for now. Regards, ColWilliam 18:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kevin Myers[edit]

I know you've just finished for now, but I just noticed the peer review for this very nicely researched and written article. I have one suggestion regarding the References & Bibliography section. Above it was mentioned that these seem a little overwhelming. This is because you've combined two different approaches to citation, which produces a ton of repeated information. That is, in every single footnote you repeat the entire publication information of the source, and then you repeat that same information again in the "bibliography" section. This is not a standard approach in the publishing world or on Wikipedia.

One approach you can use, which keeps all of the infomation but makes the notes easier to read, is to use the Chicago Manual of Style "short form" for your citations. That is, in the footnote, just use the author's name, the name of the publication, and the page number, and then in the bibliography section give the complete publication details so that readers can check your sources if they need to. See Pontiac's Rebellion for a featured article that uses this style, which is standard in published academic history and the style I recommend for history articles. Your article will look more professional this way. Good work and good luck! —Kevin Myers 19:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much, Kevin Myers, for your comments, and for the suggested "short form" approach to citations. This is a great idea, and I will change the format to short form. Thank you. Regards, ColWilliam 21:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I've made a first pass at converting citations to short form. I'll be cycling through the article and references several more times to improve, catch mistakes, and perhaps combine references. The short form looks much better. Thanks again for the suggestion. Regards, ColWilliam 23:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Gibson[edit]

Recently reached GA, editors are somewhat at a loss as to how to proceed from here. What would it take for the article to reach WP:FA standards, do you think? Skomorokh incite 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to comments are on the article discussion page. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 22:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Susanlesch[edit]

Hello. A great candidate for FA. A few ideas, please ignore them if they don't help. Good luck. -Susanlesch 15:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The biography might be more encyclopedic if his family was explained, for example the names of his parents, any siblings, information about marriage and any offspring.
  • Could "Influences" and "Influenced" in the infobox be expanded into prose?
  • Could Mary Shelley and more female authors be mentioned?
  • Can Gibson's critics have a voice here?

Automated Suggestions from AZPR[edit]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

External jump here should be removed: "Gibson returned the favour, writing "U2's City of Blinding Lights" ... ", could be converted to a citation. There is some confusion on the use of WP:DASHes (there are spaced emdashes and unspaced endashes on page ranges, etc.). See MOS:CAPS#All caps (there are some all caps in the citations). Make sure all dates in citations are consistently formatted, some are linked and other aren't. e-mail exchange as a citation - how do you plan to justify that as a reliable source at FAC? There is some incorrect bolding in citations. Is this a date? Bolhafner, J. Stephen (3 1994). If so, it should be March 1994. This is a purely aesthetic comment, but the bottom half of the page just looks disorganized and cluttered. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lotsa ideas from Jay[edit]

Here are some suggestions on where to take this article. The people working on this article are the experts; don't feel as if any point I make must absolutely be followed. (Sorry for the length, hopefully the ideas are more good than bad!) Feel free to ask for clarification on any point.

  • Biography If the answers are known they'd help create a more complete picture of his life.  :
    • Is it known what the Appalachian mining town was that they moved to?
    • Is it known how his mother died?
    • Was she still in West Virginia when he went to Tuscon?
    • Do we know why Tuscon?
    • Does he have any siblings?
    • If Gibson was 18 when his mother died does this mean he left high school just months before graduating?
    • The timeline here is a bit vague. Do we know how long he traveled in Europe and California after her death? Do we know what money he used for these travels? Did he have any money? Did he grow up with money after his father died?
    • Do we have any idea what he did from 1967-1972?
    • Did he meet his wife in Yorkville as part of this hippy community?
    • Do we know how long his second trip to Europe was? Big difference between a week-long trip to Paris and 9 months backpacking through 40 countries.
    • Do we know why he picked English?
    • Do we know what authors influenced him? Who he read and loved in college?
    • Do we know what year he got his bachelors?
    • Do we know what year he became a full-time writer?
    • Does he have kids?
  • Literary career The reason we have an encyclopedia article on William Gibson is because of his literary career. Therefore this section needs to be where we hit our home run. So, with that in mind:
    • Were his early short stories successful at all? Where were they published? When did people start paying attention to Gibson?
    • Neuromancer is still his best-known work. So let's say a bit more about it. Do we know anything about his writing process? About how he got the publisher? Did it start selling well right away? Or was it once it won the awards?
    • Why have 6.5 million people read Neuromancer? Or in other words, tell the reader more about what distinguishes this book. We don't need a plot summary. But how about a basic plot outline and the details such as the timeframe in which Neuromancer is set, some details about the futuristic world he paints, the sprawl from Boston to Atlanta! How is it different from other science fiction (less aliens and intergalactic travel)? We read Gibson for his dystopian vision of -- not the powers -- but the perils of technology. There was no ghetto on the Star Ship Enterprise.
    • Let's say just a bit more about the rest of the sprawl trilogy, a one- or two-sentence outline, and some sort of indication of to what extent the books were critical and/or commercial successes.
    • Same thing with the Bridge trilogy. Tell the reader a bit more about Gibson's vision of this future. What's significant and interesting about this world? Again, to what extent were the books critically and commercially successful?
    • And so take his recent novels and do much of the same. "Gibson viewed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks as a nodal point in recent history..." -- indeed! Pattern Recognition begins with Cayce's father disappearing in the attacks. What a bold literary maneuver for 2003! (As an aside: I haven't read Spook Country yet. I loved Pattern Recogintoin. Think I'd like Spook?) Also, it'd be good to know more about the critical and commercial success of these books.
    • Also, there are two critical communities for Gibson. The science fiction critics and the mainstream critics. I think we could say more about Gibson's cross-over (the quote about not being in NY Times for ten years is the right direction), what sort of reception has he received outside of science fiction critics?
  • The Collaborations section is already quite good in my opinion. I didn't realize he actually wrote the Screenplay to Johnny Mnemonic. Again, as a major work of the author, we can say a bit more about this film. Has he ever commented on the screenwriting process? Is it something he'd like to do again? Again, what sort of critical and commercial reaction did the film receive? Was Gibson happy with the film?
  • Influence and recognition is quite good as well. I wonder, could we start the section with a better quote than that from Literary Encyclopedia? "One of North America's most highly acclaimed science fiction writers" is almost an understatement.
  • Visionary influence could use just a bit more about the things he foresaw. He predicted an internet in neuromancer, but how was it similar and how different to what happened? What subcultural aspects did he predict? What were his predictions regarding reality TV?
  • (And because I don't want this left unsaid, the picture in the infobox is just stunning.)

So I realize that's a huge amount of ideas. But like I said, I'm just sort of throwing out most of what occurred to me. If the information's not out there that's fine, but at least this way we asked the questions. The key goal should be expanding and improving Literary Career. Once that's been hit I think you'll be ready for FAC. Like I said, let me know if any of my suggestions are unclear. And again, don't take any of this as negative. This is a really great article. And I only have so many suggestions because the subject of the article is so interesting to me. --JayHenry 21:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demoscene[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because ever since it's nomination to FA status, it has been extended immensely with various subpages and other content material. The subculture has been expanding vastly over the years and currently is one of the featured concepts of various digital film festivals and other related events. Gargaj 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this reads like original research (The perception that the demo scene was going to extremes and charting new territory added to its draw.) Without citations it is hard to tell if is original reasearch or not. You need lots more citations. Expand the lead to that it summarizes every section in the article. Also there are too many external links.--BirgitteSB 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Lawler[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to become a Good Article. I realize that it needs some work, and I'd appreciate feedback on how it can be improved.

Thanks, GaryColemanFan 21:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 12:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something that is essential for wrestling articles to become Good Articles is for the text to be "out of universe". It has to be 100% clear that wrestling is scripted, and that angles, wins, and loses are planned before hand. Check Shelton Benjamin, Nora Greenwald, Kurt Angle, or any of the other wrestling Good Articles for examples of how to do this. If you need help, let me know. Nikki311 17:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the lead, where it says he is the most decorated person in professional wrestling, greatly needs to include references with inline citations to support the facts listed there.
  • 1970s - 1990s
    • First sentence: As a young adult, Lawler had a job as a disk jockey, which garnered the attention of local wrestling promoter Aubrey Griffith. If there is any way this sentence can be reworked so that "promoter" can be wikilinked (as it is the first time this term is used in the article), that would be good. Right now, "promoter" is next to "Aubrey Griffith" and Wikipedia frowns on two different wikilinked terms being right next to each other causing them to appear as one wikilink. Or actually, since there is no article for Griffith, de-link her name and wikilink "promoter."
    • 4th paragraph - Soon after, Lawler's issues with Verne Gagne led to his departure from the AWA. What issues? This sentence comes out of nowhere, there is nothing before this sentence to indicate he had problems with Gagne and nothing after it either. Please try to add more information about their relationship.

Just a few suggestions :) --Naha|(talk) 16:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more thing: Lawler is a cartoonist and has illustrated a few books (and possibly some other things?) His drawings have also been featured in WWE magazine on more than one occassion and have been noted on several RAW broadcasts over the years. If anyone can find some good sources for this information, it would be well worth mentioning as it helps to add some non-wrestling information which broadens the scope of the article. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 05:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldham[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is close to the WP:GA standard. It's classed as "Top" importance by the WikiProject Greater Manchester too.

I've pretty much written the article myself, so there's bound to be mistakes/issues with some text, hense the peer review request from a wider readership. I'm keen to get both the semi-automated and manual feedback on how I can improve any/all sections of the article. At the time of the request I'm aware there are two statements requesting citation, but I'm on to sorting those within the next few days!

Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydrogen Monoxide[edit]

And-Rew (talk · contribs) (and old adoptee of mine) asked me to take a look at this, so here goes. I'm notoriously lazy at PR, but here are some quick and easy comments :)

Firstly, take a look at Brownhills, currently a featured article candidate.

  • "Oldham is a large town in Greater Manchester, England.[1]" - That's a bit too obvious, you don't need to source it.

 Not done We have had problems with an annoymous user in the past changing "Greater Manchester" to "Lancashire". The source is there to assert verifiability.

  • "Toponymy" section should either be in the lead or somewhere else (can't think where), unless there's more notable stuff about it to mention. -- Jza84 · (talk)

 Not done WP:UKCITIES recommends the History section, though I do have material I can add to boost this section. -- Jza84 · (talk)

  • ""Royd" mill, built in 1907,[3] and seen here in 1983, was just one of Oldham's peak of 360 textile mills which operated night and day." (image caption) - It's very rare to have refs in image captions. In fact, as that image isn't mentioned in the article...I dunno *shrugs* Anyways, I'd remove the ref at least.

 Not done It's difficult finding an appropriate image of Oldham's former "mill-scape", though they do exist. This image is the best I've found thusfar. The source merely strengthens verifiability.

  • "it has been said that "if ever the Industrial Revolution placed a town firmly and squarely on the map of the world, that town is Oldham."[5]" - Said by who?

 Not done I'm not sure the specific historian is helpful - and it is an assertion that's quite well known (at least in the UK). I could say "a local historian"? Though it is referenced. -- Jza84 · (talk)

  • {{fact}}s - as you noted in your intro, but it makes my review look substantial! :P
  • The third paragraph of the Coal mining, engineering and Platts section is quite long (read: too long)

 Not done Yes I agree with this. I'm awaiting for the delivery of a book about Oldham's coal mining, which will then allow me to provide citation and elaborate upon material. This should then fix this imbalance. -- Jza84 · (talk)

  • "The Riot Act was read in 1852 on election day following a mass public brawl over the Reform Act,[23] and irregularities with paliamentary candidate nominations.[9]" - Stubby paragraph - merge into another?

 Done Merged into another paragraph.

  • What's the permission deal with [8]?

 Done I've made this clearer and provided a full rationale.

  • Units (such as km etc.) should be wikilinked at least once.

 Done

  • Areas and suburbs of Oldham - Lots of redlinks, enjoy!
  • Take this to GAC!

 — H2O —  09:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted comments at the time of this sig. Thanks ever so much for the input! Though there's alot of things "not done", I aim to fix these asap! Thanks again, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek's Comments[edit]

I don't like the use of the term "Anglian peoples". The page it links to doesn't mention the phrase. Does it mean Anglo-Saxons or Angles, or something more specific?--Derek Andrews 13:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - The book says "Anglian" but I know from other sources it really means the Anglo-Saxons, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wikilink to spindle is inappropriate as this article is about drop spindles which are not used industrially. It might be shuttles they are referring too?--Derek Andrews 13:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done- The source I have says spindles, and doesn't elaborate much beyond that. Perhaps there is a better link somewhere? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest piping it to Cotton-spinning machinery which mentions spindles, albeit in passing, but I think it gives a clearer idea.--Derek Andrews 20:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this! Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It was not until the second half of the 19th century when Oldham became the world's manufacturing centre for cotton spinning." Should 'when' be replaced with 'that'? Or maybe better: "Oldham became the world's manufacturing centre for cotton spinning in the second half of the 19th century", if that retains the true meaning.--Derek Andrews 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done You're right about this, I've fixed it! Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Strang[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would ultimately like to see it become a feature article on Wikipedia. James Strang is a little-known but very interesting character in Mormon and Michigan history, a man who literally created his own kingdom within the boundaries of a U.S. state and managed (under duress) to keep it operating for six years. He also taught a unique brand of Mormonism unduplicated anywhere else in the Latter-day Saint movement. I would like to see more people able to read about this fascinating man.

I would solicit any comments, contributions, deletions, etc. that reviewers would feel might improve this article in any way, and/or enhance its chances to be approved for "FA" status.

Thanks very much,

Ecjmartin 00:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 2[edit]

Hey, I'd like some feedback on how this article could be improved to get it to a possible GA status. Thanks, Moviemonster 08:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have two major concerns. First, the quality of the writing is B to B+. It needs to improve to at least A- before it can pass as a Good Article. The grammar is flawed in some places, and more importantly, the ideas are not stated compactly, and tend to drag on and on redundantly, making the article difficult to read from one end to the other. You can cut down the length without sacrificing much content. The other problem is a lack of inline citations, especially in the "Gameplay" section immediately after the table of contents. There are some inline citations, but not enough to support the majority of statements that have been made. It's better to cite a critical review, and I'm sure that reviews have been published, than to simply say "I know the game works like this because I played the game myself." Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom basically nailed the problems with the article: citations and length/quality of prose (in that order). Additionally, the "Reception" section seems a bit light: it says that the game received wide critical acclaim, but doesn't say why it was praised and what, if any criticisms there were. Also, you might want to look at review the current summary for Sims 2 Bday.jpg. Possibly >_> Una LagunaTalk 10:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Innis[edit]

I have added considerable information to this article, along with photos, captions, many citations, and an extensive bibliography. I am wondering what rating this article should receive now that it has been extensively expanded.

Bwark 21:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit[edit]

Hellow Bwark! Thank you for this wonderful article on a very important academic! Many of the comments I have may seem picky, but that is because there are no large-scale comments that need to be made. Well-done! Also, many of the changes that need to be made to the article are only to make it conform to the manual of style. You asked what the article should be rated now. It is currently a "B" - it clearly merits a higher rating than that, but without submission to Good Article Candidacy, WikiProject Biography A-class review, or Featured Article Candidacy, it cannot be ranked any higher. It must go through a vetting process at this point. You might spend some time looking at these processes in order to decide if you want to submit the article to them. I can offer advice on that front, as I am fairly familiar with them.

  • Innis is considered by many to have been one of the finest and most original scholars Canada has ever produced. - Wikipedia tries to be as specific as possible in statements of this kind - "considered by many scholars" perhaps?
  • This article has a lot of quotations, especially a lot of long quotations. I would try and summarize as many of those as possible. Retain only the ones necessary for the flavor of Innis's writing or for some particularly relevant anecdote or astonishing fact, etc. (see summary style). It is also not always clear in the article itself who is speaking/writing the quoted words. So, for example, in the large block quote about his railroad thesis, we get what seems to be an independent assessment of it - but who is writing this? The reader needs to know.
  • A wider world beckoned. - While poetic, this kind of sentence is not necessarily encyclopedic. I would suggest deleting these kinds of sentences and phrases. The kind of writing style we are trying to achieve on wikipedia is very neutral, which often results in boring prose, I'm afraid.
  • In spite of its religious affiliation, McMaster was far from a dogmatic or doctrinaire institution. - This kind of sentence might be viewed as point of view - could it be more neutrally worded?
  • I would delete the "Notable quote" unless you can find a place to integrate it into the article. It might be viewed as trivia.
  • Some of your images look like they need fair use rationales (see WP:FAIR). Also, some editors might question the images you have chosen to use. For example, why a postage stamp of a cod rather than the book cover of Innis's book?
  • If you decide to go for good article (GA) and most especially if you decide to go for featured article (FA), you will need to spend a few days perusing the manual of style (MOS) and making sure that the article adheres to it (ex: links could be added in places (Baptist); links should be taken out of quotations per WP:MOSQUOTE). I've altered some things (such as image sizes - only maps and images with details that must be seen should have sizes - something about browser differences and user preferences) along MOS guidelines already.
  • This page is quite long (it is around 10,000 words and that is the max - you might hear complaints about that). Here are some sections that might be summarized more succinctly:
  • Early education in general
  • PhD thesis section
  • U of C section - list of professors would be difficult for someone unfamiliar with them
  • Fur trade - remember, Innis's theories don't all have to be described here - they can have their own pages! that is the glory of wikipedia
  • Communications theories in general - create subpages for the books and link there
  • McLuhan section

Please feel free to ask questions about this review either here or on my talk page. Again, thank you for this carefully constructed and well-written article! Awadewit | talk 10:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lukather[edit]

I've been working on this article for quite a while with the goal of making FA status. I've sort of stalled out and I'd like to get some suggestions for pushing it over the hill. I have researched the subject exhaustively using the resources I have (scholarly online search for journals, magazine articles, etc. and the subject's online biography) and can't find any more easily. I'd love feedback on the prose and on what sections specifically need expansion (or shrinkage?)

Thanks, Bloodzombie 22:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FC Steaua Bucureşti[edit]

previous PR

I'm listing this article for peer review because I'm trying to get an FAC for it and I need to know if there is anything else that needs modifications apart from what it has been done so far. Vladi 11:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dean Frisbie[edit]

WrestleMania III[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article has the potential to become a Good Article. I'd appreciate feedback on how it can be improved, so we can nominate it for Good Article status.

Thanks,

Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 12:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned a few times, the Fair Use rationale for the Savage-Steamboat picture is inaccurate. Fair Use explanations are not just a copy-and-paste deal. The picture is not used on "various websites," so it is illegal to make such a claim. In addition, all of the picture exceed the 100,000 pixel limit for Fair Use pictures. The resolution is too high, and this also needs to be fixed before the pictures can be listed as Fair Use. GaryColemanFan 14:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish flags[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded it and I intend to make it a WP:FLC soon. Here's what the automatic peer review says:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Thanks,

— Kpalion(talk) 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you should clarify in the lead if these are only flags currently in use (which is what I would guess) or if obsolete flags are included. The intro under "Rank flags used in all branches of the Armed Forces" is great. Try and add information like that about legislation etc. to every section or else say nothing at all. Don't have a single sentence of Flags used by the Polish Land Forces. --BirgitteSB 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the word "current" into the first sentence of the lead to make it clear that the list does not include obsolete designs. I hope that's enough. The reason why I put those single sentences in some sections was to have links to Polish Land Forces, Polish Navy and Polish Air Force, and at the same time to avoid links in the section headings, which is discouraged by MoS. I'll be glad to know, if you have an idea how to achieve both results in a different way. — Kpalion(talk) 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feeder[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, I would like some advice on how to make it worthy of a FA nomination, and is already a GA.

Thanks,

Marcus Bowen 15:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Zhang[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the article failed the good article criteria. Now I addressed these problems and expanded on the article. I would like other fellow experienced editors of Wikipedia to view the article and see if the article needs further improvement before renominating.


Thanks,

σмgнgσмg 10:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

To see if it can be an article above B. And to rate it's importance.

Thanks,

DrunkCat 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic spectrum[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a very topical subject for both physics and applications, in particular in the domain of radio frequencies. I am not sure is this would be best in an associated article Electronic spectrum/Radio spectrum. I am seeking contributions from users interested in the scientific content and the applications and economics.


Thanks,

Henri 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jeff[edit]

We need to identify this article's purpose. I suppose this article needs to be an overview of each type of EM radiation. We have the article Electromagnetic radiation, but that actually does not really give an overview of the different types of radiation. I guess in an article like this I would expect to see each band (Radiowaves, Microwaves, Visible light etc.) have its own section, which would be a summary of each of the respective articles on the subject. Compare with Visible spectrum, and possibly use this as a model. Like most reviewers here at PR, I don't have the background to jump in and start writing constructively on a topic like this, but I can give some other suggestions to get you started.

  • I would avoid putting formulas in the lead section; these belong in the body, and use words to describe the concept in the lead.
  • "It is commonly said..." weasel words, don't use.
  • "that EM waves beyond these limits are uncommon, although this is not actually true." Confusing. If I say "don't think pink" what's the first thing you think of? State the facts as positive statements.
  • "The short wavelength limit is likely to be the Planck length" needs context to give it meaning.
  • "a atomic nucleus"
  • "Electromagnetic energy at a particular wavelength λ (in vacuum) has an associated frequency f and photon energy E." again, this statement needs context.
  • "When light waves (and other electromagnetic waves) enter a medium, their wavelength is reduced. " reword.

If you need more technical people to help, try the physics wikiproject Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BirgitteSB[edit]

This needs more content before a review will be very useful but I do have a few thing:

  • If light=electromagnetic radiation make this clear in the first sentence. If not make sure the words are not used interchangably in the rest of the article.
  • Only have one chart of the spectrum. Hope not the horribly hard to read one that is the lead image.
  • Need citation style refernces.--BirgitteSB 17:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Flagg[edit]

I've been working pretty hard on this lately, expanding and reworking sections, including extra sources and quotes and etceteras. I'd like for it to become either a Good or Featured article, so any help or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.--CyberGhostface 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wow[edit]

Wow, it's been a while since I looked at the Randall Flagg page, and I'm impressed with the progression that has been made with it. I really don't have many criticisms, except that I don't really understand the relationtionship between Flagg and Farson. Was it simply an error on King's part? Other than that, great job, man. Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 18:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As for Farson...yes, I think it was an error or oversight on King's part, or at least something that was not explained enough. Originally he was the rebel that overthrew Gilead, and Flagg worked for him. King got a bit sloppy when he revised the gunslinger and then finished the rest of the series, because he said he was Farson in the revised and then went back to his normal status in the final novel. I'll see if I can clarify it a little, though.--CyberGhostface 20:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice[edit]

It's looks all cleaned up and reads a lot clearer than I remember. I think this article's at the stage it needs to be now. (Unless King writes Flagg into another book, that is).Artemisstrong (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race of Ancient Egyptians[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently rewrote it and I'm sure it has some grammatical, spelling and prose issues that could easily be resolved by outside eyes. Please read this article and go through and fix any problems that you see with it.


Thanks,

Wikidudeman (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaktism[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…the article has gone through numerous changes in the last month and has been greatly expanded and referenced making it a possible FAC.


Thanks,

Redtigerxyz 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Canal[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked on improving it from when it was rated B-class by the UK Waterways Assesment Project. However it would be good to get some independent feedback. Any comments or constructive criticisms are welcome.


Thanks, Hmallett 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Washington Redskins first-round draft picks[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i don't know what to do next and you guys have been helpful on my other redskins articles

Thanks, Jwalte04 22:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Bay Transit[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been putting a lot of work into it the last few months, but I think it is lacking something and I can't quite tell what that might be. I would also like someone other than myself to make sure there are no grammar or spelling errors, as we tend to be unable to spot our own mistakes.


Thanks,

vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 16:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think expanding the lead would be great. Excellent work so far, you improved the article a lot.Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've expanded the lead. Is there anything else?
      • I'm new to peer review, so I am not that good at reviewing yet. I haven't noticed any other problems though. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 19:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I have gotten the first two, but there might be a couple that slipped through. I've moved that here so I only have to reference one page.

Thanks for the help so far. It's fairly difficult as there are no other bus transit articles (relating to this type of bus transit) which are at good or featured status (more are barely more than stubs) so any help, especially regarding the prose, is greatly appreciated!! I'm going to do some more work on the history section as well, while ensuring that all links go to their proper destinations, I noticed that one source has been updated since it was accessed. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Milner[edit]

Transferring feedback from FAC page. I won't be nominating it again. Or at leaste not until can can be sure the the prose is brilliant which I didn't really do last time.Buc 14:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great content and I admire the hard work that's gone into this article. The prose really needs some work though. I see that the article has gone under the copy editing knife quite a few times, and a lot of the problems have been fixed. However, I think one major issue which detracts from the readability are the unwieldy subordinate clauses, examples of which I have italicized below:
  • "he did confirm that he was frustrated at not being used as a starter for most of the season."
  • "As well as not making Milner a regular in the Newcastle side, Souness controversially remarked..."
  • "a clause in Newcastle's purchase of Nolberto Solano from Aston Villa resulted in Milner being loaned to Villa for the rest of the season."
  • "Leeds' eventual relegation to the Championship led to speculation over Milner's future at the club, despite having signed a five-year deal with Leeds the previous year."

Do you get what I mean about the subordinate clauses?

This is done to link facts together and stop it from reading as a list of random facts. Buc 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of reading like a long list of random facts, it is now just very difficult to read. There are other ways to write without using complicated expressions. A random fact is a random fact, whether it is in a list or shoehorned into the prose. Choosing one of the examples above, I might rewrite it to something along the lines of:
"Souness did not use Milner as a regular and controversially remarked "..." (which led to) ..." If this is integrated well, it won't feel listy. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is run-ons, such as:

  • "In a match against Chelsea a month later, Milner scored again using a first touch of the ball that was described as "a beauty" and allowed him to avoid a tackle from Chelsea defender, Marcel Desailly, this created a yard of space for him to deliver a curling shot a goal from 18 yards away" And I don't quite understand "using a first touch of the ball"
  • "At the start of the 2003–04 season, Milner was sent on a month-long loan to Division Two side Swindon Town to gain experience as a first team player, which, prior to the stint, he saw as an experience which would be valuable to him progressing as a player." Again, this is unwieldy. Although the grammatical structures may be technically correct, some of them are very long and unwieldy. Rewording some of these structures would improved readability immensely. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay I've spilt upsome of the longer sentences. Buc 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Run ons? what are they? Buc 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Run-on sentence. In the example above "...Marcel Desailly, this created a yard..." The comma after Desailly's name is where the run-on occurs (in this arrangement, The Elements of Style refer to it as a comma splice). This sentence has other complicated problems, such as "a curling shot a goal" I'm not sure what is meant here. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written. Please find a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with the text.

  • It's already had about 5. Buc 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "James Philip Milner (born 4 January 1986, Wortley, West Yorkshire) is an English footballer who plays as a winger and left-sided midfielder, for the English club Newcastle United." Just run past me why the comma is appropriate in the opening sentence.  Done
  • "long distance running"—Hyphen required; it's even pipe-linked to an article with the hyphen.  Done
  • He "was a season ticket holder at the club"? Is that notable enough to have right at the top?
    • I think so. Buc 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Milner began his career at Leeds United, by joining the Leeds United academy in 1996." Another errant comma.  Done
  • "his first appearance for the first team"—Ungainly rep.
    • What saying "first" twice? Buc 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While at Leeds United, Milner spent some time on loan at Swindon Town to gain first team experience"—Last three words won't be clear to non-experts. Remove "some".
    • Disagree. "some" is a useful modifier, excluding "much". Last three words aren't jargon, but first-team should be hyphenated. --Dweller 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Under-17 level he helped"—Comma would be easier for our readers, as you've used elsewhere in this context. Tony (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Milner with Leeds during the 2002–03 season."—This caption is not a full sentence: see MOS on captions.  Done
  • "The final total paid was £5,000,000 after a certain number of appearances"—Don't we know how many?
    • No, ref doesn't say. Buc 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Warm-up" image: you couldn't sharpen it and add saturation, could you? Software for doing this is commonplace.
  • "and his teammates and is regarded is being fairly quick"—A gem. Tony (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those were examples of why the whole article needs attention, not the full deal. Tony (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok I'd love to know what other problems are so I can fix them. Buc 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: it's very hard to do it yourself, as you're too close to it. Find a collaborator who's interested in the topic, or the general area, and who can copy-edit. Tony (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dean Frisbie[edit]

Manchester Airport[edit]

I wish to bring the article up to GA standard, and seen as I've only worked on Geography Articles that I've helped comply with Good Article criteria (Didsbury and Manchester), I don't know what to add or remove from the page. I've had 95 edits on the article, and I requested to protect it twice from vandalism, successfully. Any help, thoughts or suggestions would be nice.

Regards, Rudget Contributions 12:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should remove all the bullet points and either re-write in prose or make a daughter List article. Also cut down on the listing of things in the prose. It basically needs more content. What is significant about this airport rather than facts out of context. You need to find more sources basically.--BirgitteSB 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Hochuli[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is worthy of being a WP:GAN, but I would like additional editors to review this article and get their input. RyguyMN 23:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks,

RyguyMN 23:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera (Internet suite)[edit]

I've put a lot of work into this article, and I believe that it now rivals the featured article Mozilla Firefox in quality. It has already been promoted to good article status, and I'd like to know if there's anything else that needs to be done before nominating Opera (Internet suite) as a featured article candidate. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had read certain parts of this article in the past, and from what I read, I felt it had meet my needs as a user.
  • One thing though: "Opera handles common Internet-related tasks such as visiting web sites, sending and receiving e-mail messages, managing cont.." I don't really see how necessary these details are. If people don't know what a web browser is, they can always click on the internal link. Learnedo 10:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and the Potters[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review again because, the past review was not comprehensive enough. I have taken note of the past assistance, and would like to know how I can achieve featured article status in this article. Hpfan9374 07:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colmar Pocket[edit]

Possible GA, or not ?

Thanks,

RCS 05:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch
I'm puzzled why the map of the battle -- once in the infobox, again in the text body -- appears twice. Doing that looks awkward.
As I originally edited the article, the map did not appear twice. Where the article began to describe unit movements, I had placed a link readers could click on to see the map in larger format. Apparently, another editor opted to insert the map again in place of the link. I agree the appearance of the same graphic twice is awkward. W. B. Wilson 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to also list this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review for some more informed opinions.
Good idea, thank you ! RCS 11:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section seems insufficient for the length of this article. Please see WP:LEAD. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I would reiterate that the lead certainly should expand significantly as per WP:LEAD. I'd also suggest naming "Colmar Pocket" a little earlier in the intro so it's more visible. That lead also isn't exactly well-written: ...bitter, extremely cold winter fighting over terrain that offered practically no cover for attacking forces just doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. But, maybe it's just me.

I also think you are in need of more sources for verifiability - you really seem to rely on only two or three with a couple for good measure. An article on this length should really at least double that number of sources (in my opinion). Along those lines too, you really will need more in-line citations. For example, under the "Background" heading, the parts on "Formation," "German view," and "Allied limitation" have a total of three in-line citations for about 600 words. Take a look at some good articles or even featured articles to see other article standards. Other than that, consider moving some images to the left (just for aesthetic reasons). Overall, this article is impressive and on its way. Best of luck with it from here! --Midnightdreary 20:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi Kawamura[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia contribution, and this is my first article. It was originally rated while it was still a work-in-progress; I'm fairly certain it's above stub-class now and would like to see it reassessed. I'd also like any pointers on style, content, ridiculous grammar/writing errors that I've somehow missed -- anything of the sort. Also, I'd like to add some pictures to it, but I'm a bit at sea on where to find them. I know of webpages and books that have images of Kawamura's productions, but I doubt use of them would be legal and am not sure where else I might look. An article about theatre without pictures is a sad article, says I.

Thanks ahead of time, and I hope to be adding more theatre content to Wikipedia in the future.

Koetachi 18:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Awadewit[edit]

Welcome to wikipedia! What a wonderful contribution! Thank you! I think that you have hit the encyclopedic tone exactly right in the article. What is missing is the biographical data. You have quite a bit on Kawamura's writings (which was fascinating and I now want to go out and read these plays), but the page also needs to detail a bit about his life. See, for example, Balzac and Sarah Trimmer. You can either integrate the discussion of the works into the life or separate them out, but with a writer you need both the works and the life. With regard to images, I think you can use bookcovers, as long as you are talking about that particular book at some length (so, perhaps, Japan Wars). You would have to find a free or fair use image of the author himself. That is much trickier - I assume you looked on the wikimedia commons already? Pictures of theater productions I don't know about - have you read Wikipedia:Non-free content? That has a lot of helpful advice. Awadewit | talk 11:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! It's always intimidating to try something for the first time -- so your kind words are much appreciated. Kawamura's life prior to and around his works may be difficult to find information on (in English, at least), as he's most widely known in Japan; but I'll keep an eye out for anything more personal I can dig up as I look through other Japanese theatre texts. Nothing like a language barrier for keeping information scarce! I'll look around both the Commons (which I just learned about) and read about non-free content and see what more I can track down in the image field -- that actually seems to be the trickiest part of an article to navigate, images. If bookcovers are fair game, I think I'll look at the Japanese editions, see if they have anything usable. Thanks again! Koetachi 00:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome! I suppose the Japanese wikipedia has a more substantial biography on him? I wonder if it is possible to request a translation? You might look into that. Awadewit | talk 01:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't seem to have a page on him (according to google), the first article i found with his name has it red-linked. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've noticed that -- and find it odd, as he's won major national awards, stits on judging panels, is still active, etc. My only thought is either a) Wiki's as behind in some areas in Japan as it is in the U.S. or b) he's listed under his troupe, Daisan Erotica or T-Factory. I'm going to check in to both. What article did you find his name in? Koetachi 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one i linked is about a magazine that he is apparently on the editorial board of (the title is coming out as "Lines of Age", but this could be scrambled by the autotranslator, so i wouldn't trust it too much). He also has redlinks on an article about Kanagawa Prefectural Kibougaoka High School (under notable alumni) and China plays Becker Engineers Award under "21 times from Chapter 30" (don't look at me, that's what it says). I *think* this is the "what link here" page for his article. The google search i linked above seems sort of reliable (it's probably better than the MediaWiki search engine anyway). CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USA PATRIOT Act[edit]

Folks, I've finally completed a total rewrite to this article. Rather than do the editing on the main article and cause it to be in an unfinished state for long periods, I wrote a draft and polished it their. The draft can be found at Talk:USA PATRIOT Act/Draft.

I have worked on this in sections. The edit history can be found at:

On a personal note, had I known the time and effort that this was to have taken me, I might have chosen an easier topic! There is information out there on the Partiot Act, but much of it is distorted or biased by either supporters or detractors. Another issue is that many of the titles just aren't documented, so I've read the entire Act on my own, aided by Patrick Leahy's section summary, CRS's summary and many other sources that do actually talk about the Act. This took me over two years to do, in which time I neglected editing other articles.

Along the way, however, I've learned a lot. I have a better understanding of how the U.S. Government works, how laws are created, how the U.S. Code is put together and how to read Acts of Congress. I've also learned how to use THOMAS and that the U.S. has this great service call the Congressional Research Service, which does an invaluable job of summarising and providing info about U.S. legislation.

I am now taking this article to peer review to get the comments of others. It's obviously too long (160KB) but I'm not sure rightly how to summarise it further. If I could get feedback, that would be great :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 09:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is quite an effort, amazing work, you deserve a barnstar for this. I'm almost speechless. Which is why it makes it hard for me to say that I think this article needs to rewritten from scratch in a summary style. It should probably not exceed 80kb, at 160kb it is an enormous burden on the reader to make it through the article (prose alone approaches 40 pages in MSword). All the research work is done, but I think it will be much easier to start with a clean slate than trying to amputate parts of the article until all you have left is a ragged mess. Either that, or just publish this as its own book! Jeff Dahl 04:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... I'm not sure I could stomach rewriting the article again... :-) This effort took me 2 years! If we could summarise the article, the main bits we could do would be the history section. There isn't really any way to summarise the titles sections further than I'm aware of - they are already summaries of articles about the title. Maybe we could create an article Titles of the USA PATRIOT Act and summarise this... not sure how you would do this though. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, When I picked an article to peer review, I no Idea what I was in for this one. I've read the first 1/3rd of the article, need to let my mind clear before I read the rest =-). My initial thoughts are very impressive. You've done a good job of remaining neutral on such a controversial bill. Congrats. I hope the article can remain in its objective state. Well Done. Davemeistermoab 04:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I've got about 2/3rds now. I still say the article is amazing. But would suggest breaking it into sub articles (moving re-authorization, titles, etc. to sub-articles). I don't think the article needs to be purged, but it is very long and most people (myself included) couldn't read the article at one sitting.

Davemeistermoab 04:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Union[edit]

This is a former FA which a number of editors have worked hard to get back up to FA, currently at GA. We would appreciate comments on how to get up to FA status and general improvements. Many editors available for rapid response.

Range of ideas welcome but please take note that the topic is a source of controversy, even between editors of similar political views, and many aspects of the article reflect this - but all comments will be heeded.

Thanks, - J Logan t: 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BirgitteSB[edit]

  • LeadNeeds slight expansion. Some parts of article aren't summarized
  • History The only thing not summarized from the daughter artcile was the issues under Former Yoguslovia.
  • Geography The intro doesn't introduce the "Environment" sub-section. The long list of member states is hard to read. Maybe it would better to name them in the various groups they joined in for some sentence structure. The last sentence under "Member states" is hidden by the image caption on my screen.
    • Is it Macedonia or Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia? Make sure images and text are consistent throughout.
    • You show Main article: European Commissioner for the Environment That is not a main article for this section if you read it. Remove the hatnote and simply link to article in the text by mentioning the office.
  • GovernanceAgain the intro does not introduce the subsections very well and is a little repetitive with the "Politics" section. No mention of European Central Bank.
  • Foreign relations This is not a very good summary of Foreign relations of the European Union. Doesn't introduce sub-sections and is overall weakly organized.
  • 'Justice, freedom and security This is a strong section and might deserve higher billing.
  • Economy Could better summarize Economy of the European Union. Missing information on Unemployment and Tourism in particular.
  • Demographics This is only missing information on Migration/Immigration. I would have this directly follow the "Geography" section.
  • CultureThis is a reads well on its own, but there is some theoretical overlap with Demographics. Is language culture or demographics? It is a strange in terms of overall organization. I wonder if would better be re-worked in a different way.
  • Misc. Overuse of Main article hatnote. You can link within the text or use a different hatnote if it not a true daughter article.--BirgitteSB 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for slow reply, we are working on it. Thanks for your comments! To reply to the reference to the daughter articles on history and foreign relations: well those are rubbish articles and are being brought upto scratch, hence we wouldn't want to summerise those in their present state. - J Logan t: 08:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the Central Bank isn't an institution, hence why it is not listed with the others but instead under Economy, which is a tad more relevant? - J Logan t: 08:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not an institution that is fine. --BirgitteSB 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universitario de Deportes[edit]

What does this article need to be improved? I've added more content to the history section.

Thanks, MicroX 15:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done everything asked by the automated peer review and would like some more feedback on the article. MicroX 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Bass[edit]

Hi! I've been trying to get this article up to GA status for a little bit now. Am I almost there, or not even close? I think I've covered a wide range of subjects within Mr. Bass's life, but I'd love to hear some feedback about the wording and tone of the article, as well as any suggestions on how to improve it. It would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, MgCupcake 21:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys-Redskins rivalry[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because with improvement, this can be a really good article. I'm just not quite sure what to do next. Thanks again, any feedback helps.

Also, thanks for the help of List of Washington Redskins players, I've made some major changes, but am still trying to get it to Featured List status, so any more help would be appreciated. Thanks, Jwalte04 05:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croton Dam (Michigan)[edit]

This is a relatively new article about a power dam on the Muskegon River that recently had its 100th anniversary... It has been selected as a DYK nomination and recently passed Good Article review as well. Most of the photos in it were taken by me, but the lead was one found on Flickr that I convinced the photographer to license so we could use it! I'm interested in taking the article further, perhaps all the way to FA. A peer review at this point seems a logical next step. Comments and suggestions appreciated. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those will be taken on board (there are less there than some automated reviews, and I think, mostly easy fixes). Anyone else have any comments? I'm hoping to take this article to FA... some of the paras need combining to be sure, I've heard that elsewhere already. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by BirgitteSB[edit]

  • Lead Needs expansion to summarize the entire article.
  • History Begins with a one sentence paragraph which needs to be combined with other text in one paragraph. Personally I don't like the tone of that first sentence and would instead say: "Croton Dam was an early electric enterprise made possible by the adaption of hydro mechanical technology." Then give the information of Foote's their background in mills and don't forget "Predecessor projects" and "Damming the Muskegon" are sub-headings. They need at least a sentence introducing them in the first paragraph. The writing currently is as though there is no heading break. The map need a more informative caption or else edit it Paint or something to label the waterways. I personally don't like the repetitive text of the historical marker. I can easily read it in the thumbnail, but I understand why you would want it in a more readable place. I think the image AND the text is too much, the article has enough images I would cut the image of the marker. BTW put an image or two on the left hand side.
  • Impact and controversy This section still needs more content. There is only one source used in the whole section and you can tell what their viewpoint is. I think you need to find more sources on these issues and hopefully that will bring in more content.
    • It allegedly causes potentially harmful changes in water temperature and oxygen levels in a stretch of the river downstream of the dam, according to company data. Is this alleged, or is it backed up by data?
  • Current status Not a fan of this title, how about "Operations". It would be wonderful if you could find more info on historical operation and tell us if these same method have been used for 100 years or else how they developed. What you have is good.--BirgitteSB 18:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback on improvements and content decisions before I nominate it for FA. Thanks, —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is pretty thorough, but it has two major shortcomings. First, the lead does not come close to summarizing the article. The lead should summarize (briefly!) each point in the article. Specifically, mention major themes in the history, probably should mention the mascot, possibly two or three of the most notable players/coaches to come out of the program, etc.  Done

The other main problem is the prose. In general, the article is well written even though it differs quite a bit from the writing style I'm used to reading on wikipedia. The tone, however, just seems a little too informal, with too many idioms and a sometimes nostalgic or sentimental tone. For example:

  • "The first season saw Tech play three games and lose all three" (the first season saw?)  Done
  • "Tech went right after Heisman following the 1903 season" (what do you mean they went right after him? This would be highly confusing to a foreign reader not familiar with English figures of speech)  Done
  • "Techmen," "Techsters," etc. These nicknames seem out of character when they are used in the prose. Try to use a formal tone even if these nicknames are in common use.  Done (don't see any use of those nicknames in the prose)
  • "Curry's teams had gotten so bad..." again, the informal tone creeps in all over the place. If this is to pass as a FA, this will have to be neutralized.
  • "Bobby Dodd took the reins of Georgia Tech football following..."  Done

The content is good, but requires some time and dedication to rework the prose, but no other major issues. Jeff Dahl 22:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked to expand the lead a bit, trying to conform it more to the structure of the article. Take a look and let me know if this is an improvement. LaMenta3 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Alpha[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, I need help proofreading this article, and see if the MOS fit with this article. For example, should the lead section have 2 or three paragraphs? Are there grammar related issues with this article? Are there grammar and punctuation errors. Does it flow smoothly? I am not done adding facts to the article, yet. However, my main goal is to get this featured on Jan. 15, 2008.

Miranda 07:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't normally do this sort of stuff, but I do wonder if the article is stable enough to be featured, there always seems to be someone trying to stuff in unsourced content, POV gibberish and the like. There's lots of reverting by pretty much everybody involved in the article at the moment. Nick 13:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, Laralove said it was stable in the failed GA review. Miranda 18:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you've got the answers you already want for this peer review, so why bother with it, if you won't listen to anything else, if it's not what you want to read ? Nick 19:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am wondering what I should do to make this article an FA. I have based the example off of Alpha Phi Alpha and other FAs. The reason that I asked you and others to review the article is because I and others might have made some punctuation errors, grammar, etc. And, I am not familiar with the whole FA process, so I need some help. I am listening to you Nick, really I am, but I should clarify that I should respond to any misinterpreted facts. And, since this a community related site, I feel as though I need to acquire assistance from the community, because I feel like I am going at this alone. Miranda 01:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from James086

  • Can AKA women be found on "every continent in the world" [from the lead section]? The source cited doesn't mention that and what about Antarctica? Does it mean the chapters, and if so there's Australia missing. I suggest something like "Members of AKA are widely spread throughout the world."
 Done Replaced with Chapters consisting of Alpha Kappa Alpha women can be found nationally and internationally. Miranda 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to "In the summer of 1934, the Summer School for Rural Teachers was initiated. Twenty-two students and 243 school children were involved. In addition, night classes were held for forty-eight adults" in the section "Expansion and Initial Implementation of Programs 1920–1940" what is the school actually for? Is it to improve the level of education of teachers or for anyone who wants to attend? I found it a bit confusing (though that might just be me ;))
 Done Fixed with: In the summer of 1934, the Summer School for Rural Teachers was initiated to train future teachers. Twenty-two student teachers and 243 school children were involved. Miranda 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 2nd paragraph of the section "Bridging Towards the Twenty-first Century: 1980–2007" could the bit about ON TRACK being sponsored by Daimler Chrysler be merged into one of the other sentences. It's too brief to be on it's own.
 Done Replaced with Sponsored by Daimler Chrysler, ON TRACK was designated to "improve communication, academics, physical and emotional health, peer leadership, etiquette, and interpersonal relationships. Miranda 18:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 3rd paragraph of the same section it says "However, on September 9, 2002, after undergoing a ceremony at Dockweiler State Beach (Pacific Ocean), twenty-two year old Kristin High and twenty-four year old Kenitha Saafir were swept into a ten foot surf, killing them." The source suggests they were killed during the ritual not "after" (although the police report is unspecific).
 Done Replaced with: However, on September 9, 2002, a ten foot surf killed twenty-two year old Kristin High and twenty-four year old Kenitha Saafir during an underground ceremony at Dockweiler State Beach near the Pacific Ocean.
  • In the last paragraph of "Bridging Towards the Twenty-first Century: 1980–2007" it says "The sorority responded to the call in fall 2005 after Hurricane Katrina, by raising money for a disaster relief fund". Which call did it respond to? It should really say that the sorority responded to the call for funds, food, aid or similar.
 Done Didn't realize the two sentences were in two different places, which is relevant to one subject. Replaced with The sorority responded to the call for help in fall 2005 after Hurricane Katrina, by raising money for a disaster relief fund.[3][4] In addition, with the assistance of Habitat for Humanity, the sorority helped build a house for a family that survived Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in July 2007.[5]
  • Much further down in "P.I.M.S. (Partnerships in Mathematics and Science)" I don't understand ref #94. It links to [9] which has no mention of AKA or P.I.M.S. Also I think that an example should be more specific. Like instead of "educational field trips in order to stimulate involvement in math and science" it should list the places they went to.
 Done That was my fault. I placed the wrong link. I also expanded that part. I have also placed more information. However, I don't know about the field trips. They didn't mention them on the site. :-( Miranda 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Leadership Fellows Program" the first sentence is a mouthful. Read it aloud and you'll see what I mean. Could it be broken up somehow? I tried but I couldn't settle on anything that sounded better. Perhaps just cut down the amount of info, like "from across the nation and overseas" could be removed maybe? I'm not sure so I didn't do it myself.
 Done Split into two sentences. Miranda 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Ivy Acres" section is the retirement centre open yet? It is referred to in present and future tense.
 Done According to the official website, this is future. I have replaced the wording with future tense. Miranda 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general comment; there seem to be links to some very basic articles like justice and corporations.
 Done I have taken out repetitive links. Miranda 07:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired and I have an exam tomorrow morning so I'm off now. I'll read the rest tomorrow. It's definitely a well written article and I think it's ready for another GAC. Also in my comments when I ask rhetorical questions I don't mean to be sarcastic, it's just I find it's the best way to explain my thoughts. Thanks, James086Talk | Email 13:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Miranda 07:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

  • I changed a quote to what it said in the source diff although it didn't have a closing " so the quote may have been intended to end earlier. If it wasn't meant to quote the whole sentence then go ahead and revert.
Thanks. Miranda 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems US-centric. Things like "across the nation" imply that all readers will be from the US. It's not major but it popped up a few times (you notice it when you don't live in the US).

I don't think it needs that copyedit tag. There are probably a few sentences in there which could be tweaked but it's already quite good. Good luck with the FAC, I think you'll get it to featured by January, especially at this rate. James086Talk | Email 12:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is U.S. centric, because the sorority gives back mostly in the U.S. However, they do some initiatives internationally as well. Just need to spruce up some sections and it will be good as gold. Miranda 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I started to do a bit of copyediting but saw it was up at GA review - some sentences that are worded oddly and a good human thesaurus can do wonders.

"Omega" is amended to graduate chapters (chapters which consist of college graduates). - erm, what do you mean here? The term omega is used for graduate chapters? If so this needs rephrasing, which I am happy to do.
"Supreme" is referenced to international officeholder. - ditto/odd/clunky. "Supreme" is a term used for an international (overseas?) officeholder. (?)

Anyway, given you've got stuff for BL to do then I'll leave it till later and it can be buffed and polished up nicely for FAC. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Will be a great thing to get on mainpage...almost as good as Elvis...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost as good as Elvis...hmm....Anyway, thanks for taking the time out to improve and review this. I made the appropriate changes. Miranda 11:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Ex-Godsmack Guitarist Finds Second Act - News Story". MTV News. Retrieved 2007-10-10.
  2. ^ ""Asleep" is an acoustic version of "Awake" from the album of the same name". Song facts. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
  3. ^ McNealey 2006, op cit., p. 185.
  4. ^ "The Washington Informer: How to Help". The Washington Informer. Retrieved 2007-10-20. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  5. ^ "New Orleanian Credits Alpha Kappa Alpha's Kindness for New Hope and New Home" (PDF). Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated. July 18, 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-18.

Sara Sidle[edit]

This article has been polished and repolished many times, and it's now a GA. Some opinions so as to make this FA quality would be great. It's a short, easy article, and Sara Sidle really wants to be in wikipedia's front page. Come on! review!  :) Thanks,

Yamanbaiia 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Bhosle[edit]

Hey guys! This is an article about a veteran Indian playback singer - Asha Bhosle. She has sung nearly 12,000 songs in her 64 years career, and is still active. The page looks really good, there's a lot of text and information, it is well referenced and I think we could raise it to a high status with some good suggestions and improvements.

We'll be waiting for suggestions, guys. This page is watched and any advice is much anticipated, as well as any suggestions and ideas will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, --Shahid • Talk2me 00:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DrKiernan[edit]

I've had a very brief scan through and spotted the following:

  • Single years without dates should not be linked.
  • Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Please don't link words in headings; depending on settings some users don't see them.
  • "Many people have speculated about a romantic relationship between the two." Who? Please be specific, and ensure the references provided adhere to WP:BLP.
  • "Some of the most popular...", "It is said that Helen...", "Some good examples of their sensuous numbers...", and "Some say that Lata had once said something..." Who says? Provide a reference and be specific.
  • "Shammi Kapoor, the actor of the movie, once said...", "he said that Asha "lacks certain something...", ""Nevertheless, he also said..." , etc. Where are the quotes from? Provide references.
  • The references should have the same format throughout. At present there are some as footnotes and some as web links.

This isn't my area of interest but I hope you find these pointers useful. DrKiernan 07:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response. I'll implement, best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 11:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa del Giocondo[edit]

Hello. I'd like your help to find out if this article about the likely subject of the Mona Lisa could reach GA or A or FA in the long run. The article walks some lines of controversy but thanks to several sources a biography of her life seems to be straightforward if lean after 500 years. Also some of you might know if the Italian persons in the article are referred to correctly in English. One art history scholar for example calls her Lisa del Giocondo. -Susanlesch 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a color picture?
Yes (I missed the link to the Gutenberg color image before and have made this change). Thank you for asking. -Susanlesch 14:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?] DrKiernan 10:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, added Persondata. Also moved the article to Lisa del Giocondo, her married name, for now and the name used by above mentioned expert. -Susanlesch 13:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jeff[edit]

I can see the primary contributor(s) have done a fair amount of research on the topic, for which they should be commended. Here are some points that may help improve the article.

  • Any particular reason to use the Gutenburg image rather than the one on the Mona Lisa page?
  • Only because of the two sources it is most likely to be a free image.
  • Yorck Project had a detail in the commons. I switched to their version. Maybe someone else will know what set is best to use (I have been told the Louvre has some copyright interest and thought the images with Louvre as a source have a photographer's copyright and would like to be safe as possible). -Susanlesch 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Mona Lisa is in the public domain (in most countries if not all), Faithful reproductions do not attract copyright here in the US (in France may be a different story). Because the servers for the English Wikipedia are based in the US (I think is the same with Commons), the Louvre photographers can't claim copyright for the image hosted here. In other words, we are allowed to use any faithful reproduction here. See When to use the PD-Art tag under Country specific rules. Jeff Dahl 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the dates, right now you have this format: (1479-06-15) with the year first. Usually you would put the year last, no matter what order the day and month are in. I know that users can set their own preferences, but many users will not. Having the year listed first is highly likely to confuse a great many readers, whereas having either of the more usual formats (month-day or day-month) would be much less confusing to everyone regardless of preference. In other words, I suggest changing to (6-15-1479 or 15-6-1479, or spell out the names, see Wikipedia Manual of style, dates) for the sake of unregistered users, the vast majority.
  • Fixed I think.
  • "...whose identity became a source of scholarly arguments and fascination." Probably should say when it became a source of arguments and fascination, because right now it seems too vague.
  • Cut.
  • "For certain, the Mona Lisa is identified by France's Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs and in the national collection of the Louvre as a portrait of Lisa." This probably ought to be reworded to say:
  • "Both France's Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs and the Louvre maintain (or assert, contend, officially declare) that Lisa del Giocondo is the sitter in Mona Lisa." The reason is that if I read the start of the sentence, I might come to the conclusion that "For certain, the Mona lisa is identified." Which is not what is intended. What you mean to say, I think, is that For certain, the Louvre and the Ministry of Foreign affairs have claimed Lisa del Giocondo is the sitter.
  • Reworded. Thanks for noticing.
  • "...and one reason to think she and her husband cared for each other." This is ambiguous. Did husband and wife care for each other like a nurse cares for a patient (taking care of each other), or do they care for each other like lovers? I think you might reword to say "...and one reason to think she and her husband genuinely loved each other." Which removes all doubt.
  • Thanks, fixed.
  • "By luck and the ups and downs of fortune, an artist called a genius who had an extraordinary talent for painting had time in 1503 to begin it" Again ambiguous. If I start to read the sentence it looks like it is going to say "An artist called a genius" in the sense that the Artist was calling a genius (subject-verb-object). This is not what you intended. Sentences that look like they are going to have one structure and then suddenly switch to a different structure are very confusing. Try to reword it so it is simpler, or perhaps delete it, because it really does not add any new information.
  • Cut.
  • "As Lisa, the painting..." As Lisa? What does this mean?
  • Cut.
  • "As Lisa, the painting is a tender expression of real and quite ordinary people..." The painting is a "tender expression" of just one woman, not "people," which makes this sentence confusing
  • Cut.
  • "...how an artist could possibly describe feminine virtue in visual art..." again confusing
  • Cut.
  • You will want to make sure you maintain a formal tone in some of the passages describing the painting. "Viewers may see Francesco's affection for his wife ..." is an example of a sentence that is really not in a formal tone, instead this sentence is too sentimental and hyperdramatic.
  • For now I removed all of this section.
  • You are really going to have to be scrupulous in your sources. Some of them (Zollner and Muntz) are pretty strong, but some of them are really weak (Lorenzi and Johnston, for example). The prose must reflect how confident you are in the source, if just one scholar is asserting this information his name should be in the prose and use the text "so and so has asserted based on evidence from such and such that ..."
  • I can try to find the book Lorenzi and Johnston talk about or some replacement but maybe not until after Thanksgiving (a guess). For now, yes there are some weaker sources. The best sources there at the moment are the most used if that helps.

Good work with the research. Jeff Dahl 03:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jeff, I cannot thank you enough for the review. Thank you. -Susanlesch 07:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Suggestions from AZPR[edit]

  • Also changes were made based on Automated peer review suggestions here from APR (Sorry I moved the article and may have messed up the link at first.) Thank you. -Susanlesch 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid belt[edit]

previous Peer review

This article seems pretty close to FA level; I was wondering what else needed to be done. Serendipodous 19:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sections added. Serendipodous 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be some discussion on the relative share of mass in the asteroid belt as opposed to that in the other major groupings of small solar system bodies. "98.5% of the known minor planets" is accurate as far as it goes, but it obviously doesn't reflect the reality of observational bias. I know John S. Lewis in Mining the Sky pg. 199 suggests that there is three times the belt mass in the Jupiter Trojans alone. And I'm sure that's not the only estimate out there.--Pharos 00:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any direct scholarly references to the combined mass of the Trojans but I find it difficult to believe that the combined mass of the Trojans is higher than the asteroid belt; there have only been about 700 Trojans discovered so far, and none is anywhere near as big as Ceres. Serendipodous 08:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: OK.

This article says that the combined mass of the L4 Trojans is 0.01 percent the mass of the Earth. Assuming a similar mass for the L5s, that gives a combined mass for the Trojans of 0.02 percent an Earth mass. This article says that the mass of the asteroid belt is 0.05 percent the mass of the Earth, which makes the mass of the Trojans about half that of the belt. However, according to this article, the asteroid belt is at most a twentieth the mass of the Kuiper belt, and one six hundredth the mass of the Oort cloud Serendipodous 09:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying hypothesis was that the Jupiter Trojans would be very-hard-to-detect ultradark super-carbonaceous chondrites, following the trend in composition observed in the outer regions of the belt. Quite possibly that idea is considered obsolete now with the recent Kuiper belt discoveries; it's hard to track up on as the book was published a decade ago and Lewis doesn't name the sources of this "recent estimate" (it's a popular science book). Anyway, it's good to see you've tracked down those numbers you have, but I wonder how accurate any of them can turn out to be be. Now it's being reported that Neptune Trojans may exceed the belt in mass.--Pharos 05:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not mass. Number. Big difference. Serendipodous 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. You'll excuse me that error—rest assured the "recent estimate" in Lewis was indeed about mass, though. By the way, I've discovered the actual Neptune Trojans paper and it's here.--Pharos 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that all of these numbers are pretty speculative, yet still I think we need some sort of caveat to counter "98.5% of the known minor planets", which though accurate is misleading to readers who are not already familiar with this field, who are unaware that the asteroid belt almost certainly accounts for only a minority of the total number of minor planets (which of course includes the Kuiper belt, the Oort cloud, and the various Trojans).--Pharos 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've added a section to the end of the article. It's a bit cumbersome, so let me know what you think. Serendipodous 18:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a good thing that you've researched this. I'm a bit divided in my mind as to whether perhaps it should be more summarized here and the the rest moved to minor planet. It's your discretion, really.--Pharos 23:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've shortened it. Serendipodous 07:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not make sense to just merge that section into the brief section on mass? That will provide a means of direct comparison, and not leave an off-topic section dangling at the end of the article. — RJH (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? Serendipodous 18:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the best treatment of this info yet. We'll see what RJH thinks.--Pharos 15:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
I guess I can live with it, although I'm unhappy that a section about the belt's mass has been changed to a section primarily about what's not in the belt. The information seems mostly irrelevant now. — RJH (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we could find, say, three sentences worth of information about the mass of the asteroid belt as a whole, we could split the section into two paragraphs. Serendipodous 17:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of what you had in there before seemed pretty relevant. It gave the reader an idea of the mass distribution. Mention of the center of mass of the belt might also be interesting, if there is a value somewhere. — RJH (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've reinstated it. I still think a few added sentences might be good.Serendipodous 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is strange that the article fails to mention that several of the Category:Asteroids visited by spacecraft were in the belt. Just because these missions were not "dedicated specifically to the study of asteroids", does not mean they're not of scientific importance.--Pharos 18:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
done. Serendipodous 19:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Pharos 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a pretty minor semantic issue, but should this article mention at some point that the asteroid belt is traditionally considered the "boundary" between the Inner and Outer Solar System; also I notice the Solar System article now places the belt in the Inner Solar System, abutting the Mid Solar System—perhaps this is a realignment due to increased Trans-Neptunian emphasis, I don't know.--Pharos 15:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who wrote the Solar System article, I can say that yes, that was the point. The issue revolved around whether to have every section be a "two =" section, or whether to have a "heirarchical" distribution. The article's FA ultimately depended on me finding a way to make the distribution "heirarchical," and the only way I could do it was to invent a non-existent term for the middle region of the Solar System. But yes, it is true. Nowadays the term "outer solar system" is usually applied to the trans-Neptunian region. Serendipodous 15:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smedley Butler[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe that it is a very important historical article and it is very close, if not already up to FAC standards.

Thanks,

Kumioko 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In addition to his military career, Smedley Butler was noted for his outspoken anti-interventionist views, and his book War Is a Racket." He was noted for the book? Or did the book demonstrate the anti-interventionist views he was noted for? Kweeket 01:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Washington Redskins players[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what else I should do on it besides finishing the last few player pages. I've been working on the list for about 7 months now, but it was mainly on creating many of the player pages. Let me know what else I can do to make it the best it can be!


Thanks,

Jwalte04 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the redlinks are filled, this list will contain the same information as Category:Washington Redskins players. It could do with something different which the category does not contain. You might want to look at some of the featured lists about sportspeople, such as List of Aston Villa F.C. players or List of One-Day International cricketers from India for ideas. The references should be converted to one of the citation templates, such as {{cite web}}. Oldelpaso 14:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Priestley[edit]

Joseph Priestley was an eighteenth-century polymath. He was a theologian, scientist, educator, political theorist, and minister. He published around 150 works. Writing a succinct biography of him is therefore quite difficult. This article, despite having two spin-off pages Joseph Priestley and Dissent and Joseph Priestley and education, is still quite long. It is just around the 10,000 word mark the last time I checked. Obviously, any suggestions regarding deletion would be helpful; however, it has been edited quite rigorously and we are still left with this much material. The article is currently GA and we would eventually like to take it to FA. Please help us clarify, copy edit, and whatnot. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 05:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox? DrKiernan 13:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As infoboxes are optional, the consensus was reached on the page to delete it and arrange the lead as you see it. The layout of the lead is a consensus that was reached after a bit of a kerfuffle over something. (BTW, when you think about it, this page certainly does not need anything added to it.) Awadewit | talk 19:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Dahl (see sandbox page for further discussion)[edit]

  • After thinking about this for about 4 days, I think I finally found an example of what I'm talking about. Take a look at FA Isaac Newton. This is pretty much a perfect example of what an article about an influential figure in science/religion/etc should look like, and is only 55kb. Jeff Dahl 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to try: {{TOClimit|limit=2}} for your table of contents, that will limit the depth to only the ==level 2 headings== and make it much shorter which, as I'm sure you know, is FA requirement. Just place the template right after the intro paragraphs. More comments to come... Jeff Dahl 17:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I see a really good article with lots of information. Lots and lots and lots of information. Too much information. The actual prose is well written in terms of sentence structure, grammar, spelling, references etc. But from the overall standpoint, it is just too much. One reason the article is so long is because it is overly detailed. It is painful to have to cut out information, but when the reader's eyes start to glaze over such passages it is time to adopt more of a summary style. One element that continually contributes to the problem is the little bits and pieces of information, almost trivia, sprinkled throughout. There's a saying I've heard that applies here: "Perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
An example: "...when he began a lecture series based on his Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, a text he started writing at Daventry but did not publish until 1772." The part about when he started writing the book and when it was finished, I think is too much detail.
  • I had removed this but added it back in at another reviewer's request. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need examples of where there is too much detail; this article has already been severely reduced in size as it is. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the complexity involved, I created a sandbox page for this work. Check out this sandbox. I highlighted passages in gray that seem too detailed and need to be deleted or reworded. I did a few sections to highlight what I mean, but I can't do the whole article this way because the wiki-markup takes about ten times longer than doing in on paper. I don't suggest simply deleting the gray passages, and please take these as flexible suggestions; some material in gray should be kept but will need simplification or rewording to make it fit. The prose should not stray off-topic trying to cram in every little detail. Jeff Dahl 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I would recommend is copying the text to a sandbox or whatever, to be used as a base for spinoff articles, of which many could be created. Then, examine each sentence and ask, "is this really necessary?" If the answer is no, then zap it. If it is necessary, then start summarizing the information. Tell us only the most important parts.
  • That is precisely what I have already tried to do. In fact, I have already created two spin-off pages. What you are asking for is much harder than you realize. In fact, I have asked many people to list the things that should be deleted and they have not been able to list anything (in fact, one editor who insisted on spin-off pages said there wasn't too much detail in this article, confusing me enormously). If you could please list what needs to go, I would be happy to rework it, but I have done my best to present what the biographies say is the most important material and I have continually asked for help regarding deletion. If you would be willing to work with me, point by point, I would greatly appreciate it. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another problem is the "-isms" I know it is just impossible to define each in the article due to size, but as it is, many sentences are unreadable by a layman. For example:
"...researching and writing the work eventually convinced him to adopt Socinianism, a form of Unitarianism." What does this even mean?
  • This is another problem. Explaining all of this only balloons the size of the article. I can explain and make the article twice as long (explaining theology is long and tedious) or I can rely on wikilinks. I chose the latter in most cases. If you feel that there are isolated instances, such as this, where more detail is needed, please list them. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
another example "...This work marked an important change in Priestley's theological thinking that is critical to understanding his later writings—it paved the way for his materialism and necessatarianism." Again, I am baffled. Might want to double check the spelling of "necessatarianism." Although the article documents Priestly's religious associations in microscopic detail, I still don't get a feeling of what those beliefs actually were, because of all the jargon. Try summing up the themes of his beliefs using normal words and sentences rather than tossing up an -ism, and leave those details to their own article.
  • Help would be appreciated on this because none of the sources use any other language than this, and, frankly, these are the best words to use because they are the most precise and the most concise. In most instances, I have tried to introduce Priestley's beliefs using these precise words and then explain them using lay vocaboulary. In the case you point out, I did not because I go on to explain those things later in the article. Repeating the explanation would only make the article longer. Again, a detailed list would be helpful at this point. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture captions might be a little more interesting, telling us something about the item rather than just its title.
  • What kind of information are you looking for? We have given more when more was necessary or available, I think, but perhaps you could list which images you think need more explanation? Awadewit | talk 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Wikipedia:Captions for some great tips. I think the idea is to add some more information besides just a title. Sometimes, you can actually use the caption to describe the work and take that part out of the main text. Jeff Dahl 04:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done of this. See whether you think more could be accomplished. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some of these (PriestlyFirstPrinciples, Stephen Hale - pneumatic trough, PriestlyCartoon, PriestlyMedal) do a fine job, though some images have only a title. Jeff Dahl 19:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more, but I can't really see anything to do with the rest that wouldn't take too much out of the text. Awadewit | talk 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's enough for now, I'll do more later. Jeff Dahl 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks - I really appreciate it. Reading this article is difficult and time-consuming, I know. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qp10qp[edit]

One point, before I read the article. I have never believed that a page about someone on Wikipedia is a form of boiled-down biography. I remember you raised an eyebrow at the Anton Chekhov FAC when I said I had deliberately missed out stuff about his love life and much else. But if you had seen the door-stop size of some of his biographies, you might have sympathised. As a history graduate, I suppose I have very little admiration for biographies. I wouldn't necessarily regard it as a virtue that you have tried to do justice to the information in Priestley's biographies. Biographies give one the kitchen sink and all, whereas I think a Wikipedia article should concentrate on notablity. In other words, I believe the criterion should be: what are the notable things about this figure? For a major figure about whom the information is copious, the biographical details should be restricted to what is notable or essential, I feel. The rest may justifiably be excluded. qp10qp 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You must know I sympathize with this view to a large extent. That is why I read the long list of "other secondary sources". The other thing is that Priestley biographies are not the kind of personal biographies one usually encounters and that I think you rather despise. The most recent and most thorough, Schofield's, is more of an intellectual history. This article reflects that. I don't think that you will be upset by the level of "what Priestley had for breakfast" detail. :) The problem with Priestley is that he was notable in so many fields and in so many areas that are now rather difficult to explain - natural philosophy and theology, to name two. I think when you read the article, you will begin to see the difficulties that I have been struggling with. I don't anticipate any serious methodological differences. There is no room for "breakfast" details because there is so much other stuff to cram into this bio. I have only included a few to placate the masses. :)
  • Franklin was considered a British expert in electricity for some reason. I think it is because he spent a lot of time there, discussing his experiments. See, he was part of this club... Awadewit | talk 01:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one can't be American on the one hand but British according to what one studies, surely. By that reasoning you yourself would be part British. With a Yorkshire accent probably.
I'm simply repeating what I read: these were the foremost British experts on electricity. How about we just say "in Britain" then? Awadewit | talk 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now read the whole article, and it took me a while. I enjoyed the parts about air, the contrast with with Lavoisier, and about the Birmingham riot, and this may be because at those points I felt the material was quickened by its obvious notability. I would not suggest substantive changes to those parts.
However, I don't think this article works overall. Before I go on to give my reasons, I'd like to commend you (main editor Awadewit) for the depth and detail of this work and for its usefulnesss. On balance, I would support it at FAC on those grounds; but I'd caution against submitting too early to that forum since I fear that objections to length and digestibility might be lodged.
My suggestion is going to seem quite extreme. (I doubt it will be accepted; if it isn't, I will try to come up with a plan B.) I think there must be an attempt of some sort to reduce the length and emphasise according to significance of information. By the time I reached the "Legacy" section, I had decided that the article would be better divided into clear parts, by topic rather than chronology. Then I read this: "His scientific discoveries have usually been divorced from his theological and metaphysical publications in order to make an analysis of his life and writings easier". So I am not the only one; but you quote opposition to that approach, and you will doubtless say that his interests were thoroughly intermixed. I take that point, but it is ambitious to organise the article on that basis, I think. Anyway, I will forge ahead with my suggestion.
I believe the chronological approach and headings would be better ditched. In my opinion this structure imposes a dutiful and oppressive comprehensiveness on the article, a grinding determination to provide information of some sort about everything he did and wrote. In my opinion, however, the article would more lucidly address Priestley through a hierarchy of what he is known for.
I would start with a short biography, lightly covering the main external details of his life, where he lived, marriage, jobs, awards, etc,, but cutting down on the less notable information, for example some aspects of his life in America.
I would then address his science: however, I'd cut to a minimum mentions of his less significant scientific work, for example on optics; some light treatment of electricity would be in order, followed by a major treatment of his work, theories and controversies on air. Why? Because this is what he is mainly known for. And even though his significance in this field is clearly vulnerable to counter-arguments, I think his notability stands, because his discoveries, even if he didn't understand them, cannot be taken away from him. This is often the way with scientific discoveries, that the discoverers and the best theorists aren't always the same people: this was the case with Alexander Fleming, for example, who also didn't quite understand what he had discovered.
Next I would look at religion, using the transition from science to address the way the two overlapped in Priestley's view. Gradually I would move into a treatment of his dissent. I would however cut a great deal of the information on that, in particular the reporting of each of his writings and the scrupulous but slightly indigestible mapping of all his different beliefs and shifts in emphasis in that regard. I would not say too much about his odder beliefs: after all, many famous scientists had odd beliefs, astrology, for example (and Newton was obsessed with alchemy), but these are largely overlooked when we assess them.
Finally, I would address philosophy and politics, using the transition from dissent to lead into his political views and his clashes with authority and the masses in the context of the effect of the French Revolution. Detail of the Birmingham riot might be interesting here, having perhaps been touched on in the biographical part.
I would cut down the legacy section, reducing the number of eulogistic quotes, which, in my opinion, have the effect of repetition.
Along the way I would cut much of the minor detail. There is often, in my view, so much undifferentiated material that it is at first difficult to tell what is most significant. I would provide detail according to the following criteria of significance, the first requring more space and emphasis than the second: 1. What is significant about Priestley for the present day? 2. What, though it might not be significant now, was most sigificant about Priestley for his own day? Anything else I would consider cutting.
I advise aiming to reduce the article to 80kb or under, which would still leave a mighty read.
In making these suggestions, please don't think I don't appreciate all your awe-inspiring and time-consuming scholarly work here. Cutting things that took hours and hours to research and write is a heart-breaking prospect, I know. But I honestly think it would make a better encyclopedia article.qp10qp 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that anything you cut out can be put into a spinoff article, nothing has to be wasted! Jeff Dahl 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But no one really reads those. The main biography page of a person is the core information. How many readers are willing to read three or four pages on a figure? Not many. That is why I am not really a fan of the spin-off page. I resisted spinning-off JP pages for a long time for precisely that reason. Awadewit | talk 06:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that I don't want to do that. One reason is that I simply don't want to invest the time at the present moment. If that means the article has to stay un-FA'd until I or someone else feels like it, that's fine with me. But anyone else, in my opinion, is going to have enormous trouble doing what you have asked. The scholarship, except for the early twentieth-century biographies, do not say "this is more important than that". In fact, that is biggest flaw of Schofield's work - he details everything. It would be quite difficult for any editor to justify why they have elevated one set of things over another, in my opinion, without going back to the early biographies. Occasionally I used these biographies to do this out of sheer desperation, but it is one of the things that I feel is actually the least supportable about the article.
One of the reasons I chose the chronological approach is because that is the approach followed by most of the biographies. It also allows the reader to see Priestley's intellectual development over time, which is quite significant.
Of course, the biographies are chronological, but that is not the only way to arrange information in an article. One can show Priestley's intellectual development within other sorts of sections and structures.qp10qp 15:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you recommend cutting down on the America section. This section is already severely reduced. Priestley's time in America is one of the most well-researched aspects of his career, but it receives little attention here. Cutting it still further would create a further imbalance in that already subjective choice.
The reason I suggested it was that he doesn't appear to have done anything very significant over there.qp10qp 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is true - that is the initial reason I cut it down in the beginning. Awadewit | talk 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You emphasize in your description "what Priestley is known for" but that is different than "what Priestley had an influence on". I think that what he influenced is actually more important than what he is known for - reputations can be deceiving.
I'm not sure what "odd" beliefs you are referring to. Most of Priestley's religious beliefs were fairly common among Dissenters. Priestley was first and foremost a theologian, not a scientist. In fact, he was not a scientist at all.
I mean his beliefs about the relationship between science, nature and religion.qp10qp 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But according to everything I read, those beliefs are at the core of his philosophy. They may be odd by our standards, but if they are his core beliefs, we have to explain them. Awadewit | talk 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question #1 (Priestley's significance for the modern day) is the last thing I think we should consider. I really am actually very tired of hearing this question about every eighteenth-century topic. Most have only a distant significance to the modern day and any influence they might have had on our world is indirect and near impossible to prove. These questions are so speculative that I feel that they are best relegated to the fluffy "legacy" sections.
Perhaps I didn't explain this well enough; "influence" would do just as well. What I mean is that in my opinion the article would be clearer if it gave aspects of Priestley's life and work that connect to the present day priority over those that don't. By "connect", "influence", "significance to the present day", or whatever, I mean that historical and scientific figures are most important to us for their position in the development of knowledge (or society, religious thought, or whatever). Those who made no contribution are usually forgotten. It seems to me that there is too much in the article that is either insignificant to us today or was insignificant (or markedly less significant than other aspects of Priestley) in its day. If the article tells us, as I feel it does by implication, that everything Priestley did was equally significant (in fact, I get the impression that you would like to say that he was less significant as a scientist than as a dissenter), then commonsense tells us that this can't be so. Even someone who knows nothing about science would surely feel the article come to life at the moment it describes the discoveries Priestley made about air.qp10qp 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is highly debatable whether Priestley was more influential as a natural philosopher than as a Dissenter. Oxygen was discovered earlier by someone else who communicated this fact to Lavoisier, so that is no big deal, really. It just happens to have received a lot of press. Priestley's philosophical and theological writings influenced people like J. S. Mill and Kant - how is that not important? Perhaps even more important than his half-discovery of oxygen? Awadewit | talk 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question #2 (Priestley's significance for his own day) is far more important. Priestley's notability rests on that. No one now cares about much that Priestley cared about, but during his own time, he was one famous guy. I think that this article should try to explain why it was that Priestley was such a controversial figure in his own time and why what he said was so inflammatory. It is difficult, because the debates are foreign, but it is essential, in my opinion.
If you come up with a Plan B, let me know. I understand your desire for a "Priestley's theology" paragraph or two, but the reductiveness of such a thing frightens me. The DNB doesn't even do that. :)
I do realize that this page is a tad long for many readers and dense in places, but I am just not sure how to discuss theology and philosophy without being a little technical. These concepts were very important at the time and deserve to be mentioned. I do not think that the article should be dumbed down too much. Then it will look like Joe Jackson's biography on Priestley, which radically misrepresents Priestley at times, the French Revolution, the British reform movement, etc. all in the name of sensationalism and readability. We need a better balance. Awadewit | talk 06:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not just a tad long; it's horrendously long. I mean by that that it's so long that it doesn't really work as an encyclopedia article, accessible for the average reader interested in the overview of the subject. The principles for a large subject like this are different from those for a smaller subject, where one can afford to be fully comprehensive. Plan B would be for me to list sections of the article that I think should be thinned or removed and then for me to do a copyedit on top of and as a result of that, to take 4 or 5 more kb off the article without much changing the content in itself (the copyedit would be too little on its own, though).qp10qp 14:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am suitably chastened. Could you try it in the sandbox that Jeff has set up? Perhaps we could work out a new version there together. If that doesn't work out, I will rewrite the whole thing from scratch. I view that as a last resort, though. Awadewit | talk 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos[edit]

I'd like to note that I am not a member of this project, and the sheer extent of the discussion above leads me to believe I won't have much to add to this review. I do have a few comments, however, before we get to trimming the body text (which is currently a 20-page printout, with tight leading and no images):

Lead
  • I've added convenience links to theism, materialism, and determinism.
  • "Because many of his texts were written during the French Revolution [...]" this seems to "downplay" the nature of the controversy surrounding him; from what I gather reading the text, his work was surely always controversial, due to its very content and not only the "atmosphere" (sorry, no pun intended) of that particular time? Perhaps I'm misreading things here.
  • This is supposed to explain why a mob burned down his house, but you are right that it isolates his controversial nature? How do you suggest fixing this problem? Awadewit | talk 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Perhaps In his metaphysical works [...] a project that has been called "audacious and original"; not surprisingly, much of his work was controversial [at the time]. Stop me if I'm editorializing here; I'm not much of a writer, and synthesizing what appears to have been a lifetime of controversy in a single compelling sentence is a little beyond me :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure the new sentence is compelling, but perhaps it is an improvement. Awadewit | talk 23:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[...] Priestley's determination to reject Lavoisier's 'new chemistry'"—perhaps a link to Chemical Revolution would be appropriate here, if not ideal.
Early life and education
  • "Priestley was born to an established Dissenting (i.e., they did not conform to the Church of England) family"—I think Priestley was born to an established Dissenting family (that is, they did not conform to the Church of England) would be clearer. I agree with Jeff's slight trim of the first paragraph, although I feel the remainder of the section is significant enough to stay as is.
Needham Market and Daventry
  • "His series of scientific lectures, titled "Use of the Globes", however, was more successful"—this seems somewhat lacking in context. Since we don't want to add to the article, perhaps rewording it to something like He also presented a series of [scientific] lectures titled "Use of the Globes", which was more successful.
  • "[...] his time there was happier. The congregation cared less about Priestley's heterodoxy and he busied himself learning to play the flute [...]" I realize this is a nice indication of a (likely important) change in his state of mind, and in keeping with the article's overall tone, but it seems too trivial.
  • Deleted flute reference. I think the contrast between his misery and Needham Market and his happiness at Nantwich is important. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, I understand. Unfortunately, some things will have to go, and I was trying to spot statements which added the least to the article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warrington Academy and subsections
  • "Priestley moved to Warrington and assumed the post of tutor of modern languages and rhetoric at Warrington's Dissenting academy"—the town's Dissenting academy?
  • "He fit in well at Warrington and quickly made friends with another tutor, John Seddon." Is this really significant? I read this as early evidence of how Priestley's views usually isolated him. Is this accurate? As you mention Seddon again later on, it might be best to leave this in.
  • Priestley got on well at Warrington, unlike other places he lived. It is the contrast that is important. Moved Seddon explanation to where he is introduced. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The couple played several games of chess or backgammon every day [...]"—again, a nice touch of humanity, but at the risk of being harsh this doesn't add much to the article, if anything at all.
  • I wanted to add something about JP's domestic life. Much is made of these games in his autobiography and other commentary of the time. But some things must go...and it is always the women. :) Awadewit | talk 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh dear. Well, I'm no expert on eighteenth-century relationships, but I guess the fact that he spent any quality time at all with his wife must have been significant then :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We still have the long quote of him praising his wife and his bereftness at her death. Awadewit | talk 23:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His millennial perspective was bound up with his optimism [...]"—that's an awkward construction, a little too idiomatic; it doesn't really match the overall style.
  • My own style doesn't my own style? Do you have another suggestion? Awadewit | talk 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite his busy teaching schedule, Priestley decided to write a history of electricity." Why? :)
  • I don't know. I haven't seen any explanation of his motivation than I can recall. Awadewit | talk 23:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benjamin Franklin described as British—I can't get my head around that. My impression is that Franklin visited the Society's meetings on occasion. Is British necessary at all? I see you've tried to tackle this above.
  • How about "in Britain"? (We do all realize that the colonists were British until some particular date or other and that they thought of themselves as British for a while after whatever arbitrary date you want to choose, right?) Awadewit | talk 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of The History and Present State of Electricity could, in my humble opinion, be shortened considerably; after all, there's a main article.
  • I'll let ragesoss tackle this. He's been helping me out with the science parts of this article. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Thank you, and sorry for the edit conflict :) I'll go over some more of the article later. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leeds and subsections
  • The summary of the Institutes is a bit long-winded. I realize this is important, but perhaps it could be shortened further?
  • "Priestley also founded the Theological Repository [...]"—when exactly?
  • That must have been lost in the editing - restored. Awadewit | talk 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[...] he believed that science could increase human happiness"—increase sounds a bit weak here.
  • Nothing is coming to me at the moment. It is all about more happiness - ideas? Awadewit | talk 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm drawing a blank at the moment. Will think about it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • further sounds excellent, although somewhat different in meaning. I'd go for it. Sorry for not getting back to this, but I've been busy with work! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further now inserted. Awadewit | talk 03:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[...] it was the only English history of optics for 150 years. Priestley paid careful attention to the history of optics [...]"; redundant-sounding, although clearly different in meaning; could you reword either?
  • Changed first one to "book on the topic". Less precise, but avoids redundancy. Awadewit | talk 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[...] Lord Shelburne delicately wrote to Priestley [...]"—why delicately?
  • Shelburne was afraid Priestley might be insulted. Should I put that in? Awadewit | talk 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps. I personally think more context would help here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What isn't clear exactly? Perhaps you could list the questions you had? That would help me. Awadewit | talk 09:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, sorry :) Well, "wrote delicately"—as I said before, why delicately? In my opinion, a mention that "Shelburne was afraid Priestley might be insulted" is warranted. Then, we have, "insulted why?" I presume the reader would be interested in knowing—I would. By the way, in a completely unrelated matter, I see you moved mention of Priestley's birthplace to an image caption. I really think it should be in the main text :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just removed "delicately". Going into the rest of it would just add unnecessary detail in an already too-long article. What does it read like without the "delicately"? I can't tell anymore. Everything looks horribly truncated to me. I have moved West Yorkshire back into the main text but left the other details in the caption. Is this acceptable? Awadewit | talk 19:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It reads fine. As for everything looking horribly truncated, trust me—it's just a matter of strategic distance :) The article is excellent. Regarding his birthplace: that's also enough, no problem. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Priestley debated whether to sacrifice his ministry and accept the position; after intense soul-searching, he resigned from Mill Hill Chapel [...]"—intense soul-searching may be accurate, but it doesn't sound it in the article's context; just overly emotional.
  • But it was a difficult decision for Priestley to make. How can I describe it better? "agonizing"? Awadewit | talk 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it in. I've thought this over, and it is really not detrimental to the article, just something that jumped out at me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a break here—more to come later. Sorry for my trivial suggestions; I hope they're somehow helpful. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC), revised 16:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for all of these helpful suggestions. I have to take a break from editing for the moment because I have some sort of horrendous flu. I hope to be recovered in a few days and back at it, though, so please don't think that I don't appreciate your help. Awadewit | talk 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I have no voice anymore, but that doesn't matter for us! Let's see what we can do with JP. I would kinda like to nominate him for the main page in February. He's such a fascinating guy. Awadewit | talk 16:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2

OK, here we go. I'm sorry for taking so long to get back to this.

  • Not a problem. I have been quite busy myself. Awadewit | talk 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calne and subsections
  • "Priestley also became a political adviser to Shelburne, gathering information on parliamentary issues [...]"—I'm interested in this "Priestley as spy" (I know, I know) aspect. I know you're trying to trim, but could you add a little more detail on this? How did he gather such information? Where and who from? If this is too much trouble, never mind; just a curiosity.
  • Very little is known about this. Any other details I added would be pure speculation by scholars, so I left them out. Awadewit | talk 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He criticizes those whose faith is shaped by books and fashion [...]"—"shaped by books and fashion" sounds like a direct quote, and perhaps should be formatted as such? If it isn't you're really a great writer :)
  • It isn't a quote as far as I know. Awadewit | talk 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[...] the world and the men in it will eventually be perfected."—the world and the people in it? ;)
  • "Priestley believed that mankind could be perfected through a study of nature." From what I read directly above, Priestley's philosophy involves the concept that mankind is invariably, if slowly, headed towards perfection; if so, this sentence is a little confusing. I realize perfected is meant in the sense of improved, but perhaps the word could be changed? I'm taking this article as my sole source on Priestley right now, so if I misunderstand, please let me know.
  • Priestley is confusing. It is not entirely clear to me whether Priestley was a postmillennialist or premillennialist. Nothing of what I read made that distinction. However, the books and articles often use the word "perfected". Are humans perfecting themselves? Is God perfecting them? Again, this is not totally clear. I have a feeling that it is because Priestley is not clear or consistent. Awadewit | talk 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying; best stick to the sources' wording, then. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also, the volumes [...]"—Furthermore? Please don't hate me for this.
  • "[...] the discovery of several airs:"—several substances? Some slightly more modern terminology may be welcome here.
  • This change I will resist. One reason for using Priestley's terminology is that he thought of the "airs" this way - he did not think of them as "substances". I think it is good to remind readers that Priestley and others at the time conceptualized these "things" quite differently. The words do that - and readers can still understand what is being said. Awadewit | talk 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could change that, too! Changed. Awadewit | talk 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham and subsections
  • "[...] until they were forced to flee in 1791 by mob violence." Could you add a tad (really, just a tad) more context on the motivation behind the riots? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a little subsection on the "Birmingham Riots of 1791". That paragraph you read is a little overarching narrative of Priestley's time in Birmingham. Awadewit | talk 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know; I thought some of it could be moved up in the way of introduction, but that could just mess up the structure. It's fine. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More tomorrow. Again, I apologize for getting sidetracked... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm back :)

  • "Because New Meeting paid Priestley only 100 guineas [...]"—how often? ;)
  • Now reads: Because Priestley's New Meeting salary was only 100 guineas. Awadewit | talk 04:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "superior [in] dignity and importance."—if the original quote is of superior dignity of importance, that could actually sound better. If not, just ignore this.
  • Original quote does not have "of". Awadewit | talk 04:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The text addresses issues from the divinity of Christ to the proper form for the Lord's Supper."—issues ranging from?
Pennsylvania
  • "They were immediately feted […]"—I presume very appropriate language, but maybe a little over the average reader’s level? It took me a few seconds to parse (I usually expect a circumflex on fete. Bad habit.)
  • Added circumflex and linked to wiktionary. Awadewit | talk 04:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[…] the couple began building a home in rural Pennsylvania."—a home in the countryside? I think ‘’Pennsylvania’’ is pretty clear from the preceding sentences.
Legacy
  • "[…] the second portrays him as innocent as well as "warped" for not better understanding the implications of his discoveries."—not better understanding their implications? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I've reread the (now copyedited) article, and in my humble opinion nothing has really been lost. The last few sections, from "Birmingham" onwards, seemed particularly excellent; I maintain my opinion that this article is one of the finest I've read on WP, and I eagerly await that gold star at the top right corner of the page :) Congratulations, by the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

  • I have started removing quotations (sigh). More will probably have to go.
  • Following Jeff's suggestion, I have moved information to the captions.
  • I have rewritten the "Materialist philosopher" section. Please let me know if it is more comprehensible. It is also more concise.
  • The article is now at 9000 words (81kb). I am aiming to shave off another 1000 words or so. Those will be even tougher. :) Awadewit | talk 20:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scartol[edit]

First of all, I'd like to say: Pass the Lavoisier!

Okay, now about the JP article: It's clear from the above discussions that I can only really insert my own perspective on the large-scale questions, and offer copyedit services.

  • I can actually see both sides of the structure discussion. Qp10qp's suggestions are very convincing to me, but on the other hand I agree with Awadewit in general that chronology is the way to go. I think if concision is really what is needed (and if there's no other way to do it), restructuring – painful as it would be – is a good choice. However, as Awad said, maybe it's better just to leave it un-FA and whittle away at it. I don't really feel very strongly one way or the other.
  • Since it is already down to 9000 words, I feel like whittling is the way to go at this point. If, after whittling and revising, people still feel it is too long and boring, then I will put it away for awhile until I feel like undertaking a major rewrite. Awadewit | talk 00:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, then, can be done about the length? I don't feel sufficiently wise to offer suggestions on what to trim. All I can really offer is to do more of the ruthless red-pen-ism I've demonstrated with this sample. It's not pretty, but it will cut down on words. If you like, I'm willing to do more of the article in a similar fashion, to show how I'd revise sentences and paragraphs.
  • I think most of these suggestions are good. Do you want to go section by section? It would help me a lot. One English teacher copy editing another. It is the best of both worlds. :) Awadewit | talk 00:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, no sweat. I've actually got one other article ahead of this one in the queue (Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)), but as soon as I've finished that, I'll get to work on the other sections. I assume I should do them in my sandbox?– Scartol · Talk 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a sandbox would work well for this article. No rush. Awadewit | talk 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just lemme know. Good luck on this, and sorry I can't be of more assistance. – Scartol · Talk 23:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made more suggestions on what might be trimmed, to the end of Educator and historian. – Scartol · Talk 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the wonderful copy edit! I owe you one! Awadewit | talk 02:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Poessel[edit]

Just some notes following a brief read-through (and I apologize for not collating with earlier comments).

  • "to cling to phlogiston theory" - as a courtesy to less knowledgeable readers, might one something like "to cling to the phlogiston theory of heat" to at least give an impression of what this is about?
  • The last remaining thing on my "to do" list is "explaining phlogiston theory better". I find it very difficult to do, however. I will add this phrase. If you have any insight on how to explain the theory itself, please let me know. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even given your efforts to keep the article short, I think that to "In the eighteenth century, it was believed that flammable substances could burn because they contained an essence called phlogiston." should be added something like ", which was released during combustion." - something to give at least a hint of the role played by that substance. On the other hand, I am puzzled by "dephlogisticated" and more concretely by the sentence "Priestley believed that the reason the gas burned so well was because it lacked phlogiston—what he believed was the essence of flammability" - if phlogiston is the essence of flammability, why does a lack of it mean that something burns especially well? --Markus Poessel 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear to me that all of the phlogiston theories in the eighteenth century actually accepted the idea that phlogiston was released during the burning process. (There was more than one phlogiston theory, apparently.)
  • I am going to remove that second sentence - explaining it means explaining Priestley's experiments, which I don't have space to do. A better place for that will be the subpages, I think. Awadewit | talk 04:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the age of four he could perfectly recite the Westminster Shorter Catechism" - again, if I have to click on the WSC in order to find out what's so great about this, the sentence loses much of its direct impact. "...could perfectly recite all 107 question-answer pairs of the Westminster Shorter Catechism" would be more informative.
  • Done - that information was removed long ago in an effort to shorten everything. Apparently too much was removed. :) Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "perfectly" should probably be replaced by "word-perfect" (in a grammatically admissible way). --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In order to earn extra money, Priestley tried to open a school, but local families refused to send their children." - doesn't sound quite right. Did he open a school, but nobody sent any children, so it folded? Did he float the idea, but no local family said they would send their children?
  • Now reads: In order to earn extra money, Priestley proposed opening a school, but local families informed him that they would refuse to send their children. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had a daughter, who they" - especially in an article about a historical subject, a "whom" might not be inappropriate? In particular in a sentence like this, where the "who" is misleading until you read the next word?
  • "which he believed would "impress" upon students "a just image of the rise, progress, extent, duration, and contemporary state of all the considerable empires that have ever existed in the world" - surely that quote refers to a different chart? One that, say, shows empires? And perhaps covers a more extended period of time than just Ancient Greece and Rome?
  • I can't find a picture of the other chart and I was encouraged to move text to the captions to reduce the word count. New caption reads: A redacted version of Chart of Biography (1765); Priestley believed his Charts would "impress" upon students "a just image of the rise, progress, extent, duration, and contemporary state of all the considerable empires that have ever existed in the world". Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Athens of the North" - capitalization, and isn't that epithet more commonly applied to Edinburgh?
  • I've only ever seen it applied it to Warrington during the Priestley-Price years. (Capitalized "North"). I have sources... Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not disputing that it was applied to Warrington, as well, but current usage (you have sources, I have Google...) appears to be Edinburgh; as such, a nod towards current usage might be appropriate. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yes, I see. Now reads: The intellectually stimulating atmosphere of Warrington, referred to during the eighteenth century as the "Athens of the North", increased Priestley's interest in natural philosophy. Awadewit | talk 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some scholars of education have described Priestley as the "most considerable English writer on educational philosophy"" - as it stands, this might be taken as a statement that more than scholar of education used this exact wording. The reference is to two works, from which one is the quote? It might be clearer if you were to quote the whole sentence, i.e. include the appropriate versions of "some scholars of education have..." inside the quotation marks.
  • I just reworded to avoid the confusing quotation - there is no longer a quotation. Schofield doesn't provide much documentation for this claim. That he is the source is supposed to be clear from the "see also" in the note. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the Benjamin Franklin issue raised by others might be addressed even more completely by changing "John Canton, William Watson, and Benjamin Franklin" to "John Canton, William Watson, and the visiting Benjamin Franklin" or similar?
  • I think we agreed that "in Britain" works. I hesitate to keep adding words - we are really trying to cut, cut, cut. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does sound a bit artificial, and, I would think, is going to make some readers wonder (and become distracted). An added "visiting" would be a good investment, I think. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "visiting". (Although I really feel this is all superfluous; since this is 1766-67, everyone was British.) Awadewit | talk 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and was prompted to undertake his own" - "and began to design experiment of his own"? In a very real sense, the earlier experiments were "his own", too, if he was the one doing the experimenting; the important thing appears to be that he then began to design his own experiments.
  • The attempt to cut words lost accuracy. Do you think it should say "designed and undertook" or just "designed"? Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "undertake experiments of his own design"? --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for "The History and Present State of Electricity": since this was published after Priestley was accepted by the Royal Society, presumably those who were impressed enough with it to nominate him had access to a draft version, or the manuscript? If yes, this should be mentioned; otherwise, readers might wonder about the order of events.
  • Added in "impressed with the manuscript of his history of electricity". Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on experiments with charged cylinders, Priestley was also the first to propose that electrical force followed an inverse-square law, although he did not generalize or elaborate on this." - sounds a bit mysterious. Surely long cylinders would follow a one-over-r law? It would help if the summary would give a slightly better idea of what the experiments were.
  • Whoops! Don't know how I messed that up. Yes, it should read spheres, not cylinders.--ragesoss 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Priestley believed that by educating the youth of the congregation, he would unite it again" - not my favourite sentence. The "it" presumably refers to congregation, but could refer to "youth"; "unite again": did he mean to lure back those that were lured away, or simply strengthen the congregation's unity to prevent future lurings-away?
  • "Priestley believed that by educating the youth of the congregation, he could strengthen its bonds". Adding on something about seducing straying members back will start to sound repetitive, I think. I'm just paranoid at this point about adding words, I'm afraid. The general point is about his educational program. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that sounds more like chemistry. Still sounds weird to my ears, though - strengthening he bonds of youth. "..he could strengthen the bonds of the congregation by educating its youth"? --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now reads: Priestley believed that by educating the young, he could strengthen the bonds of the congregation. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For necessitarianism, a brief half-sentence of explanation would be great. Especially as the information that can be found in the wikilink at the moment amounts to "Necessitarianism is a metaphysical principle".
  • Now reads: This work marked an important change in Priestley's theological thinking that is critical to understanding his later writings—it paved the way for his materialism and necessitarianism (i.e., the belief that a divine being acts in accordance with necessary metaphysical laws). Awadewit | talk 23:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. I was just trying to make it clear that the definition was for "necessitarianism" and not "materialism and necessitarianism". Awadewit | talk 23:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scientific readers did not appreciate seeing science used in the defense of religion" - to me, that is a very surprising statement. We're still in the 18th century - was it, at that time, really the prevailing attitude among scientists that science not be used in the defense of religion?
  • It is not that surprising when you think about how many "scientific readers" there must have been. Those that were sufficiently interested in "science" (if one can call it that) to know anything about that were most often also the ones that were questioning religion. Enlightenment and all of that. Also, this is the end of the eighteenth century - we are moving away from Newton's worldview. Priestley obviously wanted science to explain God's creation, but many French scientists were not so (ahem) dogmatic. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, in that case it's just my unfamiliarity with the late eighteenth century. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, really, I'm just shocked. Are you telling me that you have had no time while you were cramming your head full of knowledge about relativity to look up eighteenth-century religious or scientific history? :) Awadewit | talk 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, there goes my application for the Association of Modern Renaissance Persons- --Markus Poessel 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine as well. I'm still waiting to learn about vectors as we have only made it through the opening paragraphs of introduction to general relativity. :) The book you recommended is on my holiday wish list, though. Awadewit | talk 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Natural philosopher of air" sounds a bit weird.
  • It was supposed to specify what kind of "natural philosopher" he was. Ideas? Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only dreadful puns come to mind. But how about simply taking the description given by the man himself: Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air? --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With no mice mentioned in the section on "The Discovery of Oxygen", the connection with "See also: Wikisource:The Mouse's Petition" might be a tad too subtle.
  • The quote about the mice is gone now? The mice that proved the air is good? That has to go back in. Or at least an explanation of how he used mice. That was a big deal. Working on it. (Isn't that poem great?) Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's passing mention of mice in another section, but no mention of their unwilling employment in the sections dealing with Priestley's science, as far as I can see. Looks like something has gone agley, there. The poem is sad, and I find the reference to metempsychosis intriguing. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The poem is supposed to be a rousing call for liberty - for women, Britons, and mice. Barbauld put the poem in one mouse's cage, supposedly, and Priestley was so affected by it that he let the mouse go free. A nice anecdote that is now gone. :( I'm trying to put the mouse sacrificed on the altar of science back in. Awadewit | talk 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good to see the mice are back. However, now the sentence "Priestley also connected oxygen to respiration." which occurs later is a bit redundant. --Markus Poessel 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1777, Antoine Lavoisier had published Réflexions sur le Phlogistique pour servir de Développement à la Théorie de la Combustion et de la Respiration, his first sustained attack on phlogiston theory;" - "his first sustained attack" sounds a bit strange. In what way is one book a "sustained attack"? Or was it the first thrust of sustained attack? The first of what prove to be a series of attacks?
  • Changed to "the first of what proved to be a series of attacks". Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furious, Priestley lashed out with his Remarks on Dr. Blackstone's Commentaries (1769), correcting Blackstone's grammar, his history, and his interpretation of the law." - unless the question of grammar was very dear to Priestley in this context, this should probably be something like "correcting Blackstone's interpretation of the law and, incidentally, his history and grammar as well"?
  • Grammar was very important to Priestley - I thought I made that clear in describing his grammar book? Ah! It is all such a mess! Neither was history "incidental" to Priestley, as I tried to make clear earlier in the article - Priestley thought people could practically bring on the Christian Millennium by studying history. This is the hardest article I have ever written. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did realize from the article that grammar was very important to Priestley. But when it comes to defending the rights of Dissenters, one might think that grammar is not considered to be of the foremost importance, however fond of it the person in question might be. At least, this would appear to be so from a modern perspective. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is where we moderns differ (at times). In the eighteenth century, grammar was part of the culture wars (sometimes it is part of ours, too). The first "real" dictionary was published by Samuel Johnson and the first steps towards a standardized set of grammar rules and spelling rules was being laid down (imperialism does that to a nation). You can imagine how easy that was - it was kind of like wikipedia. No, Latin doesn't have a split infinitive and the Romans were great, so we shouldn't have a split infinitive either! But we are greater than the Romans and we should distinguish ourselves from them by having the split infinitive. And on and on it went. Grammar and language were at the heart of Thomas Paine's trial over the Rights of Man when he was tried for treason and sedition. There are many books on this topic which are all fascinating. I could actually go on and on about it - but I have said enough. Grammar was highly politicized at the time. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of the interesting tidbits that, on its own, are enough to make reviewing on WP worthwhile. Please, point me to a book! Apart from that, I still think this is alien enough to most modern mindsets to merit special mention in the text. Otherwise, it's a bit of a stumbling block. --Markus Poessel 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might start with something like John Barrell's English Literature in History 1730-1780: An Equal Wide Survey. There is a chapter in it on Samuel Johnson's dictionary that would be particularly interesting for you, I think. Also, Olivia Smith's The Politics of Language. Awadewit | talk 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now reads:Furious, Priestley lashed out with his Remarks on Dr. Blackstone's Commentaries (1769), correcting Blackstone's grammar (a highly politicized subject at the time), his history, and his interpretation of the law. - Much more and I'll have to launch into the speech above! Awadewit | talk 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it does not altogether distort Priestley's view, I would still think that a re-ordered "Furious, Priestley lashed out with his Remarks on Dr. Blackstone's Commentaries (1769), correcting Blackstone's interpretation of his law, his grammar (a highly politicized subject at the time), and history." would read more fluently with modern eyes. --Markus Poessel 19:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such experiments demonstrated Priestley's early and ongoing interest in the relationship between chemistry and electricity" - that sentence sounds a bit off. With the charcoal, Priestley had investigated a physical property of one particular material. In what sense does this reflect an interest in the interplay of chemistry and electricity? Or did his investigations of charcoal go further?
  • We should check with ragesoss on this. I don't want to say something idiotic. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discovery that charcoal is a conductor was the novel part, but he also reported experiments on the conductivity of a range of other substances. I've expanded that passage; hopefully it's clearer now.--ragesoss 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't get the chemistry connection. Testing different substances for certain physical properties sounds like physics to me. The connection between chemistry and electricity makes me think of, well, electrolysis and things like that - where there are actual chemical reactions taking place. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chemistry was (and physical chemistry still is, partly) the domain of the study of physical properties of substances; matter theory was a chief concern of 18th century chemistry.--ragesoss 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I just mention something here? I don't think physics was conceived of as a discipline in the eighteenth century the way we think of it now. I haven't read of anyone doing "physics" - studying fundamental interactions and forces, for example - at this time (Newton comes the closest, obviously, but I don't think he conceived of himself as a "physicist" - we just say that in retrospect). Also, this was the actual moment that the idea of "chemical reactions" was developed (chemical revolution). That is one reason it is so difficult to describe this time. Using our vocabulary really distorts what these (mostly) men were doing and thinking. It is really important to me not to be anachronistic in this article with respect to the "science" (another emerging concept!). I hate even using that word in the article. Awadewit | talk 21:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what Awadewit just said, but to reinforce that passage from a modern perspective: conductivity wasn't the only things he was testing; electrical explosions (coronal discharge) were also one of the main things he was studying here, and these phenomena do involve chemical reactions.--ragesoss 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - could the chemical aspects (chemical in the modern sense) then perhaps be mentioned in the text? In my eye, that would make the text more readable for an only-modern reader. --Markus Poessel 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you suggest a rewording? I'll check with my live-in physics expert here who has read a bit about Priestley as well; he'll know if what you have written jives with Priestley's experiments, I think. I'm just so nervous about saying something really silly. After the whole "discovering oxygen" instead of "oxygen gas" gaffe... Awadewit | talk 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't worry so much about the oxygen gas if I were you. Frankly, I don't think I know enough about what Priestley did to offer a re-write. What I meant was basically to replace the sentence by "Priestley also showed an early interest in the relationship between chemical reaction and electricity, as exemplified in his experiments on [insert some experiment that without a doubt shows that P was interested in the relationship between c.r.'s and e]." --Markus Poessel 19:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Perhaps ragesoss can help us out here. Awadewit | talk 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost there, in my opinion - in that sentence, I would replace "This and other experiments" by simply "other experiments", since I don't see how the experiments stated involve chemical reactions/chemistry (admittedly in the modern sense). --Markus Poessel 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it would make more sense to replace every instance of "chemistry" with "chymistry" (though I don't think that's necessary). For Priestley and others working in the traditions of 18th century chymistry, studying the properties of materials is part of chymistry. It's a misleading use of the source to imply that the experiments on the conductivity of materials are not part of Priestley's interest in the relationship between chemistry and electricity.--ragesoss 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is, of course, from a modern point of view (which is probably the p.o.v. of most Wikipedia readers). So if that is the confusion, then certainly some qualification of "chemistry" - either an explanatory sentence, or, as you suggest, use of "chymistry", which word should also be explained on the occasion of its initial occurrence, would be very helpful. --Markus Poessel 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've found a solution: I replaced "chemistry" here with "chemical substances", avoiding the ambiguities of modern/historical scientific/natural philosophical disciplines/traditions altogether.--ragesoss 19:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This certainly does not have the potential to cause confusion I was complaining about in my comment. Sounds good. --Markus Poessel 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fourth part of the Institutes, An History of the Corruptions of Christianity, became so long that he was forced to issue it separately." - aren't we talking about a time when even much shorter books were published in separate installments?
  • I think you are thinking of the nineteenth century - perhaps the triple-decker novels? Priestley's books were huge. That is why I described the one as 700 pages. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, but I thought the practice was much older - publishing books in installments, which could be bound together after the book was complete. The book where I seem to remember last seeing this was from the 17th century. But I've never seriously looked into this, and might be mistaken. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought you meant deliberately publishing works in three volumes to make money off of them or deliberately writing longer works so that they could be split into three parts (common nineteenth-century practices associated with fiction). Many books were published in installments, but not necessarily so that they could be bound together later. Almost all books until the nineteenth century were published unbound - buyers paid for their own binding. I'm confused, really, about what you think this section should say. Sorry. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was talking about installments, whether for binding-together or not, and my point was merely the following: if you're publishing your book in installments anyway, why is it a big deal if one part is "issued separately"? In a modern, bound-book world it might be, but not when all the installments are issued separately in the first place, methinks. --Markus Poessel 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - I see. I am being dense. I don't know - perhaps they could only bind so many pages together at one time? I am just repeating what the sources said on that. I can't really explain any more than I have, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When in doubt, leave it out? E.g. "Priestley believed that the voluminous fourth part of the Institutes, An History of the Corruptions of Christianity, was "the most valuable" work he had ever published." - where the only remnant of the other sentence is now the "voluminous"? --Markus Poessel 19:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like leaving it in because it suggests how long Priestley's works were. If it comes up again, though, I'll take it out. Awadewit | talk 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • "the latter aided by a steady supply of carbon dioxide from a neighboring brewery" - minor point, but: did he really transport carbon dioxide from the brewery to his own house, or did he simply perform some of his experiments at the brewery?
  • I'm not totally sure - the whole brewery story is a bit shrouded in mystery, anyway. Priestley seems to have misremembered some of these details. I once had a big, long footnote explaining all of that, but it is gone now. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...gone, but not forgotten, given WP's history function? --Markus Poessel 19:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have been clearer - the note would not have answered your question, anyway. I tried to find it, to show you what it was, but it is lost in a sea of changes. The note was about the reliability of the brewery story itself. There is no firm answer to your question, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, might it be a good idea to make the limited reliability of the brewery story clear? --Markus Poessel 10:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it is only Schofield who explains the limited reliability of the brewery story. The other biographers just accept it. So I only have one source for that (although it is the most recent and reliable of the biographies). This point is rather small. Ragesoss and I discussed it - I wanted to include the caveats you are discussing and even more, but he thought them unnecessary. Considering that even more caveats have been dropped from the article since then, I don't think that adding this one back in would clarify anything for the reader. Awadewit | talk 20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His colleagues therefore believed that they could easily reproduce his experiments in order to verify them or to answer the questions that had puzzled him." - this sentence sounds as if it should continue with "But they were sadly mistaken; in fact...". So: did his colleagues manage to replicate his experiments easily? Did they find it straightforward to continue his work?
  • I'm not really sure if they managed to. I just kept reading that they believed they could. ragesoss? Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I read Schofield, that belief that the experiments could be reproduced was part of why others believed what Priestley wrote (and by implication, why they didn't have to actually reproduce them.) It's not clear whether or not people actually did replicate them. Historically speaking, replication of experiments doesn't actually happen that often; it's more the principle of potential replication that matters.--ragesoss 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I would think that the important point is that his descriptions did contain sufficient information to allow anyone interested in doing so to replicate his experiments. If yes, might it not be put in this way, leaving out the question of "belief"? --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If factually true, then my choice would be "Priestley also invented cheap and easy-to-assemble experimental apparatus, described in sufficient detail as to enable any interested colleague to reproduce Priestley's experiments, verify his findings, or even go beyond his findings to answer questions that has puzzled Priestley." --Markus Poessel 19:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except your sentence doesn't emphasize the "belief" bit which is the most important part - his contemporaries believed they could replicate his work. It is not clear whether they actually did or not. What is clear is that they used his apparatuses (sp?) to engage in their own experiments - something more along the second half of your sentence. But I would hesitate to suggest to that Priestley set the research agenda or anything like that. Awadewit | talk 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, that brings us back to my original complaint – emphasis on the belief part is commonly taken to imply that the belief is unjustified. If they did use his apparatuses, they are likely to have reproduced at least some of his experiments – if only to check that what they had built was working properly (my impression is that this is how most reproductions of experimental results take place nowadays – replicate some experimental set-up; do some measurement with known outcome to ensure that your set-up is working). As for the last sentence, the "puzzled him" was in the original – was that meant to be a "puzzled them"? Given your last remark, how about "Priestley also invented cheap and easy-to-assemble experimental apparatus, described in sufficient detail as to enable his colleagues to use them in their own experimental work (and presumably check on a number of Priestley results in the process)."? --Markus Poessel 10:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I don't think "belief" is unnecessarily unjustified - perhaps just another word there? Also, I don't think we can assume that his contemporaries replicated his experiments just because they used his apparatuses - these were basic experimental set-ups, as I understand them (according to Jayron32, we still use them today). Furthermore, the kind of checking of apparatus that you are describing that goes on now did not go on in the eighteenth century - they had no values to check their experiments against. Remember, there isn't even a periodical table at this moment in history. Finally, nowhere have I read that Priestley's contemporaries definitely checked his results; we can only speculate and given what I have read, I would say that it is wild speculation to say that they did check his results. When Lavoisier "replicated" Priestley's oxygen-discovering experiment, it was done quite differently, in a way that we would not consider replication at all: his sample was not the same purity, it was a slightly different compound, etc. (That is why initially he got different results.) Everything was just so much messier and so much more ad hoc. I cannot express this enough. I'm concerned that you are foisting a modern interpretation of science back onto the eighteenth century. People like Priestley and Lavoisier may have been forerunners of today's scientists, but they did not practice "science" the way you and your colleagues do now. They were much more cavalier about the whole enterprise, in my opinion. One good example of this is that Priestley did not practice the scientific method as we think of it today: he did hypothesize, test, analyze, and conclude. He left out the hypothesizing step. :) Awadewit | talk 20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Priestley and other Lunar Society members argued that the new French system was too expensive, too difficult to test, and unnecessarily complex." - "too expensive" sounds so unusual by modern standards that some explanation would not come amiss.
  • I haven't read the sources used for this bit, but it's not surprising to see "too expensive" raised as an objection to certain research methods in the 18th century, referring to the cost of the special apparatuses used by French chemists. The French system consisted not only of new nomenclature and the replacement of phlogiston theory, but also the introduction of the experimental methods of physics into the study of chemistry; much of Lavoisier's Elementary Treatise on Chemistry is devoted to detailed descriptions of the kinds of apparatus that he and other advocates of the new chemistry argued were necessary to practice modern chemistry. The English scientists had a system that they thought was quite sufficient for pushing forward the science of chemistry, and would not want to have to spend the resources necessary to battle the French system on its own terms. Lavoisier, who was an important government official and managed French mining and processing of saltpeter and other minerals, had an unprecedented level of state patronage. But "too expensive" doesn't seem unusual by modern standards to me, either; after all, this was a frequent complaint against the Human Genome Project, and a continuing complaint against high-energy physics collider research—of course, the ones complaining are the scientists doing related work that doesn't require the same level of capital.--ragesoss 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I later thought of the SSC, as well; still, expense is not usually an argument agains the science in question, just about ways of pursuing it. Here, we are talking about competing scientific models, so, by modern standards, "too expensive" should not be an argument. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think of the "new chemistry" as simply a theory or scientific model, in the modern sense. It's called the French system for a reason, because it not only entailed new theoretical and linguistic tools for making sense of chemistry, but also specified the kinds of experiment that were and were not appropriate for the study of chemistry. I think if you looked hard enough, you could find analogous situations in 20th century science, but I digress... "too expensive" may sound weird today, but it makes sense in context.--ragesoss 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern standards" don't really apply to eighteenth-century natural philosophy, either. That is one thing that was reinforced as I read about Priestley. Awadewit | talk 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that was the SSC I was talking about. And I think that, for the modern reader, you should at least make it clear in a sentence or so that the "new chemistry" is much more than a theory or scientific model, and why "expensive" is not a surprising argument in this context. --Markus Poessel 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ragesoss, if you could add these sentences, I would be very grateful. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These have now been added. Awadewit | talk 02:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I'm missing something, the "expensive" bit is still not clear to me. --Markus Poessel 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not going to be that much detail on these issues on the JP page itself. Other pages like Chemical revolution or even some of the JP subpages will go into more detail. I really do think it is acceptable as it is. It is supposed to be a summary - not a comprehensive explanation. If readers want to know more about the debates over the acceptance of Lavoisier's system, they can read about elsewhere. This is not the page to detail that in full. This page is supposed to explain JP's life. Awadewit | talk 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, and your call, of course. But please keep in mind that the text should also be self-contained. Something like the unexpected "expensive" makes it just that little bit less accessible. And there's always the motto "When in doubt, leave it out", of course. --Markus Poessel 13:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, really. Overall, quite an interesting read. --Markus Poessel 14:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow[edit]

Hello. Recently, this article acquired GA status, and I'm interested in bringing it to FA quality. Given that I haven't written or significantly contributed to a FA quality article before (and ergo, a lack of experience with WP:FAC), all comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Off the bat I see one uncited sentence: After the player completes the game, Julius Mode is unlocked, similar to the Julius Mode in Aria of Sorrow. I'm sure a review noted this and it should be no problem to cite it, otherwise everything past the comma should be removed. hbdragon88 04:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a fair amount of primary sourcing (as in, the manual and in-game dialogue), which is to be avoided wherever possible. I strongly encourage you to find as many alternatives as is possible. You should be able to use any information on the story in walkthroughs from reliable sources, such as IGN. You may be able to pick up some detail regarding gameplay in reviews and previews. Una LagunaTalk 11:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary sources are appropriate (WP:SELFPUB), considering that notability has already been determined. Furthermore, much of the gameplay information is only specifically mentioned in the manual. As for the plot details, no reliable source besides the game itself covers them in adequate detail. Numerous FA-class video game articles (Golden Sun, Final Fantasy XII) use liberal amounts of primary sources in any case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like you know more about what I was talking about than I do >_>... and "that Final Fantasy article" did cross my mind, but I couldn't remember which one it was and was too lazy to find it for myself. You're either very good at getting out of doing lots of work, or are absolutely correct. My money's on the latter. Una LagunaTalk 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gillingham F.C. seasons[edit]

Another list based on the ever-popular football club seasons format - please let me know if anything needs amending or correcting.

Cheers!!! ChrisTheDude 12:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hey Chris, I'm a bit strapped for time but on first inspection, two things stood out...

  • You must use the en-dash between seasons.
 Done
  • There are an awful number of red linked top scorers, including Chris Pike, who played in the 90s, 1990s that is, so could easily have a page, albeit stubby, made for him.
 Doing... D'oh - I initially worded my request above as "other than creating articles on the redlinked top scorers, is there anything I need to do" but then my machine crashed and when I typed it back in I forgot to put that bit in...... ChrisTheDude 12:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get back for more, soon! The Rambling Man 12:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Get rid of "each" for joint top scorers.
 Done
  • "center align" cup results.
 Done

More soon! The Rambling Man 13:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)[edit]

Nothing much to recommend really.

  • Not sure if you should include "of xth" in the position columns.
 Done
  • Colour needs changing to gold for the first season when they won the SL Div 2.
 Done - made the change for that season and a couple of others

Thats about it! Mattythewhite 12:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments.

  • There isn't really a need for "each" for multiple goalscorers.
 Done
  • Having the recent season is going to need updating a lot. Wouldn't have it personally.
 Done

Hope these help. Mattythewhite 13:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • 1923-24's got a big hole in it! and on that note, it might be an idea to proof-read the rest of it, when you've got nothing better to do.
 Done
  • do all the years mentioned in the lead section need to be linked to yyyy in football?
in previous PRs I've been advised that they should be......
is the reader really going to want to look at what else happened in football in 1913 just because your lot changed their name from New Brompton? in my opinion, just because you can link to something vaguely relevant doesn't necessarily mean you should, but if precedent says otherwise...
  • 2006-07 has round R1SE of the FLT, what's that?
 Done -see the key
  • in the footnotes, you could wikilink things like Test match, Goal difference the first time they occur. Also, some notes have full stops at the ends and some don't. Though as it's only me that ever reads footnotes, it's not that important ;-)
 Done
  • New Brompton@fchd is listed twice in the references section.
 Done
  • I wouldn't bother with the slashes separating joint leading scorers, but that's just personal taste.
 Done
  • you might want to note any goalscoring records, messrs Morgan and Yeo's 31s perhaps?
 Done
  • I'm glad you bolded the changes of division, it's an additional help for those of us that have accessibility issues with some of the colour-coding.

that'll do for now, hope some of it helps, Struway2 16:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • one more question, seeing as it's been mentioned below. The 1945-46 Kent League season, was that the post-war resumption of the normal Kent League or was it a wartime version? if the latter, following the time-honoured tradition of putting 45-6 in because we happened to win something, should you note it accordingly? or for that matter, if the former, should you explain why your first team were in it?
  • RSSSF certainly considers this season to be the normal resumption of the league after the war, whereas 1944-45, when the Gills also won the Kent League according to Roger Triggs' book, is considered a wartime version, hence I have not included it in this article (even though we won the league - hurrah! :-) ). As to why the Gills' first team played in the KL for one season, no source I've found gives any explanation. At first I thought it might have been because the Southern League didn't re-start till the following season, but when I checked I found that the SL did in fact take place that year, so in a nutshell I haven't got a clue :-) ChrisTheDude 09:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List's looking nice now. cheers, Struway2 09:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kevin McE (talk · contribs)[edit]

Good work on my very raw data.

I was a little disappointed to see the "of 24" etc info removed: coming 20th in SL Div 1 in 1908 was very different from coming 21st in 2004.

IIRC, there was a spell (presumably early Southern League days) when the club was playing in the Kent League as well as the "main" division: I took the liberty of treating the Kent league as if it were the reserve team's division, but maybe that should be checked.

Yes, that is definitely the case, in fact the club fielded reserve teams in the Kent League until 1959 - see FCHD. The only season in which the first team played in the KL was 1945-46 ChrisTheDude 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus across these pages that the current season should not be shown? Kevin McE 07:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be, certainly the ones that have made it to FL haven't included it..... ChrisTheDude 07:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Just a quick note. According to WP:MOS, words in boldface for the repeated title, shouldn't be linked, in favour of linking the next time it appears. Peanut4 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ChrisTheDude 07:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Joy of Sect[edit]

"The Joy of Sect" was listed as a WP:GA just recently on October 27, 2007. This is part of a Featured Topic drive, for The Simpsons (season 9), with participants collaborating together very nicely. See Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive for more info. We would appreciate any suggestions you may have towards getting this article up to WP:FA status. Thanks for your time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I will try to address these points, and as I do I will copy each one here and comment on it. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Addressing points from semi-automated review
  1. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] -  Done - The lead actually had been longer, and was then shortened which I guess is per the norm for other WP:FA class The Simpsons articles. As I am not familiar with the process of getting other Simpsons articles to FA status, I am waiting for more feedback on this before trying to add more to the lead. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC). -- Update: I took a portion of a previously longer lead, then shortened it considerably, and added it back into the article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] -  Done - I just went and checked, and the only places where this is not done is inside a couple in-line citations themselves, but not within the article's text. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 12 additive terms, a bit too much. -  Done - I went through the article and removed some redudancies, as suggested. (7) superfluous instances of the word "also" were removed. This was a helpful suggestion. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  4. The script has spotted the following contractions: Can't, Can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. -  Done - I checked, the script is incorrect here, because this is the name of a book: I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] - This is, of course, something we should always work towards, and I will make sure the article is read through by a few different people before moving on to WP:FAC at some point. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC).  Done - Went through and copyedited the article, along with help from others, see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Matrikas[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it looks like a solid B class article that could use some input to take it to the next level.


Thanks,

TheRingess (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions below. Thanks, APR t 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

automated peer review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

added Hindu deity infobox.--Redtigerxyz 13:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid capitalizing words in section headings unless they are proper nouns or the first word of the heading.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 03:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jeff[edit]

  • The prose on this needs some work. When I read this I feel like I'm not getting enough context to understand what is being described. I'll use an analogy to show what I mean:
  • Imagine you ask me "What is a coin?"
  • If I respond "A coin is something people throw into a fountain in order to make a wish" You might get confused, because I didn't describe it well, even though the statement is true. Instead, I could say:
  • "A coin is a small, metal object in the shape of a disc issued by a government as a form of currency. Many people carry coins around with them in order to buy things, and some people believe that throwing a coin into a fountain will make a wish come true." This way, we explain what it is, give it context so people can understand it, and tell something about it.
Some examples of passages with no context to understand what they mean include:
  • "Yoginis are described as belonging to or born from one or other Matrikas"
  • "Their earliest clear description appear in some layers of the Mahabharata, (date to 1st century AD) [8], which in turn is rooted in the group of seven females depicted"
  • "Some scholars believe that Matrikas were known during the Vedic period"
  • I also have trouble figuring out what culture/region/country this belongs to. State this in the first sentence of the article.
Let me know if you need further help. Jeff Dahl 22:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some relevant quotes from the perfect article, areas this article needs to work on:
  • starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail.
  • is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject.
  • is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles.
  • is clear; it is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain, clear prose; it is free of redundant language.
  • is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino national football team[edit]

Article about the national football team of the tiny republic of San Marino, who are known primarily for their ineptitude, having only won one match in their entire history. I've got about as far as I can with the sources available, short of learning to speak Italian, and I'd like comments with a view to a good article nomination in the near future. Oldelpaso 09:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo[edit]

The article is in need of several sources, and some article parts need to be rewritten by an English native speaker. The subject is pretty hard to be expanded, as Sanmarinese football has little or no media coverage at all. Then, I doubt about notability of several of the national team players, many of them being non-league players from Italian Promozione and Prima Categoria league teams. In addition, the article lacks a managerial history section. In any case, this is an article that is very hard to expand, because of the apparent lack of information to include in it. --Angelo 00:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What parts do you think need rewriting? Oldelpaso 18:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now it looks good. About the "minor" Sanmarinese players, I am considering to debate about their notability by opening an AFD. --Angelo 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been mulling over the idea of creating List of San Marino international footballers, to which the "minor" players could be redirects. Oldelpaso 21:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me it's okay. In any case, having played against qualified teams is not a notability fact itself, otherwise we should include all Burton Albion F.C. players who took part in the two FA Cup matches against Manchester United F.C. last season. --Angelo 21:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiggles[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it eventually get to good article or even featured article status. The Wiggles have become important enough around the world to warrant this. I'd also like some input from editors who haven't (unlike me) spent a great deal of time on it and/or don't have an investment in it.

Thanks,

--Figureskatingfan 05:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes per peer review[edit]

I have made changes as per the suggestions made by the automated peer review. Below are the specific changes I made:

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Done. Tried to follow MOS as closely as possible.
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.
On August 1, I replaced the free image that was in the right corner of the article with an updated, non-free image with Sam Moran in it. The image was subsequently deleted, and on Sept. 29, it was removed from the article. On Oct. 16, I reinserted the original image because it was the only appropriate free use image. The solution, of course, is someone uploading a more recent image of The Wiggles on Wikimedia Commons. (Has someone attended a meet-and-greet with them after a concert?) At the current time, this is the best choice we have. Hopefully, the problem won't get in the way of GA status.

Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.

Done; for example, I linked the entire date of the date Greg left the group and the date of Paul Hester's death.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.

Done. This was confusing because the heading in question was titled "The Wiggles videos." The article consistently refers to the group as "The Wiggles" (and not just "Wiggles"), so I changed the heading to "Videos/DVDs."

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.

Done. Similiar issue as discussed above.

Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), traveled (A) (British: travelled), travelled (B) (American: traveled), program (A) (British: programme).

Done, as best to my ability. It's possible that I missed some words, so someone with an outside perspective should look for more corrections.

The script has spotted the following contractions: couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]

Done, but it could use additional eyes.

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Not yet, but working on it.

--Figureskatingfan 23:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British spellings[edit]

As I stated above, I corrected to British spellings by eyeballing the article. I then cut and paste the article in Word and did a UK spell check and made additional changes. --Figureskatingfan 03:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brownhills[edit]

My normal area of operations is football articles, but my wife made me promise to work on the article on her hometown in exchange for spending so long on the computer! :-) So I've been hard at work on this for a while now (in comparison, before I first edited it, it looked like this), and would appreciate any input on anything that needs looking at before I put it up for FA......

Thanks,

ChrisTheDude 11:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydrogen Monoxide[edit]

Your wish is my command - here are some suggestions and things.

  • "town" (first sentence) needs some sort of wikilink
 Done
  • "On the edge of Cannock Chase, it is 6 miles (9.7 km) north-east of Walsall and a similar distance south-west of Lichfield" - Located on the ends of Cannock Chase, or what?
 Done
  • The images used in the article (especially the two in the Geography and climate section) could be a bit bigger, so it looks pretty :)
 Done
  • Not sure you need the co-ordinates at the top of that section, they're already at the top of the article
 Done
  • "Brownhills compared"...to what? Elaborate on this table's heading
 Done - changed the title completely, not sure if it is too informal, though.....?
  • "Governance" section could be expanded if possible
I can't think of anything else to add, it already details the local MP, last general election details and current local council control, is there anything else that needs to be covered....?
  • The image captions in the "Economy" section are a bit...well...not formal enough, if you get my drift.
 Done
  • Are there any more appropriate categories?
I can't find any which seem suitable

That's about it. My review is brief because I didn't read the article in full - I really am not the copyedit type for such long articles (20kb is about my limit :) ). But yeah, I think it'd do OK at an FAC - tell me when it comes, I'd like to support! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, they've been most helpful and I will see about putting the article up for GAC later, but right now I should probably get on with some work.... ;-) ChrisTheDude 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to it! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated peer review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 36km, use 36 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 36&nbsp;km.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films that received the Golden Film[edit]

I would like to use this peer review to find out what needs to be done to make the list of featured list quality. – Ilse@ 13:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review[edit]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 02:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following the automated peer review, I would like to ask the League of Copyeditors to check the introduction to the list. I will do this later on, and wait for other comments first. – Ilse@ 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Girolamo Savonarola[edit]

All in all, it looks excellent and well sourced. However, my personal recommendation would be to consolidate this with the Platinum and Diamond lists - it wouldn't take much more work, since there aren't too many to date, and would allow the list to be fully comprehensive on the topic of Dutch ticket sales. Maybe the table could be extended to allow for rows for the dates of Platinum and Diamond achievement? Good work so far, though! Girolamo Savonarola 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I have some questions, because I don't have a clear picture of what you meant with your recommendation.
This list was split off from the article Golden Film after subsequent requests during its featured article candidacy, because readers thought the article was too "listy". This list wasn't intended to give a comprehensive overview of Dutch tickets sales. The article section Cinema of the Netherlands#Box office should give this overview, including the four different box office awards in the Netherlands. Do you now recommend to change List of films that received the Golden Film into List of films that received a Dutch box office award?
In that case, I believe that films that received the three other box office awards, Crystal Film, Platinum Film, and Diamond Film, should be added. Some people think the films that only sold 100,000 tickets (Golden Film) are not yet successful, but films that sold over 400,000 tickets (Platinum Film) are successful.[1] Also, the Crystal Film (for 10,000 tickets sold of Dutch documentary films only) is quite different from the Diamond Film (for 1 million tickets sold of any Dutch film). When the different lists are merged, this should not merely create a receptacle of lists instead of a more comprehensive list. How can this be avoided? – Ilse@ 08:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that it would make more sense to integrate the lists together - is there a specific problem were you to redefine the list into List of films receiving a Dutch box office award? Or something similar? You could always create a separate table for documentaries, which could include columns for Crystal and the other levels (if they've ever been reached by Crystal winners). Girolamo Savonarola 16:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather simple to add the other awards to the current list, but I don't see how the proposed list is an improvement. I think the proposed list will loose transparency compared to the current one. If the purpose of the proposed list is to give an overview of Dutch box office results, I think a new list should be created, in which films are ordered by the number of tickets they've sold. – Ilse@ 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackening[edit]

This is an article on an album, going for FA hopefully. Any comments welcome.


Thanks, M3tal H3ad 08:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan[edit]

Comments; "Flynn describes "Clenching the Fists of Dissent" as the most difficult song to construct" - "describes" should be changed to "described". Also, what does he mean when he says "the most difficult"? Does he mean in comparison to other songs on the album, or songs on the band's back catalogue? LuciferMorgan 00:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Flynn believes the band was naive about the length songs" - Sentence needs reworking. LuciferMorgan 02:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how i would do this? M3tal H3ad 04:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "length songs" doesn't make sense. "Length of the songs" does, or "songs respective lengths" for example. LuciferMorgan 10:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, i thought you were referring to the whole sentence. fixed now, thanks M3tal H3ad 10:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Flynn produced four songs for the record and felt the experience as a team captain had improved his ability at producing, which helped with The Blackening and the cover version of the Metallica song "Battery"." - This is bit of a long sentence. Split it into two, with the word "producing" being the cut off point for the first sentence. LuciferMorgan 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nathan Bray attempted to perform CPR on Dimebag, Erin "Stoney" Halk, Jeffrey "Mayhem" Thompson and officer James Niggemeyer, who killed Gale.[10]" - I don't understand what the sentence is meaning to say. LuciferMorgan 02:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. M3tal H3ad 04:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn[edit]

  • Something they may well pick up on at FAC- does the album cover image really need to be that big?
  • Does 'Special Edition Cover' need to be capitalised like that?
  • The total guitar review is lacking a link, or even a footnote.
  • "most difficult track to produce as it had up to 90 tracks at one point." Is there any other way of saying that? The repetition of 'track' may throw some readers, especially those who are not musically minded.
  • Iconoclast links to a DAB page. What is it? A magazine? Some explanation, and a better link, would be nice. Also, does it need to be in italics?
  • A reference in the caption of the music sample would be nice.
  • "the songs "Beautiful Mourning," "Halo," and "Now I Lay Thee Down."" I think the punctuation should be outside the quote marks- the punctuation isn't part of the song title.
  • ""Now I Lay Thee Down" features a Romeo and Juliet-esque love story, "Slanderous" deals with hate that still exists throughout society and "Wolves," addresses the band's competitive 'winner take all’ spirit'.[11]" Again, punctuation in song titles, and what have I missed with the last inverted comma?
  • "William Grim for the Iconoclast titled 'Aesthetics of Hate: R.I.P. Dimebag Abbott, & Good Riddance'" Again, bad link, no italics, and shouldn't the article title be in "______" instead of '______'?
  • ""Now I Lay Thee Down" features a Romeo and Juliet-esque love story," Romeo and Juliet should be italicised, and a link would be nice.

That's all for now, I'll review further when you reply to those points. J Milburn 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, will change the size of the cover now. M3tal H3ad 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some further observations-

  • The caption of the picture of Flynn says he was surprised at how well the album did, yet it doesn't mention that in the prose, nor is there a reference.
  • "difficult song as "its all got to be super tight..." What's our policy of grammatical/spelling errors in direct quotes? I think if he wrote it, (blog entry, forum post, something like that) we should use [sic], otherwise, I think we should correct it. Not certain of that though.
  • You've left another link to the Iconoclast DAB page, in the lyrical themes section.
  • "Rock Sound magazine reviewer Eleanor Goodman awarded the album a 9," Rock Sound should be in italics, and it should probably be said what the mark was out of. (Ten?)
  • "the album to Metallica's ...And Justice for All, but felt the" The album should be in italics.
  • "At the fifth annual Metal Hammer Golden Gods awards, The Blackening won "Best Album".[15]" Metal Hammer should be in italics.
  • "Rolling Stone reviewer Andy Greene and James Jam of NME responded to the album negatively." More periodicals that should be in italics.
  • "opus that sounds like three Load-era Metallica outtakes" Another album that is not in italics.
  • Burn My Eyes is mentioned twice in the article, but linked to only in the navigation box at the bottom. I would reccomend linking both the prose mentions as well.
  • "carving in the 1500's," Is that apostrophe needed? And do we have a picture of said carving? That would be nice.

That's everything I can see right now. Good work. J Milburn 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i will look for a picture of the carving but i doubt i will find anything. M3tal H3ad 05:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/November_2007&oldid=638035334"