Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2010

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

---

2010 Pichilemu earthquake

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FA-status. I think it is quite comprehensive, although a bit short, but it contains all the important info on the quake.

Thanks, Diego Grez (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is a disambiguation link on Santa Cruz
• Length: you mention that the article is rather short; it is 893 words of text. Other earthquake articles that have attained FA status are all betwen 1,500 and 2000 words, approximately twice the length of yours. It would be worth your while to look at these, and to note in which areas these articles have more information than yours.
• One obvious area in which more information is needed concerns Pichilemu itself. The article says nothing about the town - if it is a town. What sort of place is it? What is its population? What are its industries, etc? An earthquake article should not be confined to technical details. We could also do with more informaion about the earlier 27 February, e.g. where was its epicenter, and how far from Pichilemu is this?
• Some specific problems with the text;-
  • Multiple references in leads are generally unnecessary, since the lead merely summarises the main points of the text and the material should be referenced there. Long reference strings on basic factual points are unnecessary, full stop.
  • Second paragraph of lead is written confusingly. If I have understood it correctly, I think the first two sentences should read something like: "The earthquake was caused by increased regional stress arising from an earthquake on 27 February, centered on xxxxx, which was felt throughout central Chile. The 11 March earthquake was at first thought to be aftershocks from the 27 February event, but University of Chile Seismologist Jaime Campos identified it as an "independent earthquake".
  • Some technical language is inevitable, but what is "suducting", and "focal depths"
  • The lead says the earthquake occured "40 kilometres (25 mi) southwest from Pichilemu, O'Higgins Region, Chile". The main text merely says "The earthquake was positioned west of Pichilemu." It is more usual to have the summary in the lead and the detail in the main text.
  • "The area most affected by the earthquake was Pichilemu, the epicenter of the earthquake". unnecessary repetition of "earthquake". I suggest rewriting, combining two csentences along the lines of: "At Pichilemu, its epicenter, the earthquake destroyed Agustín Ross Park, most of Agustín Ross Cultural Centre, and severely affected the Espinillo and Rodeíllo villages." Probably "damaged" would be better than "affected", which sounds feeble.
  • "small waves were seen in the area surrounding Pichilemu". Is this sea waves, or something else? Please clarify
  • It would be useful to have an idea of the distances from Pichilemu of some of the places mentioned: Rancagua, Valparaiso, San Antonio etc.
  • How can both 16cm and 29cm be represented as equivalent to 1 ft? The latter is about correct. Also, how can waves i ft tall be equated to a tsunami? I used to take my kids paddling in more than that.
  • Per MOS, numbers under 10 should be written out, thus "six hours" not "6 hours"
  • " The earthquake took place shortly before the new president, Sebastián Piñera, was sworn in, at about 12:15 local time (15:15 UTC), at the Chilean congress in Valparaíso, where the shaking was clearly felt." Convoluted, and president of what (not all your readers will know)?
  • 2 May 2010 aftershock: put the paranthetical note in a less intrusive place; putting it between "5.8" and "Mw" is not sensible, nor is the positioning of a citation between these elements.
  • 29 September 2010 Lolol aftershock: Begin the section "A further aftershock..." etc
  • "Telephone calls were truncated for in O'Higgins Region" Wahat is meant by "truncated for"?

I hope these points will help you to improve the article. I cannot say that at present I see it as a viable FA candidate, but if you can expand it and take on board the points raised here, it may look more promising. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, these comments are really helpful. :-) --Diego Grez (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Linkin Park discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to improve it. In near future i will give this article for featured list.

Thanks.

--Neo139 (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks impressive. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

Heads and subheads

• To avoid repetition of "albums" in the "Albums" section, perhaps just "Studio", "Remix and collaboration", and "Live" would be better. Would it be possible to use "and" or "or" instead of the ambiguous frontslash in "Remix/Collaboration"? Are remixes different from collaborations?

Changed Remix/Collaboration to Remix and Collaboration. About Studio albums to just Studio. I'm not sure, articles all have repeated 'album'. --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "They later recruited Joe Hahn and Chester Bennington... ". - Could you supply a specific year instead of "later"?

Done Joe 1996 and Chester 1999. --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• "They changed the name once again to Linkin Park." - When? Did these things all happen in 1996?

Done Added date --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The band is noted both for its blend of rap rock and alternative metal." - Delete "both"?

Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Linkin Park have released" - Should be "Linkin Park has released" since you have already referred to the band as singular in the opening sentence.

Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• "From these works, twenty-one singles have been released, with twenty-eight accompanying music videos" - Generally numbers bigger than nine are written as digits unless they start a sentence; i.e., 21 and 28.

Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• "They have also released seven video albums" - To avoid the singular-plural awkwardness, perhaps "The band has also released... " would be better. Then in the next sentence: "All of its studio albums... ".

Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• "All of their studio albums have been RIAA certified" - Spell out as well as abbreviate on first use; i.e., "have been certified by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)"?

Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The band has achieved nine number one singles" - Maybe "produced" rather than "achieved"? Also, hyphenate "number-one singles"?

Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Linkin Park rose to international fame in 2000 with their debut album" - "Its" rather than "their"?

Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• "which reached #2" - Here you use "#2", but in other places you use "number" instead of #. I'm not sure which is preferred in music articles, but consistency is important in either case.

I'm not sure either. I will ask about this Done. I used 'peaked at number two' --Neo139 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Their next major release" - "Its"?

Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

References

• Most of the dates are in yyyy-mm-dd format, but citation 2 has one date in a different format. Make sure the formats are consistent throughout the reference section.

Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, the "General" reference should include the publisher, Rovi Corporation, and perhaps the author if the author of the biography is also the author of the rest of the material. Citations to web sources generally include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those are known or can be found.

Done: added publisher, author and date where is possible. --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Citation 2 needs italics for The Times. Should Billboard appear in italics in other citations? Is it considered an on-line periodical? See Billboard (magazine).

Done --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

External links

• Not sure you need to list items like the Allmusic site already linked in the main text, "General" ref, or the citations.

Done. Deleted repeated link --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! --Neo139 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Rwanda

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been doing a lot of work on it of late and feel it is now of reasonably good quality now. I would therefore like to begin the article's push towards a WP:FAC candidacy.

For information, the article was based loosely on the featured article version of the Cameroon article, i.e. this version. That was three years ago, so the standards have probably gone up since then but it was hopefully a useful starting point!

Finally, I am aware that there are several redlinks in the article. I will be dealing with those (creating corresponding articles) over the coming weeks.

Thanks, and I look forward to hearing everyone's opinions!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Listed buildings in Poulton-le-Fylde

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it at WP:FL and want to know what improvements need to be made. I'm particularly looking for comments on the prose, both in the lead and the list itself.

Thanks, BelovedFreak 22:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The list is very nicely produced, with good illustrations. One thing, however, strikes me as odd: are there really only 15 listed structures (five of which are not buildings) in the whole of Poulton? I live in Stamford, in Lincolnshire. which is about the same size as Poulton, and we have over 600 listed buildings. The UK as a whole has over 500,000, so Poulton's share seems distinctly paltry. I see that the main source for the list is British Listed Buildings, which looks reliable, but I am wondering if the list covers the whole of Poulton, or just a section of it? Bearing in mind the broad definition of listed buildings, which basically covers anything built before 1840, I find the figure of 15 strikingly low. Any thoughts in this? Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comment. I'm pretty sure the list (on British Listed Buildings) is comprehensive. I think it's reliable, although I believe it is not necessarily up to date, so I will check that there haven't been added very recently. For example, when I was looking at the list for Blackpool, I discovered one that wasn't on the list at that site. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the total for Poulton. Perhaps Stamford has an unusually high number? Our article says that the town has more than half the total for the county of Lincolnshire. I've only recently become interested in this topic, and have only looked at a few places, but I've noticed that the places I've looked at in the north west seem to have fewer listed buildings than those further south. I'll look into it though. --BelovedFreak 13:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Listed Buildings Online, which is more up to date (I didn't use it as a source because it is much more complicated to use) also gives 15 listed buildings. A Historic Survey report from Lancashire County Council says that there are 11 listed buildings within the "defined urban area" used for the survey. This makes sense since five of the buildings are a little bit away from the immediate town centre (one of those obviously falls just within the boundary used by the survey). It also states "few of the pre- and early nineteenth century buildings are listed". So, think the number is right. --BelovedFreak 13:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I'll do a quick prose check. It's a long time since I interacted with FL, but this looks pretty good to me. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Prose comments

• The second sentence of the lead begins: "Of the fifteen listed buildings and structures in the town, one is classified..." etc, and goes on to mention Grade II*, Grade II and Grade I. No explanation is offered as to what "listed" refers to; non-British readers would be immediately confused. The xplanation comes later in the lead, but it needs to be brought forward. Thus the second sentence could be redrafted along the lines: "There are fifteen buildings and structures in the town which have been listed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as being of special architectural, historical or cultural significance." Put the stuff about Grade I, Grade II* etc into the remodelled third paragraph.
• The subsequent prose doesn't flow well, and isn't too informative in places. For example, to what period of history does the "ancient hundred of Amounderness" relate?
• Is St. Chad's, which "became the Anglican parish church at the time of the Reformation" the structure (or its succesor) which dates back to 1094?
• Non-British readers may wonder why a 1930s telephone kiosk is of special architectural, historical or cultural significance. A word or two of explanation should be given here.
• The reason for listing the Manor House is presumably that it is a fine representative of the "Vernacular Revival" style. The linked article on Vernacular architecture provides a lot of images, none of which bears much resemblance to the Manor House. Is there an architectural distinction between "Vernacular" and "Vernacular Revival"?

Otherwise, I can't see a lot that needs attention, and wish you the best of luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments Brian. All things I hadn't thought of yet, so very helpful. I'll get to work on them. --BelovedFreak 09:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Adlertag (Eagle Day)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested to know if the general content of the article is satisfactory for GA. Aerial battles tend to be difficult to write without seeming to be repetitive. So style, tone and any other technical advice for improving it so it is in good nick when I first go to GA.

Thanks, Dapi89 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Earthquake (Modern Family)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it become a good article

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

• "The episode also guest starred Nathan Lane as Pepper Saltman, Cameron's ex-boyfriend and Vic Polizos as plumber for the Dunphys."

  There is a missing comma after "ex-boyfriend"; "a plumber" will also more than suffice as a replacement for "plumber for the Dunphys."

• "In the episode, an earthquake causes Gloria (Sofia Vergara) to think God's telling Jay (Ed O'Neill) to go to church, Claire (Julie Bowen) to get stuck in the bathroom with the plumber, and Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) and Cameron (Eric Stonestreet) use it as an excuse to get out of a party."

  "In the episode, an earthquake causes Claire (Julie Bowen) to be stuck in the bathroom with the plumber. Gloria (Sofia Vergara) interpretes the natural disaster as a sign that God wants Jay (Ed O'Neill) to go to church, and Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) and Cameron (Eric Stonestreet) use it as an excuse to leave Saltman's party."

• "... the episode received a 4.6/13 in the 18-49 demographic staying flat with the previous episode and also becoming the highest rated show on Wednesday."

  What does 4.6/13 mean? What is the 18-49 demographic? What is "staying flat with the previous episode"?

Plot

• While I understand that Plot sections are sourced to the subject. It might help to cite sections to the subject itself with {{cite episode}} and the timings.

• Numerous language issues such as noun plus -ing construct ("... begins with Haley (Sarah Hyland) and Claire (Julie Bowen) arguing about Haley wanting to go ...", see User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing on why it is an issue and how to improve such constructs), missing hyphens ("... two-hour party ..."), etc.

• For a reader fresh to the series, the Plot can be confusing. Relationships are not clearly explained, and some plot devices as well ("Phil realizes if he can keep Claire in the bathroom long enough he can get the bookcase strapped to the wall like he told Claire he had already done.": what does this mean?). Some sentences also seem a bit clunky ("Pepper then lets them not come to the next few parties.": why not "Pepper agrees not to invite them to his parties for the time being.")

Production and cultural references

• Of what relevance or context is "cultural references" to an encylopaedia? Especially when it is simply "While dancing up the stairs Phil says he's like "Shirley Temple and that black guy" referring to Bill Robinson."?

• "On August 1, 2010 Joyce Eng ..."

  In the US format of dates, the year should be delimited by a comma; i.e. a comma should follow the year.

• "Levitan stated he was "the perfect fit for the part" of Pepper. Levitan also said they would stop stunt casting actors like Nathan Lane."

  The first sentence does not seem to tie in well with the second... Why did Levitan say it was perfect, then decide to stop doing so (but Lane is still in the show)?

• "... as last weeks episode, ..."

  Aside from the missing apostrophe, "last week" as in October 13, 2010?

• "... but went down in viewer ship from a 11.877 million viewers to a 11.36 million viewers."

  "... but the viewership figure decreased from 11.877 million to 11.36 million."

• Why is Time magazine not in italics? This applies also to its format in References.

"... very funny outing. "."

• Why the extra space and period?

• ... in this episode""

  Where is the period?

References

• Titles are still subject to the Manual of Style; there should be no all-capital-letters titles.

• ImdB is not a reliable source; it is disputed as one when it comes to credits and cast lists. Please find a better source.

• What makes digitalspy.com, tvbythenumbers.com, and hitfix.com reliable sources? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how reliability is generally determined.

General

• Why is ampersand ("&") used in the article? This is not compliant with the Manual of Style. Replace all instances with "and".

Generally, language, clarity, and source reliability are the issues here. The contents also might be a tad skimpy in terms of substance (for substance). Jappalang (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

---

List of UFC events

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've made large improvements to it and would like to get it to FL status

Thanks, Paralympiakos (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Bencherlite

• some dab links to fix
• I've made a couple of tweaks already, as you may have seen - getting rid of a non-free image, enabling multi-column references for browsers that support it, adding a section header before the list
• Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Chronological ordering says lists should be ordered from earliest to last, not the other way.
• "This is a list" is a sure-fire way of getting an oppose at FLC on prose grounds, because it's not a very interesting introduction to the list. Older FLs might still use it, but no recent ones.
• Prose could do with some tightening:
  • "UFCs first event" – needs a possessive apostrophe
  • "Traditionally" – doesn't sound the right word, sounds a bit too grand (or is that just my snobbery showing?)
  • "As of UFC 100, typically, most UFC events have held 11 fights in total at each event, though sometimes there can be more than 11 or less, due to last-minute injuries. Prior to UFC 100, it was common to see 9 fights per event take place." A bit complicated and appears to be contradictory. How about "Before UFC 100, there were usually nine fights at each event, but since then, most events have featured eleven. Some planned fights do not take place because of last-minute injuries." (NB (a) while normally you spell out numbers one to ten and use digits for 11, when using numbers either side of the cut-off in close proximity, the guidance is to pick the same format (b) I'm not sure how last-minute injuries lead to additional fights, but you may be able to reword this.)
  • "mostly sold on pay-per-view": don't use italics for emphasis
  • "numbered events" or "numbered" events? You use both
  • "Many of the numbered events .... aired for free in the U.S. on Spike TV." Again, a little tangled, and I'm left unclear as to whether the shows are live or recorded: 'The "numbered" events are usually broadcast [live?] in the U.S. on pay-per-view, although where the event takes place in a significantly different timezone (for example UFC 120 in England) it is often aired for free [live or later?] on Spike TV. Some such events have been broadcast on pay-per-view with poor results: UFC 72 from Belfast, Northern Ireland, had a buyrate of 200,000 viewers, which is the lowest figure to date."
  • Are the shows broadcast outside the US, incidentally?
  • "In July 2009, the UFC held its unofficial..." but a few words later "officially" - which is it?
  • "they created UFC 37.5" - you've used "the UFC" in the singular form e.g. "the UFC holds", so be consistent: either "it created" or "the UFC hold", I think.
  • You don't need to wikilink "countries", I think readers will be familiar with the concept...
• Table
  • I'm not sure we need 90% font size
  • Your numbers need to sort correctly: use {{nts}} for the attendance and event figures (then you won't have to use "001"-type hacks
  • I don't think you need italics to show future events – after all, the date shows it, as does the lack of an attendance figure
• I've not looked at the referencing or source reliability, but will perhaps take another look later. Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 08:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My comments

Thank you for the long review. A few things that I'll mention now:

• The only reason we have it in reverse chronological order is so that readers can see which upcoming events are scheduled. I doubt many would scroll down to the bottom. In case this needs to be done, is there any way to quickly do, so that I don't have to manually move each?
• Things like the font size and "This is a list" were already in the list before I started work on it, but I saw no reason to change. Could you please tell me which font size is preferable?
• UFCs vs. UFC's, is a tricky. I've always been told that organisations that are shortened to letters never have an apostrophe. I could be wrong on that one.
• "Traditionally" - sure, I can change this. I could've gone with "Usually" or "formerly", but I felt these may be a bit too simple. I'm not trying to portray snobbery whatsoever.
• Prose, fair point. I wrote that in one sitting, so I'll get down to that. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Space Race

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of it's Ex-FA status; It's been 3 years since it's last peer review, a lot of changes have been made but it's always good to get a bit of external opinion on how it's going :)

Thanks,  MichaelHenley _{(Talk-Contribs)} 02:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• This article is not ready for peer review; as pointed in the instructions, peer review "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate."
• Regardless, I am going to quickly point out the biggest problems that should be rectified before sending the article for a peer review. I am not going to respond any further other than the following.
• There is an expansion tag in the article; all such cleanup messages should be resolved before coming here.
• There are several unsourced/uncited information, including opinions such as "Had von Braun's team been allowed to orbit a satellite in 1956, the Space Race might have been over before it gained sufficient momentum to yield real benefits." that would be original research if unsourced.
• Using Infobox Military Conflict is very inappropriate. The Space Race might be the substitute for a military conflict, but it is not one. That would be akin to claiming that we should make Fischer-Spassky or the Olympics during the Cold War "military conflicts". The one-up-manship prevalent between the two countries then do not make anything they do to prove superiority a military conflict.
• The OR issue goes for "US-Soviet Joint Victory"; most sources claim the Space Race to be won by the US (for reaching the moon). To claim this as a joint victory would require the academic community to declare it as such; where are the academic sources that back this opinion?
• File:DOS-1 Salyut-1 artist impression.JPG and File:Gagarin space suite.jpg are copyright violations as pointed out in their nominations for deletions.

Please read the peer review instructions before nominating articles here. Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Star Trek Online

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know what I can do to make it better as a whole. I'm looking for advice, criticism and guidance to that end.

Thanks, Landiien (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• The lede is a summary of the article and should contain the basics of explaining the subject. There are various flaws found here. Stating "popular" in "... based on the popular Star Trek series ..." is needless and biased per WP:PEACOCK. Readers might not know what is Star Trek Nemesis. Furthermore, the lede fails to state what players do in this MMORPG, and the critical reactions to the game.

• Why is Setting a 3rd level header?

• "Every player is the captain of their own individual ship;"

  A real ship? A vessel that sits in the water? How generous of the game's producers to give them a real-life ship... Note: the tone of the comment is to highlight the issues that plague writing on virtual entertainment. Please differentiate real-life content from those of virtual simulation.

• "... but other factions unlock as players level up."

  Gaming jargon likely incomprehensible to non-gamers: please read WP:VG/GL about jargon.

• A video games article should explain clearly the core gameplay of the subject to its readers, allowing them to understand generally how the game is played. However, it is unnecessary to explain the miniscule details as found in the various subsections of Gameplay here. Is there a need for the table of races, tiers of equipment levels, etc? Not to mention the overflowing gaming jargon there... ("A Silent-buy Player Market" for example)

• What is with the table in Updates?

• Is that all on Reception?

• There are many unsourced statements; this is a major failing that stops me from looking into the article any further.

Please note that peer review "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." It would have been better to seek suggestions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games or that Wikiproject's peer review. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

---

WWE Raw

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this page is a bit of a mess and I would like to know how to clean it up without dramatically changing it.

Thanks, Nascarking 15:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Yes, this is a mess that should not have been brought to peer review. Wikipedia's peer review process "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." This instruction is clearly stated at the top. As a courtesy, I am going to state the biggest obvious problems with this article, but that is it. It is up to interested editors to bring the article in line with encylopaedic and project standards before asking for a peer review.

• The article exhibits a heavy slant towards recentism; this is not a fan- or news-site. It is an encyclopaedia meant to give an overall view of the subject over the ages in equal proportions to its notability. The 2006 to 2010 subsections (in fact, basically the entire Show history) are basically a "this happened, that happened" format, without any critical commentary or evaluation on how the show has changed over the years or the reception towards it. This problem is endemic to the entire article. There is no critical analysis of the subject. It is basically production notes, show listings, and a bunch of tables.

• Several unsourced statements.

• Why is there another Infobox in the later part of the article?

• All the copyrighted logos are violations of WP:NFCC unless a clear rationale is given on how they comply with all ten criteria or are not protected by copyrights. The same goes for File:Yokozunafujiraw.jpg

Please bring the article to peer review only when the article has been brought up to shape with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and is intended to go for higher level assessments (GA and FA). Jappalang (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Maya (M.I.A. album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is currently a G/\, but I'd like to take it to F/\, please let me know what might still need fixing.

Cheers!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• This did not have the headers, so I added them. The headers are what the bot looks for to transclude the PR at WP:PR. We have had some issues with template edits that broke things. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks good to me except for some minor prose issues as noted below.

Lead

• "with both its musical style and lyrical content attracting both praise and criticism" - Delete the second "both"? I don't think you need it.

Composition and recording

• "in a home studio section to the Los Angeles house" - "section of" rather than "section to"?

• "She collaborated with writer/producer Blaqstarr" - The frontslash might indicate "and", or it might indicate "or". Rather than the frontslash, I'd use a hyphen: writer-producer.

• "Tracks for the album were whittled down from recording sessions of up to thirty hours in length." - Use digits for 30? Delete "in length" since it could be nothing else?

Music and lyrics

• M.I.A. stated "You can Google "Sri Lanka" and it... - Use single quotes for nesting; i.e., M.I.A. stated, "You can Google 'Sri Lanka' and it...

• "that she wished to produce something different to her previous album," - "different from" rather than "different to"?

• Opening track "The Message" parodies the words... - Shouldn't this be: The opening track, "The Message", parodies the words?

• "M.I.A. stated that the sound and imagery of the album capture a "digital ruckus", and elaborated "so many of us have become typists and voyeurs." - A bit smoother might be "M.I.A. stated that the sound and imagery of the album capture a "digital ruckus", adding that "so many of us have become typists and voyeurs."

• "M.I.A. used her mother's Tamil phonebook to find a wedding photographer to provide photography for the album.[34] Photographers... " - Rewrite slightly to avoid using "photograph" three times in a row.

• "Elements of the artwork had previously been used in one of a series of billboard images designed by musicians which were projected onto landmarks in London by a guerrilla project called BillBored during the 2010 British general election." - Since the musicians weren't projected, recast?

• 'In addition to conventional physical and digital formats, the album was released as an iTunes LP." - Suggestion: "The album was released in conventional physical and digital formats and as an iTunes LP."

Promotion

• "had been produced in collaboration with Rusko in protest at a travel piece about Sri Lanka printed" - "to protest a travel piece" rather than "in protest at a travel piece"?

• "the biggest of the ten-day music festival" - Digits for 10?

• "In September she announced a tour which would last until the end of the year,[70] during which she will also perform at the Austin City Limits Music Festival in October." - Verb-tense confusion. How about "which will last" instead of "which would last" to match "will perform"?

• "unreleased songs free with gifs and visuals" - Should "gifs" be explained or linked?

References

• The date formatting should be consistent throughout the refs. Citation 2 should be changed to d-m-y, like most of the others, for example. Maybe that's the only one that's out of sync.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

/\dabow quick comments:

• per WP:ORDINAL numbers less than ten should be written out in full (although this can be taken to numbers up to 100), so chart positions and star ratings in the prose need attention.
• in the 'Personnel' section why use the same citation for every line? What you did at Kala (album) looks neater

Otherwise, looks pretty good! Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments, all addressed I think apart from.......how do you write 2½ in words......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Two-and-a-half (or without hyphens). Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

---

List of heads of state of Argentina

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need more views on what should be added, removed or fixed in this list to nominate it as a featured list. Thanks, MBelgrano (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting list that took a lot of effort to compile. However, it is long way from ready for FLC. For one thing, it badly needs copyediting and proofing to clean up many minor errors. Here are some further suggestions and comments:

• Since this is a list rather than an article, I'd be inclined to merge the essence of the text above each table with the essence of the text of the lead. My impression is that the existing lead plus subsidiary texts is much more text than you need for a list.

• Date ranges take unspaced en dashes rather than hyphens. I ran a script to fix most of these.

• Some tables have en dashes in the blank boxes in the first column, while another table has em dashes in these boxes. You should probably pick one or the other and be consistent throughout.

• Wikipedia articles use telegraphic heads and subheads that generally omit the word "the" from the first position. I would recommend changing "The Argentine Confederation (1827–1854)" to "Argentine Confederation (1827–1854)", for example. Ditto for similar heads.

• In the case of common nouns in the heads and subhead, it would be best to lowercase all but the first word. For example, "Junta Presidents" should be "Junta presidents".

Lead

• I did some minor copyediting of the first four paragraphs, but more needs to be done to bring the remaining paragraphs into compliance with Manual of Style guidelines. For example, terms like "centralist" and "patriotic fraud" should not be set italics but should perhaps appear in quotation marks with a citation to the source. Or possibly they should just be briefly explained. Common nouns like "head of state" should not be capitalized.

• The same kinds of stylistic errors that appear in the lead also appear in the text above the tables and in the text within the tables. These also need copyediting.

• In the rewrite of the lead plus merged material, I'd aim for a total of four well-developed paragraphs.

• "Juan Manuel de Rosas kept a large period as governor until the Battle of Caseros of 1852 paved the way for a new Constitutional Assembly." - I would re-cast this for clarity. Maybe "Juan Manuel de Rosas held office as governor until the Battle of Caseros in 1852 led to formation of a new constitutional assembly."

• Be wary of overlinking. For example, "heads of state" does not need to be linked twice in the lead. If too many words are linked, the links lose value.

References

• Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if these are known or can be found.

Other

• The dab tool at the top of this review page finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advises. I must point that when I mentioned the featured lists, I did not meant to say that this list may be close to it, but rather that that's my ultimate goal in respect to this list MBelgrano (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Joseph Mitchell Parsons

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as its various sources have produced surprisingly interesting material about a subject that sought to be "forgotten". I am seeking recommendations to promote this to good article status.

Thanks, KimChee (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak

Good work on this so far. It was an interesting read, and I don't think you'd have too many problems at WP:GAN. I'll make comments on each section as I go through the article. Not all will be strictly to do with the criteria but may be general suggestions.

Infobox

• I'm not sure that you need all of those citations, or possibly any of them. Infoboxes (with a few exceptions) should only be summarising what's in the article, so any facts there should be cited in the article. I think it makes the infobox look a little cluttered.

•  Done.

Lead

• I think you might have a bit of overlinking here (check the rest of the article too). For example, does it really help the reader to linkAmerican or murder? Try not to link common terms as they tend to dilute the effect of other wikilinks.

•  Done.

• Like the infobox, I'm really not sure you need all the citations you have in the infobox. This is kind of a matter of personal taste, I know some editors like to cite the lead, some don't. As far as the reader is concerned though, cites in the lead can make it a little less inviting to read. Again, this should just be a summary of the rest of the article, so shouldn't need citing again. There are some exceptions, but I don't think what you have in the lead here is particularly contentious or startling.

• I thought about this and want to err on the side of caution in the lead as it contains quotes (which I have been "encouraged" to cite sources for in the past). KimChee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's fine. While I disagree that you need all those cites in the lead (certainly not two in a row following his name and birth date :) ) I would not fail the article for that at GA. For more info on this, see WP:LEADCITE and a current conversation on the topic with regard to FA candidates. There are probably numerous other discussions if you search, btu at the end of the day, it's up to you. --BelovedFreak 17:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Punctuation should go outside quotation marks unless it's part of the quote (see WP:LQ); here I'm referring to "Rainbow Warrior,"

•  Done.

• I think the lead summarises the article pretty well. Perhaps you could add a little more context to the murder, for example, say that Parsons was hitch-hiking & Ernest had given him a ride. Also, perhaps it would be worth mentioning that Parsons pled guilty and so had no trial.

•  Done. The lead has been expanded and reorganized to include the suggested details. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Background

• This is purely personal as I know opinion varies on this, but as I reader, I would like to see his birth date mentioned here, not just in the lead.

•  Done.

• It can be difficult writing about a subject's childhood and deciding what to call the subject as we use the surname generally, but here you have to avoid confusion with other family members. I think you could be a bit more consistent here though and use his first name(s) to a certain point and then switch to surname. At the moment, you switch from first name to surname, back to first name and then back to surname.

•  Done. The switch now occurs only once. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is it known how old Parsons was when he was caught stealing cash?

• The source is not specific about age, but the relative time period mentioned in the news article has been added. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• "When Parsons' stepfather Lawrence refused..." - any reason you use this guy's first name? It may not be necessary to name him at all. "When Parsons' stepfather refused..." would probably work just as well.

•  Done. His name is already elsewhere in the article. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• "...during his four years in Florida as a juvenile." - I think the use of juvenile here as a noun is too informal and ambiguous. As a juvenile delinquent? As a minor?

•  Done.

• The MoS says "put a space on each side of an ellipsis" (sentence beginning "He rejected him")

•  Done.

• "Not one person visited Parsons..." - I don't know, this seems a bit emotive to me. I don't have a problem with mentioning it, just the not one person bit.

•  Done. Rephrased to "No visitors came to see Parsons ..." KimChee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• You don't actually say that Parsons was convicted of armed robbery. I was slightly confused for a second. "Wood was convicted and spent 13 years in prison. Not one person visited Parsons..." It's also not clear what parson's sentence was.

•  Done. Added information regarding his plea bargain and the duration of his sentence. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Death of Richard Ernest

• "A clerk called the Richfield Police Department ... The attendant back at the Texaco station also called the Beaver County Sheriff's Office" - bit nitpicky, but I don't think also is necessary here. They weren't actually doing exactly the same thing.

•  Done.

• "He was found to have been stabbed nine times..." - this could probably be just "He had been stabbed nine times"

Execution

•  Done.

• "Two people ... were selected to administer individual injections, of which only one is lethal" - shouldn't this be "only one was lethal"?

•  Done.

• "The prison was forced to select among paramedics or nurses..." - perhaps just "The prison selected among paramedics or nurses"? - the former is maybe a bit emotive

•  Done.

See also

• I don't think you really need impostor here

•  Done. Agreed, a link in the prose is enough. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm also not sure about Internalized homophobia; I think if it was really relevant to this case, it would have been explored more in the article. There doesn't seem to be a definitive conclusion here as to his motives, so it seems a bit WP:OR to list it here. Gay panic defense seems more relevant because that has to do with his actual defense, but it seems to me to be a step further to say that he had internalized homophobia.

•  Done.

References

• Sources look good although I haven't checked them all against the facts they support. I see that some Deseret News refs have page numbers and some don't. Are they all available?

• Some of the citations point to numbered multi-page online articles or archival scans where specific newspaper pages are available. However, a few articles hosted by Deseret News are very short with no page information available. My one concern for GA review is that many of the older articles from The Salt Lake Tribune that provide background material about Parsons' personal life have since disappeared behind paywalls. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's ok, sources being behind paywalls, or a subscription, or being offline is not a problem. As long as all the relevant information is there to make is verifiable to the reader. They know how to find the source if they need it.--BelovedFreak 17:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Template

• Is Utah sometimes called "The Utah"? Or should that be "Executions in Utah since 1976"?

•  Done.

So, those are my suggestions. Nothing major and nothing that I think would hold back a GA nomination except perhaps some of the prose details. If you have any comments or questions, please let me know at my talkpage as I don't tend to watch peer reviews. Good work, and good luck with further developing the article. --BelovedFreak 20:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. The suggestions have been very helpful. KimChee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  

---

John J. Crittenden

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've finally finished my rewrite of this article. The subject was an influential U.S. politician for four decades, holding many state and national offices. Ordinarily, I would list the article for GA, but the backlog there is massive, and a review probably wouldn't occur for more than a month. That will put it after the birth of my first child, which I suspect will compromise my ability to respond promptly to the review. Instead, I'd like to solicit (hopefully) more immediate feedback here now, then make a GA or FA run after things settle down again (if they ever do!) Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've gotten an offer from another user to GA review this article over the weekend. Any feedback is still appreciated, as I may one day try and take this article to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments added by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)'

I honestly can't find anything wrong with this article. I'm sure someone else can, but I just wanted to leave a note to say good job!

Thanks, Panyd! Your comment is much appreciated. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I see this is now a GA but did not really receive any PR comments, so here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

• United States is generally not linked in articles like this - lead After the expiration of his term as attorney general, he was again elected to the U.S. Senate, where he urged compromise on the issue of slavery in order to prevent the breakup of the United States.
• It might be helpful to say it was the Revolutionary War in His father had surveyed land in Kentucky with George Rogers Clark, and he settled on the land just after the end of the war.
• Since the sons who were generals had their countries identified, it might help to give some indication of the country or timescale for the admiral grandson in Daughter Sallie Lee "Maria" Crittenden was the mother of Rear Admiral John C. Watson.[14] Either say US Navy or give the years of his service
• Would it help to remind to remind the reader that Crittenden first studied law with Bibb in In 1814, Governor Shelby appointed Crittenden to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by George M. Bibb; ...?
• Watch for places where the text can be tightened, for example In his capacity a[A]s speaker, Crittenden presided over a particularly tumultuous time in the legislature.
• Since US Senators are now popularly elected and since the Kentucky General Assembly has both a House and Senate, would it make sense to add US here: When the [US] Senate term of Martin D. Hardin, one of Slaughter's unpopular nominees, ...
• In Legislative interim, would it make sense to say that Frankfort is the capital of Kentucky (since he moved there)?
• In the Old Court – New Court controversy section, I would use the {{Main}} template rather than see also
• I would also give a brief sumamry of the controversy - I know it is linked, but if it could be summarized here in one or two sentences, that would provide constext to the reader
• First in Kentucky or first in the nation? On July 4, 1834, he called to order the first organizational meeting of the party at Cove Spring, Kentucky.
• "virtual lock" seems like slang - could more encylcopedic language be used? Crittenden was re-elected to the Senate in 1840 even though he was a virtual lock for a position in Harrison's presidential cabinet.
• Unclear sentence He opposed giving states the option to forgo apportionment, allowing them to elect their congressmen at-large. would instead make it something like He opposed giving states the option to forgo apportionment, which would have allowed them to elect their congressmen at-large.
• I would add "and death" to the section title "Service in the House of Representatives"
• More tightening The town of Crittenden, Kentucky and Crittenden County, Kentucky are named for him. could be In Kentucky, the town of Crittenden and Crittenden County are named for him.
• References need more consistent and complete information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Tropical cyclone naming

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… i want to get some feedback on what needs to be done to this article to get it upto a either GA or FA quality. Thanks, Jason Rees (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

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

---

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello, I'm planning on nominating this article for featured status soon. I have already nominated it once (after the last review), but it was not promoted (there wasn't much opposition, but neither much support). Since then the article has been listed as a Good Article.

Thanks, --Midgrid(talk) 13:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I am not a paticular F1 fan myself, though I follow it in a mildly interested way. I have to say I can't remember this particular race, but your fact-packed article gave me plenty of details. It's pretty good: the main issue I have is that the prose needs further polishing. I don't have time to do a full copyedit, but I have listed numerous points from the lead and first section. You need to go carefully through the rest of the article and pick up similar points there. There are a few other points which need consideration, which I have also listed.

Prose (lead and Background)

• "It marked Kovalainen's first Formula One victory". I'd say it "was" Kovalainen's first Formula One victory.
• "and Glock's first podium finish" → "and was Glock's first podium finish".
• The "however" in the second lead paragraph is unnecessary.
• "beaten at the first corner" - shouldn't this be "beaten to the first corner"?
• "rivals", rather than "protagonists", I would have thought
• "to take the win" is unnecessarily verbose; "to win" is sufficient.
• "amassed" is a strange verb to use for a total less than half of that of the leading driver.
• "61 points behind McLaren, the contest for fourth place between Toyota, Red Bull and Renault was covered by two points" Seems unnecessarily obscure; I'd say: "Vying for fourth place were Toyota, Red Bull and Renault, all within two points of each other but more than 60 points behind McLaren".
• "returned to the cockpit" is sort-of slangy, journalistic rather than encyclopedic.
• "Some new contracts were also signed." Necessary? Similarly, "Thursday" in the next sentence looks redundant.
• This sentence: "Ferrari increased the size..." needs attention; it is not a grammatical construction at the moment.
• "the former team" - I know what you mean, but it sounds wrong; could be interpreted as the "ex-team". I suggest you just say "Honda".
• "The rules stipulated..." Does this refer to rules relating to this particular race, or to F1 generally? I'd make this clear.

Other issues

• The lead seems too short to fulfil its function as a summary of the whole article, and could be expanded.
• Balance within the article: the article runs to just under 4,000 words, of which about a third deals with the race itself. There are long background and pre-race sections; I just wonder whether the balance between these aspects is right? It does seem quite a while before we get to the race itself.
• Lists within the text: on several occasions we have lengthy lists of names - see paragraph 1 of Background, paras 1, 3 and 6 of Race. Lists of names can be tedious to read; are they all necessary, parictularly three in one section?
• I looked briefly at the images and sources. The Kovalainen portrait seems to have two identical licences, otherwise I can't see any issues here. The sources look tidy.

I hope you find this review helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your comments. I will start making these changes (and checking the remainder of the article) right away.--Midgrid(talk) 18:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Care Bears: Journey to Joke-a-lot

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Finally! After weeks of fleshing out (and two or three missed opportunities at a plot summary), I've managed #4 in the Care Bears film series. The fans loathe it (or so I've heard), and for me it gets worse with every viewing ... but surprisingly, some critics happened to like it for what it was. For the record, this was the first movie for the Bears since 1987's Adventure in Wonderland. Going, once again, for GA; perhaps this may as well be good enough for a book or a good topic? (I'm having the same thing in mind for the old-school Strawberry Shortcake specials anytime soon.)

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Looks good to me except for the few things noted below.

Plot

• "After they agree to try it, the carousel goes out of control and sends them up into the sky... ". - Suggestion: "After they agree to try the carousel, it goes out of control and sends them into the sky... ".

Done. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• The em dashes in Wikipedia articles don't have spaces before and after. Maybe the template is not such a good idea. I replaced the em-dash templates with em-dash codes.

• "Unknown to the Bear, Funnybone actually placed the car within the woods, so that he would bestow kingship upon its rider and begin gaining his own power; he reminds his three fly henchmen (Phido, Cleon and Bidel) about this." - This is a bit unclear. How does bestowing kingship on someone yield power to Funnybone? Where does the power come from? Also, does "fly" mean the insect? If so, making this explicit with something like "reminds his three henchmen (Phido, Cleon and Bidel), who are houseflies," might be better.

Clarified. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• "He plans to take hold of the Sceptre, now in the hands of a slow, elderly alligator called Grand Duke Giggle." - "Take hold of" might mean "grasp". Perhaps "appropriate" or "take command of" would be more forceful.

Clarified. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• "After they crash into the building," - "Royal Palace" instead of "building", for clarity?

Clarified. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Consider linking carousel, bumper car, and dirigible on first use?

Done. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Release

• "Glenn Ross, the president of Family Home Entertainment (then owned by Artisan), remarked of the characters' reinvention and re-introduction to parents and young viewers." - Replace "remarked of" with "announced"?

Done. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Congratulations on finding you way this far." - This looks like a misprint. Should the word be "your" instead of "you"?

Corrected as "finding your way". --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Only the last of those scenes, "The Great Escape!", has finished animation." - Slightly unclear. Does this mean that it was the only one with animation? Or does "finished" imply that the others had partly finished animation?

Clarified. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

References

• Change TELEVISION to Television in citation 16. Wikipedia house style takes precedence over the all-caps of the source.

Changed. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added the last few sources I can find for this (on LexisNexis). Bottom of the barrel, as they say. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Robert Abbott (game designer)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have spewed out everything that I can for the moment into this article, so at this point, I think that getting it reviewed would be a good thing to do. I am aiming to get it to FA, hopefully by early February, so getting feedback about how I am doing in that respect would be great.

~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Petrified Forest National Park

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to take the article to FAC. I'd appreciate any suggestions for further improvement.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll give some minor suggestions, it looks good as a whole.

• It says in the article that the park is in the Navajo and Apache counties, but the infobox only lists the Apache county.

• You might not need two maps in the infobox. If you could maybe add an inset to the location in Arizona map of the USA with Arizona highlighted, that may be better. I don't see this as a real problem though, so not something that has to be worried about. (there is a random "ia" at the end of the second maps caption though)

• You say that the City of Holbrook is the nearest "large settlement", might be worth clarifying what a large settlement is.

• Add a "the" before "Old Highway 180" (unless of course it's meant to be like that)

• It might be worth adding before the elevations "a low of" and "a high of", just because the low is over 5000ft, which isn't very low at all!

• "Petrified Forest National Park in the Painted Desert" needs to be reworded somehow. Do you mean "The area of Petrified Forest National Park in the Painted Desert"?

• In History, it might be worth moving the sole paragraph about Europeans into the previous section, as the time the park was part of the USA is probably more deserved of its own section. The first section could be changed to preUSA or something.

• It might be worth moving the last paragraph of the Flora section to after the first. Both the first paragraph and that one describe the environment, while the others describe the actual Flora.

• The fauna section reads well, but the first sentence seems arbitrary, like a list of animals has been randomly thrown together. Maybe you could word it to say some of the larger animals, or some of the mammals. Either way you may want to add the Bobcat, if it's applicable.

• The list of animals that eat Prairie dogs may not be needed. If you could word it somehow like the current sentence about the hare is worded, in such a way that some ability or behaviour is described that helps them deal with that list of animals, it may be better (the hare sentence describes their routes of travel and how it helps them avoid eagles).

• You may have to remove one of the Fauna pictures unfortunately. I'm getting some text sandwiching in my browser. All 3 are beautiful pictures though, so good luck choosing!

• You might want to reword "keep the same hours as the park in general". As it stands it could mean either that it in general keeps to the same hours as the park, or keeps the same hours as the rest of the park.

• There are two paragraphs about the Painted Desert Visitor Center and the Painted Desert Inn, the second and the second last of the activities section. Combine?

• Maybe reorder the sections. It was weird reading about Geology, then History, then Climate. I would have expected Climate near Geology (and geography), as they are more related. Same with Biology. Maybe just move the history section?

Well, hope that helps! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these helpful suggestions. I will consider each of them in depth over the coming days and make changes per your advice. Finetooth (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Painted turtle

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have begun serious work on this article a few weeks ago and now feel like it is pretty sufficiently expanded. My goal ultimately is GA, but before submitting it for that I would like the wikipedia community to take a look at it. Specifically, I would like help/suggestions with grammatical flow/structure, correct capitalization of various things (like "western painted turtle" or "Western painted turtle"), and some comments regarding the (ridiculous short) conservation section (should it even exist for a species that is of "Least Concern?").

Thanks to all, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Official scorer

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have just finished a very significant expansion and re-write of this rather obscure subject. My ultimate goal is to get this to GA-status, and I believe it is probably close to meeting that, but would like a quick peer review to find any glaring errors before I nominate.

Thank you! Aaron north (T/C) 18:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Closing this PR today, I received plenty of helpful suggestions to keep me busy. Aaron north (T/C) 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• Much appreciated! I agree with almost all of the comments in this PR, and the article will be improved because of your suggestions. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Official scorer" is more like a dictionary definition (the officially appointed score keeper), and is used in many sports. Why should this term be used for baseball? Would "Scoring system in baseball" or "Baseball scorer" be a better and more precise term?

I do not agree. The term "official scorer" is very strongly associated with the game of baseball, and the use of that term is virtually non-existent in other sports. It is possible that you may have had the word "scorekeeper" in mind, but the official scorer in baseball is not the guy who operates the scoreboard. There is only one link in the first five pages of google (related to hockey) that was not related to baseball. If there is ever an article about an "official scorer" in another sport, a disambig page may be appropriate to point to that. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Lede

• I think the third paragraph, which details the job of the scorer, should be inserted to the first (before the second sentence). Without it, the casual reader might assume that the scorer's job might affect the game.

• I can do that, I think I was following the order of the article. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

History

• "Henry Chadwick was the inventor of the modern box score, the writer of the first rule book for the game of baseball, and is generally credited with the invention of scorekeeping in baseball."

  I think the parallelism is messed up here. "He was the <noun>, the <noun>, and is <intransient verb>". From the first two clauses, I would expect the third part to be the same as well (in the vein of "He was ... the <noun>"). By using "and is <intransient verb>", it makes me think the second clause is a descriptive (and applied to the "box score"). Might I suggest "The modern box score used in baseball games was invented by Henry Chadwick, writer of the first rule book for the game and generally credited with the invention of its scorekeeping."?

• ok, thanks. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• "... the leagues began to impose qualification requirements and require approval ..."

  On the reports or the writer? Approval from who?

• Yes, that is vague and possibly unsupported, I'll reword it. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• "... writers who were willing to score games for MLB were required to have seen 100 or more games per year in the prior three years and to be chosen ..."

  "Who were willing"... is this a duty or voluntary? Why not simply "scorers"? "Seen", "watched", or "reported on"? Each has different connotation, and "seen" is the most casual in terms of action (one could have passed by the game, looked at it through the gates for ten seconds, and be considered to have "seen" the game).

• writers (rather than scorers) is important because later that same sentence it is made clear that the BBWAA made the call (subject to approval from the league) A random guy off the street couldn't be the official scorer, that was handled by the writers. You are correct that "seen" is vague, aside from being a writer and a member of the BBWAA, you had to attend (not just see) 100 games at the stadium to be considered. I'll clarify. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Early controversies

• What is the point of Thornley's quote? If it is to add flavour, perhaps making it a pull quote (with box) at the side?

• I can do that. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Baseball writers who were selected by MLB to perform as the official scorer usually worked the games which were played at the home stadium of the team which they covered for their newspaper. These sportswriters were asked to objectively make decisions which could impact the statistics of the team they were writing about for the season. Because of this, the official scorer was often presumed to favor the home team when making the required judgment calls during the course of a game."

  The first sentence is in my view a "snake" (sentence with many ideas) with a double "which"s.

• Noted, I'll break it up. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Official scorers of an MLB game are selected by the baseball organization. The scorer is tasked to make objective decisions that could impact the statistics of the teams. He or she is usually a baseball journalist who reports on the home team; because of this affiliation, the scorers are often presumed [by who?] to favor the home team."

• That is a good suggestion, I may use that. "by who?" was answered later in the article, but I agree that it would probably be more appropriate to explain and support that earlier rather than make the assertion and support it further down. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Baseball jargon ("no-hitter", "scorer-baiting", etc) should be briefly explained (in parantheses for example) to help readers less familiar with the game.

• Sure. (Incidentally, "scorer-baiting" is a strange unfamiliar term that was likely made up by the league at the time of the controversy and not used again. I used it because that odd term was in the source. Since I didn't quote them, I think it would probably be better for me to paraphrase that term using clearer language) Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• In relation to the language issue I pointed above, I note that there is a striking difference (to me) in the style between History and Responsibilities. The language in Responsibilities is more concise and precise (clearer). Most of this section is sourced to Wirkmaa. I am unable to check the source, but it would do good to check if the writing here is adapted "far enough" from its source; getting a third-party who has access to the source to check would be of much more help. Ref: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.

• Thanks for the comment about that section being clear. The responsibilities portion is a subject that is very clinical in nature, and does not naturally lend itself to editorializing or opinions at all, so it is very easy to write that part clearly. The primary source is the rules of baseball, and it is difficult (if not impossible) to have multiple valid interpretations from credible secondary sources. The rules are the rules (rule 10 in this case), there's only one valid interpretation of rule 10. I basically bought a recent well-regarded used book to source it. I could buy or borrow a second book about MLB rule 10 to confirm, but I strongly suspect (given my own knowledge of baseball scoring) that the second book would just use different words to say the same thing, and I would simply end up with 2 cites after every paragraph instead of one. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologise that I am stopping here, but I feel the article deserves a copy-edit to make it a smoother read. Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this much, I frankly believed I needed more help with the first couple sections anyway! Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I, too, noticed the difference between the upper half of the article and the lower half. The first half is more colorful and varied. If I were working on the article, I'd try to think of ways to compress the text of second half and to make it more inviting; illustrations of the scoring might be one way to add interest. Here are a few other suggestions for improvement:

• Would it be helpful to include an illustration of a box score?

• Perhaps, but we already have one article about how to score a game, so I cant get too much into it. (This is one cool oddity about baseball, it is common for hundreds or thousands of fans in the seats to have their own scoresheet to score the game, everyone basically has their own way to do it, etc.) Looking at the talk history, it seems decided that the article is about the official scorer rather than how to score, so I included only those scoring situations where a judgment call is required and the fans expect to be told what happened by the official scorer. All that said, I agree that it is a bit of a wall of text down there. If I can find one, it wouldn't hurt to include a free or fair-use image of a scoresheet filled out by an official scorer. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "Controversies have occurred due to a perceived bias or error in scoring decisions which have led to questions about some of baseball's milestones, including Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak in 1941 and several questioned no-hitters." - To avoid using "milestone", which is a bit slangy, and to avoid repeating "question", maybe a slight revision would be in order. - Suggestion: "Controversies related to perceived bias or errors in scoring have led to questions about important baseball records, including several no-hitters and Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak of 1941."

• Thanks, I like the suggestion. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• "In 2001, MLB formed a scoring committee to review the performance of official scorers, and by 2008 the scoring committee was given the authority to overturn scoring decisions." - Recast to avoid repeating "score" four times.

• OK, I'll reword it. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• "the official scorer is also charged with making judgment calls that do not affect the progress or outcome of the game, such as errors... " - Errors and the other things in the list are not "judgment calls". Rather, the scorer makes judgment calls about these things.

• True, I'll probably break it up after "game", and incorporate your suggestion. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Early controversies

• "Criticism of scoring decisions date back to the earliest days of the game." - Tighten by one word by deleting "back"?

• OK Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Analysis and proposed changes

• "This new umpire would travel with the four-man crew to score games... " - Should "four-man crew" be briefly explained for readers who know little about MLB umpires.

• Yeah, that would probably be helpful. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• "but it is not currently feasible because of the design of most stadiums in the league... " - What is it about stadium designs that would prevent the change?

• I would have to guess on it. My guess would be that it is probably because MLB would want an enclosed area with a roof seperated from the fans with a microphone, etc. (That would be economically difficult to justify if the press box is "good enough" since you would be eliminating a lot of prime expensive seating.) The source from MLB was just as vague as it was written in the article. The reason would seem obvious to baseball fans per my comment above, but OR isn't allowed and this isn't something that is written about very often. I'll try to find a source which explains the reasoning more explicitely, but the way it is now might be the best I can do. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rule 10.1

• "including called games" - Should "called games" be linked or briefly explained?

• Probably. I'll work on that. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Errors

• "If a fielder fails to tag the runner, batter, or a base in a force situation in time to record an out when they could have done so, that fielder is charged with an error." - "Fielder" is singular, but "they" is plural. Maybe "he" instead of "they"? I would say "she or he", but there are no women on MLB teams.

• yep, thanks. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Much appreciated! I agree with almost all of the comments in this PR, and the article will be improved because of your suggestions. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Eastern chipmunk

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

I'm considering a run at FA for this article but need your input. Suggestions for improvement are wanted and needed. Thanks, Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems well-done to this non-scientist. I can't say for sure whether the article is comprehensive or not, but it must be at least close. I have a fair number of suggestions for improvement.

• No dabs, no dead links in urls.

• I ran a script to replace hyphens with en dashes in page ranges.

Taxonomy

• "The Pleistocene fossil Tamias aristus from Georgia" - Link "Georgia" here on first use rather than later?

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Description

• "the blackish, well-haired but not bushy dorsoventrally flattened tail" - Briefly explain or link "dorsoventrally"?

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "keel on the ventral tip" - Link or briefly explain "keel" and "ventral"?

Home ranges

• "Settled individuals have about a quarter mile lifetime home range length while dispersing individuals may venture as far as a half mile." - Should these distances be given in metric also?

• "Settled individuals have about a quarter mile lifetime home range length while dispersing individuals may venture as far as a half mile." - Perhaps "The lifetime home-range distance for settled individuals is about a quarter mile, while dispersing individuals may venture as far as a half mile"?

Diet

• There's no need to link "seeds", "fruits", "nuts", "mushrooms" or "insects" because most readers of English are already familiar with the terms.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Beaked Hazelnuts" - Why capitalize this but not red oak and others?

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• No need to link "acorn" a second time or to link "minute" at all.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hibernation

• "the adaptation to true hibernation" - Link hibernation?

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Communication and perception

• Would it be possible to include a sound file?

Reproduction

• The females leave their burrows about two weeks later and enter estrus. - Link estrus here on first use rather than later in the section.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Survival

• "The hypopial mite" - Should "hypopial" be briefly explained?

• "at the extreme, it may live three years in the wild, and has been known to live two to three years" - This seems slightly illogical. If it may live three years in the wild, then it is not necessary to say that it has been known to live for less than that.

• "There are records of 13 years in the natural state." - Another logical problem. If 13 is the record, three years is not "the extreme".

Relations with humans

• "The species is of least concern to conservationists." - Link Least Concern?

Lore, literature, and art

• There should be no direct links to external sites from within the main text. "How the Chipmunk Got Its Stripes" and "The Tale of Timmy Tiptoes" should not be linked to directly. Instead, convert the links to in-line citations that include the links.

• "The name "chipmunk" is assumed to originate in the Native American... " - It would probably be better to say Ojibwe than Native American, since the latter includes many different peoples.

• "In the middle nineteenth century, Chamberlain asserted:" - Tighten to "In the mid-19th century, Chamberlain asserted:"?

• "The chipmunk has given his name to several place names in Vernon County, Wisconsin, (and elsewhere)" - Not sure whether this means several places in Vernon County or several places, including one in Vernon County. Specific place names could also be interesting; e.g., Chipmunk Corner, West Chipmunk, Chipmunk Hollow, or whatever.

• "Set in the time when animals could talk, a chipmunk mocks a boastful bear" - Misplaced modifier. The chipmunk wasn't set in the time. Maybe "Set in the time when animals could talk, the story is about a chipmunk that mocks a boastful bear... ".

• "who grows angry under the taunting" - Tighten to "which grows angry"?

• "As the chipmunk attempts to flee the bear, the bear's claws graze his back and, ever since, the chipmunk has borne a series of scars on his back." - A bit awkward. Maybe "As the chipmunk attempts to flee, the bear's claws graze its back. From then on, all chipmunks bear scars on their backs."

Images

• Would it be possible to add the page number, publisher, and place of publication for the Catesby drawing in Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands? It might be from the 1974 re-publication described in WorldCat.

• File:Chipmunk-burrow (exits).jpg lacks a summary on its description page at the Commons. Also, it and File:PSM V07 D451 Nest of american chipmunk.jpg create a text sandwich, which the Manual of Style says should be avoided. Perhaps you don't need the eastern chipmunk image since the article includes others.

• The long caption on File:Gilles Gonthier - Stuffing its face (by).jpg makes the image plus caption cross a section border on my laptop screen. Shortening the caption would solve this problem by keeping the image entirely within the "Diet" section.

• The other images and licenses look OK to me.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Lady Gaga

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I firmly believe that this article is capable of being a featured article. A peer review will make sure that this article is Featured Article worthy and make it one of Wikipedia's Best Articles.

Thanks, Ziggyseventh (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have followed this article for many months and indeed it is rather good, perhaps because of the massive amount of viewers and contributors.

• One aspect I would consider changing is the rather dull 1986–2004, 2005–07, 2008–present section headings.

You have any suggestions?

• Another is the combining of 'The Fame, The Fame Monster and Born This Way' together. The Fame/Fame monster was a period of the first studio album. Born This Way/current events is a new chapter and so a fourth section heading seems appropriate.

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason why Born This Way was imncluded in the TF/TFM section was because of a consesnsus on talk page, and also, its premature to have a 2011 section when the year in question is not arriving now. Also, splitting it up is a wide case of WP:RECENTISM.

• Billboard link (currently reference 48) is dead. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

• If you are planning to put this up for FA status, you will surely face inquiries about why you haven't used the print sources. Since several books have been written in the subject, you surely would need to consult them and determine what information is missing from the online sources. Print sources about celebrities tend to have much more detailed information.
  • That was because none of the authros writing on her was reliable, it is better to wait for someone reliable like Taraborrelli or Lucy O'Brien to release a book on her, than include text from iiotic authors, who copy the wikipedia articles.
• I think the lead will need to be expanded a bit more—for example, you skip from going to NYU to signing with Streamline. From reading the full narrative, it seems that there were some other significant events in there that should be represented in the lead.
  • Yeah sure.
• Attention is needed to Manual of Style issues such as WP:LQ. For example, if you end a sentence in a song title, the period never goes inside the closing quotation mark. If you end a sentence in a quotation, the period only goes inside if it's part of the quoted material. These types of things will trip you up at Featured article candidates.
  • Good point.
• It is overlinked at times. In general, you link the first mention of something (like Queen) and then not again. Also, linking common terms like "drugs" is normally unnecessary.
• What is the source for the information in the "Just Dance" sample caption?
• Overall it seems well-written. I like how you worked various pieces of criticism into the narrative without making an overt "criticism" section. Nice work.

I hope my comments are helpful. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks Laser brtain. 122.167.177.209 (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    

---

Digital rights management

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review mainly because of the comments left while it was a featured article candidate.

Thanks, Hello71 01:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• Overall, there's a solid base of an article there, and it's much improved since it's post-FAC days, c. 2006. Anyhow... still lots of problems, so I'm only hitting broad strokes here; things like style issues and prose can't really be addressed until the article is more complete.
  • There's still an issue of referencing; in fact, that's one of the single most damning strikes against the article. It's most apparent in the introduction, which is almost entirely unreferenced and feels like it's unverified synthesis. Same thing continues with Technologies: how am I supposed to believe "An early example of a DRM system was the Content Scrambling System (CSS) employed by the DVD Forum on film DVDs since ca. 1996" is either the best example or one of the earliest? The article is lacking some history and context beyond what is available in the introduction.
  • The "Technologies" needs some "historicizing"—that is, using historical accounts and examples rather than news articles from the time of the DRM issue, etc., where possible. Some elements are given undue weight because of the reliance on these easily available sources—for example Ubisoft's DRM gets far more mention than any other game developer. Is there a source that shows that they have been the predominant users of DRM? Otherwise it's most likely original research.
  • Much of the "DRM and documents" section seems to apply to multiple mediums... perhaps this is better put in an intro paragraph to technologies?
  • "Table of DRM technologies and associated devices"... I would say axe this entirely. It's hardly ever going to be an exhaustive list of DRM, such a list is pretty useless and bloats the article, and all the notable examples will be covered in the relevant section before this point.
  • Undue weight: the DMCA gets a large subsection, while other countries are giving one-line mentions. If you can show, for example, that most media that uses DRM is American, that would be a good fact to add to the article and would legitimize the section. Either way, it could probably be cut down and summarized so there's less legalese.
  • Controversy: As would be expected on free culture Wikipedia, this section needs the most work. It starts out with the unverified and weasely "Many organizations, prominent individuals, and computer scientists are opposed to DRM." It then gives way too much ink to way too many people. The same thing occurs with "Shortcomings". I would shorten and tighten both these sections, and add more information on the reason DRM is actually used. The intro doesn't give us much, but it's pretty obvious since there's DRM there are its defenders, even if they're just corporate suits. They should be heard.
  • Turn "historical note" into a real history section as said above, and move it up in the hierarchy!
• In summation: Cut down certain sections, expand others, find sources (and better ones) for the rest. Note: I don't watchlist these reviews, so if you need to get my attention ping me at talk.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Jessica Simpson discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that this article has been improved nicely. I need extra suggestions to make this article good for a FL nomination.

Thanks, Novice7 ^(Talk) 14:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• Simpson's debut album Sweet Kisses was released... There should be a comma after "album" and before "was".
• released by Columbia Records on... "Through" not "by"
• on November, 1999., poor English, "in November 1999" no comma and no "on"
• There should be a hyphen between twenty and five
• The album sold about 1.9 million copies[3] in the US produced three singles. The reference [3] needs to be after the period.
• ...RIAA.[4][5]The third single from the album... Space at beginning of sentence.
• Add link to single (single (music)) the first time the word is mentioned.
• "I Think I'm in Love with You" reached number twenty one in the US comma after the song name.
• released in June, 2001 delete comma.
• dated June 5, 2001 deleted this
• first week dated June 5, 2001[6][7] and was certified Gold by RIAA.[2] [6][7] should be at the end of the sentence
• Irresistible sold 755,000 copies in the US[3] and spawned two singles. [3] Should be at end of sentence.
• The title track reached number fifteen in the US and also reached top twenty in many international markets. Two things: insert "album's" before "title track" and place reference [4] at the end of the sentence.
• In July, 2002 Simpson released her first remix album titled This Is the Remix. Remove the comma between July and 2002 and place a comma after 2002.
• Simpson's third studio album was released in August, 2003. Add comma after album abd remove comma between August and 2003.
• {{xt|The album reached number two in the US[1] and was certified three times platinum by RIAA.[2] Move reference [1] to end of sentence.
• Simpson's seventh single "With You" reached Add comma before and after "With You".
• fourteen in the US[4], and comma goes before reference [4]
• album's re-release[9], a cover comma goes before reference [9].
• In November, 2004 Simpson released her remove comma between November and 2004.
• Add link to Christmas album.
• After switching record label to Epic Records[10], in August 2006 Simpson released her fifth studio album A Public Affair. reword.
• The album has sold just over 300,000 copies in the US[3] and spawned three singles Reference [3] at end of sentence.
• a cover of Nancy Sinatra's "These Boots Are Made For Walkin' originally Comma after song name AND the Apostrophe should be a quotation mark.
• film The Dukes of Hazzard in which Simpson co-starred[11], reached number fourteen reference [11] should go after the comma.
• The title track, released add "album" before "title track".
• album, also reached number fourteen[4] in the US and topped the US Billboard Hot Dance Club Play.[4]. Delete reference [4] after fourteen and remove spare period after reference [4].
• a country imprint of Columbia Records[13], and released Do You Know Two things: reference [13] should go after comma and comma should go after "Do You Know"
• lead single "Come On Over", reached Remove comma
• five in the US Billboard Hot 100[4] and number eighteen in the US Billboard Hot Country Songs[4]. remove reference [4] after "US Billboard Hot 100" and the period should go before reference [4].
• October, 2010 Sony Music released a compilation remove comma after October.
• album v Playlist: The Very Best of Jessica Simpson "titled" should be "entitled".
• christmas album titled Happy Christmas is entitled, not titled.
• scheduled for a November 2010 release[16] period before reference [16]

 Done Novice7 ^(Talk) 11:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Albums

• The whole graphic design goes against WP:DISCOGRAPHY, see Slipknot discography for a great example.
• Their are only 13 columns in Do You Know, when there should be 14.
• Do You Know peaked at #1 on the U.S. Billboard Top Country Albums chart. reference needed.
• Softpak albums should not have a "Notes" section.

 Done Novice7 ^(Talk) 11:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Singles

• The whole graphic design goes against WP:DISCOGRAPHY, see Slipknot discography for a great example.
• "Singles" and "Promotional singles" should be merged together.
• "A Little Bit" was only released outside the United States. reference needed.
• Come On Over" also peaked at #18 on the US Billboard Hot Country Songs. reference needed.
• "Remember That" also peaked at #41 on the US Billboard Hot Country Songs. reference needed.
• Released only to promote the album. TV Shows performances. reference needed.
• Released only in Brazil, through the soundtrack of "As Filhas Da Mae." reference needed.
• Promotional single only in the US. reference needed.
• Released only in Christmas days, in U.S., Canada, UK ,Australia and Asia. reference needed.
• Released only to US and Canada Country Radio stations. reference needed.
• Opening Theme to "The Price of Beauty". Promotion of the series only. reference needed.

 Removed the links to promotional singles as there are no sources Novice7 ^(Talk) 11:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous appearances

• Rename to "Other appearances"

 Done Novice7 ^(Talk) 11:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Videography

• List of music videos, showing year released and director(s) remove this
• Add ""—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart." to the bottom of the DVDs graph.

 Done Novice7 ^(Talk) 11:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Other

• I don't see any problems with the references, but Amazon might be challenged as a reliable source.
• I didn't check the verifiability of the references, so I hope it's accurate...
• File:Jsimpsondsc00203.jpg needs more information on it. I strongly suggest using Template:Information.

Y

 Eveything's fixed. Discography updated per DISCOGSTYLE

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. CrowzRSA 22:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

---

2010 New Zealand Music Awards

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first WP article created on a specific year of the NZMAs. I based the format on that of 19th Golden Melody Awards. In an attempt to push the article up to FL, I would appreciate any constructive criticism that can be given. One thing I would particularly like feedback on is the structure of the headings, and whether there is a better way to do this.

Thanks in advance, Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, any do you think an infobox should be created, like the ones for the Grammys or the Academy Awards? Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

General points

• Re infoboxes, there is no WP requirement to use them. Most featured music awards listings have them, a few don't. I personally don't like them, but it may be wise to be guided by the precedents.
• Almost all the featured music awards lists use a formal tabular structure. Is there a reason why you have chosen to present the list in the non-tabular format? Why do you think this preferable?

Prose

• First sentence seems awkwardly repetitive and dubiously grammatical: "The 2010 New Zealand Music Awards was the 45th holding of the annual New Zealand Music Awards, awarded to..." etc. Something along the lines of "The 2010 New Zealand Music Awards was the 45th holding of the annual ceremony featuring awards to..." etc.
• It would be better to keep your prose chronological. Thus, after the first sentence, "Finalists for the three technical awards were announced on 16 August 2010 with winners announced on 1 September, the date on which finalists for 16 out of 21 "non-technical" categories were revealed."
• Should there not be some explanation as to why no finalists were announced in five categories?
• I don't think the lead should include a list of sponsors. List them by all means, if you wish, at the end of the main lists, but highlighting them in the lead makes the article look like advertising material.
• Can you use a more elegant phrase than "finalist-less", which sounds (and is) a made-up word?

Nothing else, really. If you want to raise any of these points with me, or want me to look again, please leave a message on my talk page as I am not able to watch peer reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

---

List of number-one Billboard Latin Pop Albums from the 1980s

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this to featured list and I want to see if there's anything else that needs to be done before I nominate this. I used the List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s as my basis.

Thanks, Magiciandude (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comments from Adabow (talk · contribs)

• There should not be any space in between the end of a sentence and a reference.
• The second half of the lead seems a bit choppy; merge some paragraphs to improve the readability and flow of the prose.
• Sort artists' names using {{sortname}}
• You'll need to fix the dab link and the dead link

Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of the above comments. I think this would be a quick fail a FLC in its current state; here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Songs from the 1980s is a FL and seems like an ideal model.
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing, for example José José isl inked twice in the lead - it is OK to link him every time in the lsit as it is a sortable table.
• I would say how often other Billboard charts are published (assume every week) in The data for this chart was published every two weeks, unlike most Billboard charts.
• I am not sure what this means One album peaked at number one in the first year of publication: Reflexiones, by Mexican singer José José. Since the first calendar year of publication was 1985, and there were three albums on the chart in 1985, it makes no sense to me. Even less sense if the first year of existence of the chart is meant (since there were 6 albums at number one in the first year of the chart).
• WP:LEAD says the lead should be four paragraphs at most - this is currently seven, but the last five are one sentence each, and could be combined.
• The prose is rough and needs a copyedit. One example: The Latin Pop Chart was the first of the Latin charts along with, Regional Mexican Albums and Tropical Albums, to be released from Billboard. would be better as something like The Latin Pop Chart was the first of three Latin charts, along with Regional Mexican Albums and Tropical Albums, to be released by Billboard. or even The first three Latin album charts released by Billboard were Latin Pop, Regional Mexican, and Tropical.
• A few more images of artists could be included along the right side of the article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Missouri River

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning on sending it to FA status. I've had experience with failing a lot of FACs, and I'd like to have some comments on this article, which I have spent a whole lot of time and research on, in lieu of failing another FAC (which would be embarrassing). I'd like some words on how to expand the page, as it doesn't seem to do the river justice.

Thanks, Shannon^talk _contribs 04:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see additional comments/suggestions on what needs to be improved or altered to get it ready for FAC. It was recently promoted to GA status earlier this month. There are very few secondary school articles at FA status and even fewer that are American public high schools.

Thanks, JonRidinger (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio)/archive1.

---

Ronnie Lee Gardner

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to seek input to become a featured article candidate. It passed good article review fairly quickly and any feedback regarding more stringent FA requirements would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, KimChee (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just read it from start to finish. Looks very good indeed, and very close to FA standard. Sources look good, it seems comprehensive (with the disclaimer I don't know much about the topic), and it feels like it has a NPOV. I think there's a few too many wikilinks ("vomited" for instance) - only link terms if they either add a lot of relevant info, or if they have a specific technical meaning in the context they are used. The lead could be expanded a little, and rewritten - I'm not quite sure why, but it doesn't seem to flow that well at the moment. Finally, the "see also" section shouldn't include links already in the body of the text (like "blood atonement" and possibly some of the others). But these are minor quibbles, and I think the article is pretty much ready to go to FAC. Nice work. Trebor (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the helpful feedback. The article has been edited accordingly and the lead has been expanded. KimChee (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good. It's been a long time since I reviewed regularly for FAC so I dunno about current standards, but in my opinion this is good enough to take there. Trebor (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you again! KimChee (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  

---

1950 Atlantic hurricane season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC eventually. I worked on the article extensively last spring, and since it now passed a GA review, I thought I'd go for the next step.

Thanks, Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/1950 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1.

---

Douglas XP-48

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I think just about everything that can be said on the subject has been said, and I want to know if this might squeak by as a Good Article. Or, alternatively, what could be done to push it over that threshold.

Thanks, The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I suspect that almost everything that is known about this deisgn is in here, but think there may still be some room for expansion in terms of background and context. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The dab finder shows one disambiguation link in the article that will need to be fixed.
• I realize the article very short (Prose size (text only): 2068 B (333 words) "readable prose size") but I think the lead should be a little longer (as it is only two sentences now). First, I think that the alternate name (Model 312) should be in the lead. Second, I think perhaps some of the specifications could be in the lead - what aspects of the design were unique or especially notable - this could just be another sentence.
• Is the name of the designer or designers known? If not, could anything be added about Douglas general design philosphy / strategy at the time? Did the firm have a chief designer, for example? Or had they designed / made any racing planes whose design elements are reflected in the design for the XP-48?
• Can anything be added on what they planned to make it out of - assume metal, but might it have been wood for lightness?
• Can a bit of explanation be given on the aspects of the design that are known - what would a high aspect ratio for the wings given to the plane compared to a more normal wing? Was this a trend of the time or something new and radical?
• It seems to me that the development problems with the engine could likely be a few sentences instead of just one. I also think that "At the same time, Douglas' performance estimates were becoming increasingly regarded as being over-optimistic.[7]" sounds like a few more sentences at least that could be added. What did they fudge on and how were the y caught?
• There is a template that some of the specifications are missing for this airplane. Could the missing parameters be added somehow, even as a sentence saying something like "Because it was never built, it is known what sort of franistats the XP-48 would have had..."
• Did Douglas get paid at all for their design work (if not, then the image may have the wrong license)? Did they actually build anything of the physical prototype before the contract was canceled?
• What makes the external link a WP:RS?
• The Military History WikiProject folks are very good at reviewing and assessing articles like this and may be able to help expand it (if anymore is known).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a good candidate for a Featured List nomination. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of NMajdan's comments. On the ones where I have differing thoughts, my comments are noted below. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is a little short. Consider expanding it; you can look at other lists for help.
• You switch around between multiple date formats in your references. Either use January 1, 2010 or 2010-01-01.
  •  Done I went with January 1, 2010. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Consider splitting our your notes and references; refs 1 & 2 contains notes in parenthetical form - I've never seen it done that way.
  •  Done Notes are now split out. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Several refs are missing authors. Is this info available?
• Ref 8 is missing author and date. While authors is optional, I don't think date is.
• Refs 11, 15, 21, 34, 40, 41 needs an access date.
  •  Done Fixed. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 19: North"".
  •  Done Fixed. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 33: {{{1}}} - typo and p. should be plural since there is more than one page.
  •  Done Fixed. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 37 needs to be formatted correctly.
  •  Done I fixed this. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• The navboxes need to contain a direct link to the article. Modify the head coaches one so the title links to this list. Same thing for the main football navbox.
  •  Done I fixed this. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Is the "No coaches" entry needed? This is a list of coaches so do you really need to include when they didn't have a coach?

I think it's helpful for the reader who may look at the chart as an overall program history to see that there were a number of years in which there was no coach. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• The # column sorting appears to be broken.
  •  Done I fixed this. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• OT column sorting is incorrect. Sorts 10 in between 1 and 2.
  •  Done I fixed this. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Use em dashes for the blank cells in the table; you're currently using both em dashes and hyphens.
  •  Done I fixed this. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• The "Statistical leaders" section seems redundant. All that information can be seen in the table.

I don't feel strongly on this one. I added the "statistical leaders" for ease of display and for the benefit of readers who may not be versed in sorting charts. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is the "Profiles" section needed? All that can be seen by visiting the article of the coach. Some of these seem two short to justify a whole section. I have never been a fan of sections or paragraphs with only a couple sentences. The two sentences in the HoF Inductees section could be moved to the lead.

It's a matter of style. Many of the similar lists have a longish narrative section at the start without sections. My personal style preference is that (a) detailed information about each coach is available in their individual bios, but the idea here is to present a very short highlight summary on the major accomplishments of each coach giving the reader a broad overview, (b) sections help make the information more accessible and digestible, (c) I have no problem with short paragraphs, and if you look at major newspapers like the NYT and LAT, one and two sentence paragraphs are quite common, and (d) . Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• The last couple of sentences in RR's section need sources.
• Move RR's picture up a few sections so it doesn't bleed into the references section. Also, I typically prefer to put the current coach's picture in the lead.
  •  Done I moved Rodriguez's pic to the top. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely hate having RR's pic at the top. He is the worst and most despised coach in the program's history. It makes me flinch to open the page and see that creepy smirk, spray-tanned face, and feaux hipster tweed sport jacket over black t-shirt. I much preferred having his face hidden down at the bottom of the article. (so much for concealing my feelings on the RichRod controversy) In the context of a list of Michigan football coaches, Yost, Schembechler and Crisler are at the top of the pyramid, and I'm inclined to have one of them be the lead image. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in here. Tell us how you really feel about Rodriguez! Jweiss11 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I couldn't take it any longer. I've restored Fielding H. Yost's image to its rightful spot atop the article. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the article needs to be in those three Michigan Wolverines categories, just the most specific which would be the head football coaches one.
  •  Done I fixed this. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope that helps!»NMajdan·talk 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Morrison Hershfield

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if this page passes the notability standards. It is the second article I have created on my own and would like to take all necessary steps to keep this article up. I am open to all feedback and suggestions.

Thanks, Joe Fielder (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: There are several references to third-party, independent reliable sources which cover the firm in a non-trivial way, so I think it meets the notability requirements. Thanks for your work on this and here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD - it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, but seems not to have anything on the History, for example, nor does it even mention this is a Canadian firm. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - but the fact that it is an employee-owned company is only in the lead, and the 15 offices across North America are also only mentioned there, as far as I can tell.
• Could years be added to the history section? When were these acquisitions? How much did they cost?
• Notable projects are all since 1997, and Awards are all since 2005. Did the firm do nothing of note in its first 50 plus years? See WP:Recentism
• As it currently stands, the article reads more like an advertisement or promtional piece for the firm than a neutral article. There is no criticism of the firm and no negative coverage. See WP:NPOV
• I also note that all the images are from the firm itself and were uploaded by the main editor, which means there may be a conflict of interest here.
• One way to avoid these last two issues is to incorporate more coverage from independent, reliable third-party sources, such as magazines, newspapers, trade journals and the like.
• Much of the article is in bullet list form - if possible could these lists be converted to regular prose? It would flow better and be less choppy that way.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. BAE Systems and Elderly Instruments are FAs about businesses and may be useful model articles.
• Article is pretty short, so there is not a lot more to say.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Tennis elbow

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…My classmates and I have added new sections and new information into Previously existing sections. We would like suggestions as to the quality of the article and maybe some editing.

Thanks, Sltruong (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)KIN 412L group

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but needs a lot of work to reach, say, the GA level. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

• The article needs copyediting, as you suggest in your request for a review. PR can't generally supply that because we are perpetually short-handed. A copyeditor would probably catch and fix small errors like the extra space between the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the lead and the sentences like "Another claim stated that cervical spondylosis which is the wear and tear of the cartilage and bones of the neck" (in the "Causes" section), which is not a complete sentence.

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggest using straight prose paragraphs rather than lists when feasible. The existing article includes five such lists; all of them look to me like lists that would read just fine as straight prose.

• The article's claims seem to be reasonably well-supported by citations to reliable sources. However, the sourcing is inconsistent, and other editors have added a couple of "citation-needed" tags that should be addressed. Beyond that, a good rule of thumb is to include a citation for every extraordinary claim, every claim that has been questioned, every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. If a citation covers an entire paragraph, it should appear at the end of the paragraph; otherwise it will be seen as supporting only a single claim or sentence within the paragraph.

• Where a link is helpful, it should be added to the first use of a term. For example, ibuprofen should be linked on first use in the "Treatment" section rather than on second use. Ditto for other links.

• Link terms that many readers are not likely to know already. They are more likely to know "tennis" than "lateral epicondoyle", for example. They are probably more likely to know "elbow" than "tendon". They will probably not know "humerus" and might not know "pathogenesis". These are just examples from the lead. Generally, it's the specialized jargon that most needs explaining or linking to make things clear to a general audience.

• Citations should be consistently formatted, and they need to be as complete as possible. A good rule of thumb for citations to web pages, for example, is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those are known or can be found. I find it handy to use the "cite" family of templates to help arrange the citations. You can find these at WP:CIT. (Don't mix them with the "Citation" family, also found at WP:CIT.) Citation 31 already uses the "cite journal" member of this family of templates, and some of the others may too; thus, you have a handy example of how to do the citations using this method.

• Avoid addressing the reader directly. In "Examination and tests", for example, a sentence says, "An easy at-home test can be performed to determine whether you have tennis elbow." It's the "you" that's the problem here and elsewhere in the article. Better would be "An easy at-home test may reveal if someone has tennis elbow."

• After further rewrites, keep in mind that the lead should be a summary of the whole article rather than a set of introductory paragraphs. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of the main text sections and not to develop material in the lead that does not appear in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.

• The dab tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Treehouse of Horror IX

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Listed at Category:Requests for peer review for over a month, but no review has been brought forward until now. Start-Class article on an installment in the Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror series.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The article seems badly underlinked; for example The Jerry Springer Show is an obvious target since most people won't know very much about it (even most Americans haven't seen it). Some of the allusions could be explained with links, like "Starship Poopers" (Starship Troopers.)

Capitalization is irregular - "and The Simpsons go on" should be "and the Simpsons", no?

"At Springfield Elementary School, Bart paints "The Simpsons Halloween Special IX" in a blood soaked brush," <-- on what, the chalkboard?

Some of the writing seems clunky; eg. "even going to the lengths of taking the batteries out of the remote control" or "but much to his terror Marge says he has to be neutered."

The allusions section seems awfully skimpy. Simpsons episodes are usually far meatier than that, especially Halloween episodes.

Besides that, I'm not sure what could be improved. I mean, there's only so much one can say about 3 shorts. --Gwern (contribs) 16:46 18 October 2010 (GMT)

Comments by Sjones23

• Also, articles should not be linked in headers per WP:MOSHEAD.
• The cultural reference section could use a little expansion with additional sources (see Treehouse of Horror V and Treehouse of Horror VI)
• Please ensure that this article undergoes a thorough copyedit.

Thanks, Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

---

History of the New York Jets

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…although it passed GA in August, it has been extensively renovated since then, and User:The Writer 2.0 and I would like feedback before we take it to FAC.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Ramones (Ramones album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate the article for FA. I would like another reviewer to make sure it meets the FA criteria, and how I can fix any problems. I've never been the cleanest writer, as in I make a lot of MOS and grammar mistakes throughout my articles. That is why I have listed this to be reviewed.

Thanks, CrowzRSA 23:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

• "... who are widely cited as the first punk rock band."

  Need more sources than MTV... Information in the lede should be summarised from the main body text. Where in the article is this "first punk rock band" mentioned?

• "... with Allmusic and Rolling Stone magazine, ..."

  Why is Rolling Stone not in italics? Should Allmusic be in italics?

Background

• "... Lisa Robinson ... saw the band performing at CBGB."

  What band?

• "Joey Ramone related: "Lisa came down ..."

  Where is the closing quotation mark?

• "... based in New York City, New York led by ..."

  There should be a comma behind the state. Regardless, is there another New York City in the world? Is New York City not common knowledge?

• What is a ""progressive" force band"? Specifically what does ""progressive" force" mean?

• "... former manager of the New York Dolls, Marty Thau and were not processed ..."

  There should be a comma after the name of the person.

Recording and production

• "... as many orchestras use to record ..."

  "used"

Photography and cover art

• The chronology in this section is somewhat off. First Bayley was introduced as simply a photographer and that the photograph was to be taken for "Punk," (should it be Punk?). Later Bayley is identified again as if we were never told about him, and as a Punk photographer. This section could do with some restructuring.

Compositions

• "It begins instrumental, ..."

  I am fairly certain

• "At second twenty, ..."

  What is "second twenty"?

• "The bass and guitar "gradually" rebuild ..."

  I doubt "gradually" is so unique/controversial as to deserve quotation marks.

• "... the seconds twenty to thirty–three."

  The what?

• ".. it lives up to the speed, menace, humor, and mystery."

  To the "speed, menace, humor, and mystery" of what?

• ""Beat on the Brat" is the album's only song sung in third-person view."

  How do you sing a song (audio) in a visual perspective (the link goes to Virtual camera system)? Is this meant simply to be "sung in the third-person."?

• About Joey's explanation behind "Beat on the Brat", use blockquotes for quotations longer than four sentences.

• "The resulting lyrics are summarized as referring to two juvenile offenders, in the settings of both Berlin and San Francisco, who possibly at the song's conclusion are dead."

  "The lyrics refer to two juvenile offenders in Berlin and San Francisco and their possible deaths at the conclusion of the song.:

• "The song is fictional as announced Nicholas Rombes who describes this meta-perspective in his analysis of the album as "both line in a song and song line across a line in a song.""

  Is there a missing punctuation in the first part of this long sentence? Who is Nicholas Rombes? Even though the quote is introduced as "meta-perspective", "both line in a song and song line across a line in a song" is incomprehensible.

• "... being one minute and 32 seconds." and other such phrasings.

  Figures should be consistent as either numbers or words when used as units of measures.

• "The text has origins of irony and humor and depiction of violence."

  Are "themes" meant instead of "origins"?

• "... opens with the sound of a circular saw running ..."

  "... opens with the sound of a running circular saw ..."

• ""Chainsaw" has album's the fastest tempo, ..."

  ""Chainsaw" has the fastest tempo among the album's songs, ..."

• "... consists of only four lines ..."

  "Only" is redundant.

• "After several pieces of the Ramones, whose song's titles begin with "I Don't Want to ..." , Tommy said that "Now I Want to Sniff Some Glue" is known as the first positive song from the album."

  "The first positive song from the album" does not seem to be qualified by the preceding clause; there is only one song in the album that starts with "I Don't Want to ...".

• "With a playing time of two minutes and 35 seconds, the longest piece on the album is."

  Not grammatical...

• Spy vs. Spy should be in italics, not quotation marks.

• "The studio recording for the debut album has been expanded by Mickey Leigh and Craig Leon for percussion effects, which went unmentioned in the liner notes to the album's release."

  This seems sudden amidst the mention of "Harvana Affair". Why is it here and not in a section about the album as a whole?

• "... proceed at nearly the same tempo."

  "The same tempo" as what?

• ""Listen to My Heart" is one of the first of many in the repertoire of the Ramones, made up of an ironic and pessimistic perspective with failing or already failed human love relations deals."

  "Human love relations deals"?

• "... because it appears to be threatening."

  What "appears to be threatening"?

• "When the prostitute finally gets a customer yet, he killed him with a razor to prove not to be homosexual."

  Ungrammatical: mismatched tenses, questionable "yet", clunky second clause.

• "About the authenticity and autobiographical coloring of lyrics exist contradictory statements by both the author and by his contemporaries."

  Please rephrase this awkward phrase.

• "In some interviews with Dee Dee Ramone, the piece is described as autobiographical:"

  "During interviews, Dee Dee describes this song as an autobiographical piece." The quote is not needed (it might even be contradictory to his earlier quote about glue sniffing).

• "... could not be claimed on a record."

  "... could not be published on a record."

• "... they came up with alternate lyrics or the line that read ..."

  "Or the line that read" is redundant; it makes the sentence awkward.

• "Before they released the album, they came up with alternate lyrics or the line that read "I'm a shock trooper in a stupor, yes I am." They went with the alternate lyrics and released the album, and has since been the group's "signature closer at live shows," says Mickey Leigh."

  "They replaced those lyrics with "I'm a shock trooper in a stupor, yes I am." Since the release of the album, the replacement lyrics was the group's "signature closer at live shows," according to Mickey Leigh."

• "Several songs from the album features backing vocals from several different guests."

  "Several songs from the album feature backing vocals from several guests."

• "... sings backing vocals on ..." and for the rest as well.

  "... sang backing vocals on ..."

• After reading the entire section, I really have to question whether each song has to be highlighted even when the only content about it is a sentence with less than twenty words... My reading of some parts feel labored, I felt as if information was stuffed in just to provide some substance to the song in question. A restructuring and pruning of this section, tightening the focus would do good in my view.

Critical response

• If I am not wrong, Allmusic here is pointing to the published dead-tree version; hence, it should be in italics.

• Again, why is Rolling Stone not in italics? Why is it then in italics later? Why is it linked twice in the same section?

• About.com is not a reliable source. The author might be an expert if outside sources judge him or her as such, so which sources have deemed ... Wait... why is this sourced to Answers.com?

• This section feels like a loose collection of quotes from reviewers. There feels to be little linkage in how the read moves from one reviewer to another. Basically, what is here is X said this and Y said this without a smooth flow of ideas. Grouping the reviewer's opinions into themes could give a focus that is lacking.

Accolades

• "The album was included in Spin's List of Top Ten College Cult Classics, noting that "everything good that's happened to music in the last fourteen years can be directly traced to the Ramones.""

  Incorrect structure: here, the album is the one that "[notes]" the quoted idea.

• Repetitiveness abounds here. "The album" starts the first three sentences, and is the object in every sentence thereafter...

Legacy

• "Ramones is considered to have established the musical genre punk rock, as well as popularizing it years afterward."

  By who? This is the sort of sentence that either needs explicit attribution or a wide acceptance. Is Nicholas Rombes such an expert in the music industry that his opinion is accepted consensus?

• "Since it is their debut album, it began the Ramones' influence on popular music, with examples being musicians associated with other genres, such as heavy metal, thrash metal indie pop, grunge, and post-punk. are among the many alternative rock musicians who have credited the Ramones with inspiring them."

  Punctuation errors and incorrect grammar here

• "Despite its lack of popularity in its era, since the beginning of the 21st Century, some 25 years after its release and years after the dissolution of the group Ramones, the importance of the album for the development of punk rock music was recognized by the music press and music industry."

  By the time I read the last clause, I forgot what were the first three. I feel this is an example of stuffing too many information into one sentence. Please refine it.

• "It started in 2001, ..."

  What started?

• "The Ramones album there is number 1."

  What album?

References

• Where is "Erlewine — Allmusic" pointing to?

• How are music.spreadit.org, rockometer.com, rateyourmusic.com, and music.blinkx.com reliable sources? How do they qualify as such per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches?

General

• Problems with commas as delimiters (missing).

• Several noun plus -ing constructs: Please read User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing on the possible issues with such constructs and how to resolve them.

Media

• File:Ramones album cover.jpg

  "the most historically important and influential album in the development of punk rock"... ever heard of WP:NPOV...? Please rewrite the fair use rationale. Aside from it as a non-replaceable idenfication of the subject, it has an advantage over other standard articles on albums in that the article actually has critical commentary on the cover's design. Point that out.

• File:Ramones-Blitzkrieg Bop.ogg

  This deserves a much clearer fair use rationale on why this piece is qualified by the ten criteria of WP:NFCC for this article. What specific qualities of this sample, unexplainable with words, would help the readers' comprehension of this album?

An outside copy-editor's help would certainly be useful here. Jappalang (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

---

(sic)nesses

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need a peer review to maintain meeting the Featured topic criteria. It is a short article, so reviewing the article shouldn't be too hard. Thanks, CrowzRSA 23:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article is certainly short (530 words excl. quote) compared with other album articles I have reviewed, and seems far from comprehensive. For example there is no background section, and no recording history to speak of. The promotion details are very vague ("several theatres in the United States several days prior to release"). Other points:-

• Prose: several awkwardnesses, e.g.:-
  • "though professionally..." what is meant here?
  • "this was thus far based" - clumsy.
  • "Whilst" → "While"
  • If "satan" is not capitalised in the quotation, it should be followed by [sic]
• The long verbatim quotation looks like a copyright violation; please see WP:copyright violations, in particular "... material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation."
• There are numerous unformatted or incomplete refs, in particular 11, 12 and 16.

Overall this article looks to be its early stages, and perhaps should be brought back to PR when it has developed further. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Francis Ford Coppola

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe this article satisfies all the conditions it requires to be a featured article, or at least a good article. I have recently re-edited the entirety of the page. In the process I greatly improved its overall get-up, furnished plenty of relevant and previously-not-present information, and provided suitable external links to all of them.

Thanks, Cupidcobra1 (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, unfortunately I think it still needs a lot of work before it would pass at FAC (and some before it owuld be a GA). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• One of the big problems here is the article's references. Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation without a space between, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. A space does follow the ref. So things like He also directed “Ayamonn the Terrible”, a film about a sculptor’s nightmares coming to life. [11]It was then he decided to experiment as a serious film director and ended up directing a softcore porn film ... need to be fixed.
• The article needs more references in places, for example the sentences Somewhat superior to the run-of-the-mill exploitation films being turned out at that time, the film recouped its shoestring expenses and went on to become a minor cult film among horror buffs. It was on the sets of Dementia 13 that he met his future wife Eleanor Jessie Neil. have no ref and need one, or the whole second paragraph of the "Patton (1970)" section needs at least one ref.
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. The external link checker shows that there are two dead links that will need to be fixed.
• Refs need complete information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The File:Patton1.jpg is fair use, and does not have a fair use rationale for this article. As such it can be removed at any time here - see WP:FAIR USE and WP:NFCC
• There are three more free pitcures of Coppola on Commons that could be used here.
• Structurally I owuld write the article more like the 1960s section, than the 1970s and later sections. Having a section on each film breaks up the flow of the article and, in most cases, is not warranted. Does Jack really need its own two-sentence section?
• Similarly the article has several short (one or two sentence) sections that need to either be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• There are places where the article has needless repetition "After obtaining his bachelor's degree from Hofstra, Coppola enrolled in the University of California at Los Angeles. There he chanced to befriend Jim Morrison. Coppola would later use his well-known number The End in Apocalypse Now.[14] Very soon he enrolled in UCLA Film School for graduate work in film.[10] At UCLA, Coppola directed a short horror film ..."
• Or is this correct Coppola shot The Godfather Part II parallel to The Conversation. Didn't he film it and Part I at the same time?
• Per WP:ITALIC, do not use italics for quotations.
• Most featured articles on artists have some sort of critical reception section (this does not, though reviews of many of his films are included in those sections).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Nationalization of history

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am very unexperienced user on en wiki (this article is first article I wrote on wikipedia on english language), I am amateur in history and I feel that I need help with improving and expanding this article to the level that its topic deserves because of its importance and actuallity. I think article could be improved in lede and subtitle with legacy.

Thanks, Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement, assuming it is not merged into another article.

• I have some concerns about this article - at the top of the article are two warning tags. One is that this is an orphan article, so few others link to it. This is not in and of itself a problem as many new articles are often orphans.  Done The more serious concern is that there is a {{duplication}} tag, which is a major cleanup banner.  Not done This, in and of itself, is enough to disqualify the article for peer review. Since I have already looked at it, I will still make a a few comments
• The Talk:Nationalization of history expresses the concern that this is a content fork and should perhaps be merged with the Historiography and nationalism article. I was curious so I checked out the first few references. The lead sentence has two references, but both make only limited mention of the terms "nationalization of history" and / or "Ethnicization of history" (note the correct spelling - there is a typo in the lead). Neither article includes the pharase in its title, for example. I have to say that I am not a historian, but given my limited knowledge, this looks like it could be a fork to me.
• Google Books searches were done in a Slavic language version of Google, so some of the terms found with the links are in Cyrillic and are not sueful for an English Wikipedia article. -  Done
• I speak no Slavic languages (beyond "Pivo nie ma!" (no more beer!) in Polish) so I could not write anything in a Slavic language, but the English here has a lot of errors typical of something written by a non-native speaker. These include missing articles - for example the first sentence would read better as something like Nationalization of history or Ethnicizaction of history [1] is [the] term used in historiography to describe [the] process of separation of "one's own" history from [the] common universal history[,] by way of perceiving, understanding and treating the past that results with construction of history as history of a nation.[2] -  Not done  Done, but only for the first sentence.
• Superscripts for centuries are against the WP:MOS (just write "19th century") -  Done
• The article uses both American (Nationalization) and British (civilisation) spellings - pick one and stick with it -  Done
• The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and section, which interrupot the flow of the prose. These should wither be combinedwith others or expanded if possible.  Doing...
• Watch WP:PEACOCK terms like masterpiece in First phase began at the middle of 19th century and reached its culmination in Mykhailo Hrushevsky's masterpiece “History of Ukraine - Rus". This is also a WP:NPOV issue - note if you quote a reliable source saying it is a materpiece, then that is more acceptable.  Done
• There is a sandwich of text between two images at the bottom of the article, which WP:MOSIMAGE says to avoid.  Done
• One of the sandwiching photos is of the Srebrenica Genocide stone and the other is of James Macpherson. Neither is mentioned anywhere else in the text that I could see - images should illustrate the text, and the subjects of images should be discussed in the text in some way.  Done
• I do not think the See also section follows WP:See also - why the list of "Histories of nations"? The one I checked does not even include the word nationalization. Why were these links included and others not?  Done - I deleted few selected nation histories.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator's reply: Yes, your comments are, of course, very helpful both for me personally and for improving the article. I really appreciate your comments and time and energy that you spent to write them. Since I am creator and (till now) main contributor to this article, I need some time (a week or two, since I am going to be busy during next week) to carefully study your comments and to perform corresponding corrections and replies, since I am inexperienced user and English is obviously not my native language. I would appreciate if I can have this few weeks before making decision about eventual merging.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has not been nominated for deletion or officially for merging (though it has been suggested that it be merged on the talk page). I do not plan to nominate it for deletion, but someone else may do so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

---

St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the page has undegone a lot of work in recent months but has been unable to move past a "B" rating, I'm looking for input because I'm unsure what else to do.

Thanks, Jordo72 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN.

• First off, to get past B class, an article either has to go for WP:GA or WP:FA (or A-class, which is rare outside of military history). It is easier to pass GAN than FAC, but I do not see that this has ever been nominated for GA (it was nominated unsuccessfully for FA back in 2008). I will review this as if it were up at GAN.
• Biggest problem with the article right now is references. First off many paragraphs have no refs and need them - look at the History section for example. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• The refs that are used do not have enough information given. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Some of the refs look like the may not be to reliable sources - what makes tourcanada.com a reliable source, for example?
• The external link checker tool on this page (Toolbox) finds about 9 dead external links (refs) that are dead and need to be fixed. All of these ref problems would be a quick fail at GAN.
• The disambig links tool also finds some dabs that need to be fixed.
• For prose, spell out abbreviations on first use. So "Census Metropolitan Area (CMA)"
• The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that interrupt the flow of the prose and should either be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• I would also avoid bullet lists like the SPorts section in favor of prose, wherever possible.
• Also watch out for WP:OVERLINKing - the CMA is linked twice in the lead alone
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on cities and Hamilton, Ontario is one. It is from 2007, so it may be a bit out of date compared to more recent FAs

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Chartjackers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been working on this article for some months now, and was recently fortunate enough to have it listed as a GA. I'm not sure that the sources exist to have it be comprehensive enough to reach FA quality, but I still welcome any and all feedback from the community on how it could still be improved. I'm particularly unsure about some of the prose, e.g. I'm not totally happy with my use of the word "while". I also hope that if someone unfamiliar with the subject looks over the article, they'll be able to say if there is anything that's not well-explained. Thanks very much in advance! Vobedd731 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I think it needs some more work before it would be a safe bet at WP:FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I have never seen this show, not have I heard of it. Just looking at the lead, left me with several questions. Is it fictional (are the characters we follow portrayed by actors) or is it a reality show (the characters we follow are real people essentially playing themselves)? I would also say that the episodes were only 5 minutes long, except for the last one, in the lead.

 Done Yes, that's something I really should've had the presence of mind to include.

• I would spell out video bloggers on first use as I had to click the wikilink to be sure what a vlogger was

 Done

• I am also a bit confused as the infobox says the series was 11 episodes, but the lead says it covers 10 weeks. If it was in real time, I am not sure how this works.

 Done

• I would watch WP:OVERLINKing and only link terms that either add to the reader's understanding or are likely not to be known by many readers. I do not think in the lead, for example, that lyrics, melody, singers, and band need links.

 Done

• I would also make sure the lead is a summary of the whole article - I would at least mention the negative critical reaction to the show itself in the lead (not just the reaction to the single).

 Done Although I worry that the lead is now looking a little long.

• In the Synopsis, try to do more to provide context to the reader. For example, I would add the year to 5 September (I know it is in the lead, but this is a new section). I would also say that the events described in the first paragraph took place a week before the show premiered, and would probably repeat that it is a YouTube channel they established.

 Done

• Since this was a televison series, the synopsis should be written in terms of episodes of the show, instead of the current structure of weeks. So the second paragraph would be something like "The first episode, which showed the events leading up to the first week of the project, ..." I could not write more as it was not clear what the first episode showed.

✗ Not done (yet) I had a crack at rewriting the series overview so that it discussed what happened each episode rather than each week of the project, but something about it seemed a little clumsy - it seemed sort of inelegant to essentially put: "This happened in episode six, and then this happened in episode seven." I agree that the synopsis needs a rewrite, so I will try to redo it so that it is a more concise overview of the series as a whole.

 Done Okay, I have now rewritten the synopsis so that it talks about "episodes" rather than "weeks", but I think I might have used the word "during" far too much.

• In Production, do we know the actual names of the people at BBC Switch who came up with this idea? A channel or brand can't have ideas, the people who work for it do.

 Done

• I also worry this would run into comprehensiveness concerns if it came up at FAC. Is anything known about licensing and copyrights of the single and video - are they free or copyrighted and if the latter, by whom? Did the people who wrote the melody or performed the music get paid? Did the four vloggers get paid (assume so)?

✗ Not done (yet) Yeah, there seem to be very few, if any, sources on this issue. I shall try to find and include more later.

• I also worry about the media files used - there are five and they are all fair use on Wikipedia. Per WP:NFCC, this seems like it might be be a bit excessive. The infobox image is OK, as is the single cover (these are pretty standard for articles on shows and singles). The sound clip of the single is probably OK, but could there be more discussion of the song itself? The still from the video is possibly OK, but again more discussion of the video would be better. I fail to see the usefulness of the image of Stylist Hannah Sandling.

 Done I have replaced the image of Hannah Sandling with a free use one. More discussion could be needed to describe the song itself, so I will try to add some soon. I feel that the discussion of the music video in this article justifies use of that particular still, but I will try to make that clearer in its named rationale. I wonder whether this would be clearer if the image were moved down the article, nearer to the section that describes it, but I can find no appealing way of arranging the article in that manner.

• Model articles are useful for ideas and examples to follow - not sure what would be a good model here, but there are many FAs on TV shows and also many on music that may be useful.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback Ruhrfisch, it's been very useful! Vobedd731 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Egyptian presidential election, 2011

This peer review discussion has been closed.
for peer review because to get some feedback and perhaps some help.

Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. ... For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback." For a subject that will only be concluded in 2011, this article is highly unstable to conduct a peer review for. I recommend speedy closing of this request. Jappalang (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, but I agree that it needs a lot of work. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, although the article may need fewer sections / headers too
• The article needs more references - right now whole sections are uncited and need refs so that they can be verified and show that they are not original research. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Sections like Mohamed Hassanein Heikal proposal, which have no refs currently make no sense. There is no context - when and where was this proposal made? This information should be included per WP:PCR, but refs would at least allow interested readers to look at the original documents and see what was going on.
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
• The language needs a copyedit, though the lack of refs has to be fixed first. Here is one example: Leading figures in the Muslim Brotherhood have refused to go into Egypt's presidential election even if they get the legal requirements [3] and refused women and Copts run for presidency again [4]. The ref needs to be fixed as noted, and "refused women and Copts run for presidency again" is not grammatical and its meaning is unclear.
• The Anis Degheidy section seems to have a copy and paste error. All it says is: Abdullah Al Ashaal is an Egyptian politician and a novelist who announced that he might run[16].
• The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections - these should be combined with others in most cases and perhaps expanded in a few.
• Section headers need to all follow WP:HEAD - for example "Criticism of the 2011 Presidential Election Arrangements" repeats the article title, which is a no no
• There are far too many external links - see WP:EL I suspect many of them could be converted into references.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

---

South Park (season 1)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because when it was nominated for FAC the only problems were copyright issues. I hope to fix those so this can become an FA.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• I'm very sorry to keep you waiting... a few projects in the wings have been keeping me from working on much else right now. I haven't had time to do a full review, but I'll post what I've got so far so there's stuff to chew on while I slowly get back up to speed. Anyhow, overall a fairly good start.
  • First things first: BURN File:Trey Parker Matt Stone 2007.jpg WITH FIRE! It's used on way, way, way, way too many South Park articles. There has got to be some other image, hell just another angle from the same talk would be nice, but it's starting to get tedious to see the same damn image on all these pages. It's pure decoration that starts getting in the way after a while. If you can't find another free image... don't freak out.
    • I have somewhat of a similar feeling, but there is really no other file on commons with the two of them... I don't really like articles without any images at all... Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Now that I've gotten that out of the way... could you cleanup the nasty white artifacts around File:SouthPark season1.jpg? Since it's not filling up the infobox the random corner whitespace is annoying. Not a legislative issue, just an aesthetic one. I'd really like to see a custom rationale for the image description page. Why is the image low resolution? As for the source, no one is going to call up Fox Home Entertainment for the box. What's the URL (aka the actual source the image was found at)?
    • Ah, it took me a bit to figure out what you are referring. I'll use the one from amazon. Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. Nergaal (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Season one of South Park, an American animated television series created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, began airing on Comedy Central in the United States on August 13, 1997." → Wouldn't the more natural way of saying this be "The first season of American animated series South Park [...]"? Especially if you aren't going to be bolding per WP:BOLDTITLE. Parker and Stone can be mentioned plenty of other places in the lead, they don't need to smashed into the first sentence.
    • rephrased. Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Several episodes have received award nominations" -- at this point, they're unlikely to get that many more. In writing unless you've got a good reason, it's best to keep it past or present. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • fixed. Nergaal (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Television critics gave the season mixed reviews..." I'm not sure about cherrypicking quotes for the lead, but if you are going to keep them, they had better actually be attributed inline.
  • "The idea for South Park originates" → You should keep the same tense for all this stuff; since it's historical, I suggest simple past.
  • In terms of general writing practices, there's places throughout where you can condense some things and chop out fluff to improve flow, for example: "The low-budget, crudely made Jesus vs. Frosty film featured prototypes of the main characters of South Park, including characters resembling Cartman, Stan, and Kyle." can be shortened to "The low-budget, crudely-made Jesus vs. Frosty film featured prototypes of the main characters of South Park, including Cartman, Stan, and Kyle." (or "characters resembling the main characters of South Park"). Similarly, "The video became popular and was widely shared, both by duplication and over the Internet".
  • "who befriended a talking stool"→it's not clear until the end of the section that "stool" in this case is not referring to the furniture item. I suggest some clarification.
  • "The executives were receptive to the idea"→Not entirely clear we're still referring to Comedy Central here.
  • "The show appeared as part of a reaction to the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s in the United States, in which issues such as Murphy Brown's motherhood, Tinky Winky's sexuality, and The Simpsons' family values were extensively debated. The culture wars, and political correctness in particular, were driven by the belief that relativism was becoming more relevant to daily life." This isn't gospel, it's one scholar's opinion. Unless we have sources that the creators intended it to be a reaction, you can't really phrase this information in this light. "One scholar explained,[clarification needed] thatSouth Park "made a name for itself as rude, crude, vulgar, offensive, and potentially dangerous". Its critics argued that the Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny were poor role models for children while its supporters celebrated the show's defense of free speech.[9]"→People need to be named here. Who are these scholars and critics?
  • "The network liked the script and agreed to commit to a series when Parker and Stone said they would not write another individual episode script until they signed off on a season of at least six episodes.[7]¶

Comedy Central originally ordered only six episodes of South Park for the first season's initial run." → This comes off slightly clunky and redundant as closing and opening sentences of different paragraphs.

• • ""Pinkeye", the first of those new seven episodes to be produced, was first aired on October 29, 1997, only two and a half months after the show's premiere."→First off, more redundancy stuff ("the first of those new seven" can be shortened to simply "the first new"). Secondly, why is two and a half months worth the "only" modifier? If there's no context to how long animation usually goes, it's a junk detail, and can prolly be lost.
  • "earned a Nielsen rating of 1.3, translating to 980,000 viewers, which is considered high for a cable program in the United States." → Do we have any indication it is still considered high? Many recent cable shows I've followed have been canceled after dipping below 1mil viewers, so it might be an outdated factoid given the expanding demographics.
  • "It increased slightly by the third episode, "Volcano", but by the sixth episode, "Death", the show had reached a 1.7 rating." → Why is a "but" necessary?
  • Considering the Parents Television Council is an advocacy organization with a vested interest in hyperbole, I would not use it as any type of indicator of critical review.
  • I think the review section suffers from the lack of reviews. It either needs good sources that provide a historical view, or it needs a broader selection of the contemporary sources.
  • ""Volcano", the season's second episode" isn't it the third episode everywhere else (including in the section right below it)?
  • "Citation needed" tags in the awards section.
  • I'm not sure about the plot summaries for the episodes. Each episode has its own article with a full synopsis, and these plot summaries are all unsourced.
  • "South Park - The Complete First Season was originally released by Warner Home Video as a three-disc region 1 DVD box set in the USA on November 12, 2002, received an MA rating" → comma splice

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Urban legend

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have editing this article for quite some time now, and I think it's ready for GA, but I need to know where to clean up on some more before I proceed with the nomination.

Thanks, Secret Saturdays (talk to me)^{what's new?} 01:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Interesting, and written to a generally good prose standard. However, in my view the article requires attention in a number of areas before it is ready for GAN.

• The caption in the lead image needs to be redrafted so that its meaning is clear. At present it requires the use of two links to interpret it.
• Is it really the case that an urban legend has to be believed by its tellers to be true? Believed by its original tellers, maybe. However, my experience is that such legends are often propagated by tellers who begin along the lines of: "I don't know if this is true, but..."
• "Brunvand ... is credited as the first to use the term..." Credited by whom?
• Parts of the article are seriously under-referenced. For example, the "Origins" section has no citations after the first sentence. Throughout the article there are uncited statements; I have added a couple of citation tags, but there could be many more.
• Prose needs to flow. Single short-sentence paragraphs, such as appear in the "Structure" section, and to a lesser extent in others, should be avoided.
• A general reference to unspecified works of a large number of authorities is not particularly useful. It would be better to select one or two of these, and cite sources that specifically supports your assertion.
• "o-a-ks" does not signify a pronunciation (I wonder if the pronunciation is actually relevant)
• The use of phrases such as "of course" introduces a personal. POVish feel to the prose. This sentence reads like a personal side-comment, and should be removed.
• There are no citations at all in the "Documenting" section
• I am dubious about the value of the See also section. Significant legends should be discussed (or mentioned) and linked in the text.

I hope these commenta are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Bacon: A Love Story

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Added notices at User talk:Casliber, User talk:Bibliomaniac15, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink‎, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bacon. -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Bacon: A Love Story was promoted to GA-quality in January 2010. Looking for suggestions on how to further improve the quality of the article, on the way towards possible FAC in the future. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Like the recently listed "Everything Tastes Better with Bacon", this article relies heavily on quotes, This leaves the reader with the impression that the article is a "cut and paste" job. Frankly, none of the quotes are interesting. I'd cut ALL the gushy "Yum! I love bacon! Yum!" These sound like the tv commercial where a dog runs around the house screaming the same thing. I hope you're not going to send these to FA. Neither are FA material and will only clog the queue while SandyGeorgia and Karanacs labor over these things. After reading both articles, I'm left thinking you have a vested interest in the pork industry and are pushing your product through Wikipedia. Stop it! It's time to get back on track and write an FA article about something of more interest and worth than bacon cookbooks. Manifestdestiny10 (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC) -- — Manifestdestiny10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Heh, thanks for the first part of the comment, which is indeed helpful. The rest ... is an inaccurate assessment and failure to assume good faith about attempts to write quality content on Wikipedia. If you are curious as to what piqued my interest in the subject matter - please see WP:BACONCUP. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with some parts of Manifestdestiny10's comments (I certainly do not agree that there can be nothing written about the book). I think there is an overuse of quotes from Lauer (the author). Although they flesh out the subject, her raw thoughts (biased—what can one expect from someone who calls bacon "Best Meat Ever?) are tinting the article toward an advertising angle. "'Make no mistake; bacon is absolutely The Best Meat Ever,' writes Lauer in the book." in my view is one quote from her that can be taken away without detriment. That said, the Reception also looks like a bit to be a collection of quotes; the section seems pracitcally a X said this, Y said that without analysis of the reviews. Is there reason why two reviewers are recommending it as Father's Day gifts? There is criticism about the book, but by leaving the reviewers' thoughts lie in their original form, the counterpoints are kind of lost amidst the promotional overtones. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Since the comments of the prior reviewer, I actually did make several edits to remove quotes from the article. I will put some additional effort into this, and note it in the edit summaries. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Bill Clinton

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to GA

Thanks, Iankap99 (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Dana Boomer

• Several dead references/external links, see this tool.

Fixed a bunch, could probably do more--Iankap99 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Prose needs cleanup. For example, just in a quick look at the Public opinion section, you find:
  • "of any Postwar President leaving office" Postwar shouldn't be capitalized, and which war are we talking about?

Well i took off the capital, but the stat is general of any president leaving office after a war hence postwar --Iankap99 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• • "Although 26% chose "none", and 5% were not sure." This is not a complete sentence.

Done--Iankap99 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• • "they'd". Don't use contractions in article text, unless they are in quotes.

Done also fixed one other one that was hiding. --Iankap99 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Percent should be written out, rather than using the "%" symbol.

Don't think so, look at Obama's. --Iankap99 (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Check the prose throughout, the above are just examples from one section.
• There are a lot of short paragraphs and short sections. The short sections make the TOC really long, while they both make the article choppy. Try combining sections/paragraphs.
• Don't use in-text external links, as you do in the Governor of Arkansas section.
• Travelgate controversy is completely unsourced, and as it is a controversy and you are giving various people's/group's opinions, it needs to be sourced.
• Second term, 1997–2001 also needs to be sourced, as it is giving statistics. Judicial appointments also, again for statistics.
• Clinton has received many honorary degrees.[173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181] Isn't there one source that lists several or all of the degrees he's received, instead of having nine individual sources?
• The mainly web sourcing is probably fine for GA status (I haven't checked reliability of all the links, hence the "probably"), but if you are looking to go to WP:FAC then the sourcing will need to pass the "high quality" requirement. This means that you will be needing many more academic sources, such as books and peer-reviewed journal articles, as opposed to all of the web sourcing that is being used now.

I need to run now, but will be back later today with more comments on sourcing and images. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC) More comments:

• Image captions should be short and sweet. Several of them are currently quite long - move the information to the body or remove it altogether.

Done--Iankap99 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Text should not be sandwiched between images.
• Web references should always include a publisher and access date, and an author when applicable.
• Books (including those accessed through Google books) should be formatted as books and include full information, including publisher, author, full title, isbn, page number etc. Google books references should have the actual book publisher listed, not Google books (they didn't publish the books, they just made them available for viewing).
• What does "CNN-Clinton_aquiter" mean for Ref #73?
• For archived links, the archiver is not the publisher - again, they are just making it available, so list the actual publisher.

Fixed 2, I think that's all of them--Iankap99 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Consider removing the level headings from the external links section and instead using bolded headings, perhaps through the use of the ";" key (at the start of the section, a semi-colon bolds the title without adding it to the TOC as a header). Also, take care of the tag at the top of that section. Remove links that are already used as sources, and make sure that any that are left are truly necessary for a full understanding of the subject.

Done--Iankap99 (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's probably it for now from me. This isn't everything that could be changed with the article, but it is the major things that would be the first to jump out at me if I were reviewing the article for GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions. I think that the article has a ways to go before it is of GA status, although it is in better shape than many of our other US presidential articles. Dana boomer (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Peter Sutcliffe

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

This article could be substantiated and enjoyed by multiple users as a focal point of '70's-80's English history. The orthodoxy of it's subject himself notwithstanding- this article was of importance in documenting 70's-80's police work- which I think is of even more imprtance than the notorious subject matter. The attacks really need review.

Thanks, Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this request might be also directed to the Serial Killer Task Force for its specialist knowledge in dealing with similar articles, although outside opinion is always welcome. It's not clear what is meant here by "orthodoxy", or why the details of the victims need to downgraded in importance. Rodhullandemu 23:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• This request would appear to be mislocated. It would help if it were in the proper place. Rodhullandemu 00:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

This should likely not be brought up here first; the instructions state that peer review "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Following Rodhullandemu's suggestion above, the article should have been brought to the Wikiproject and worked to an acceptable level (in accordance with policies and guidelines) before being brought here. Regardless, here are some big things I see that hopefully should be resolved before bringing it here.

• Should the article not be named "Yorkshire Ripper" instead, judging from how it is practically about the case and that the Yorkshire Ripper seems to have more notability than "Peter Sutcliffe" (per WP:COMMONNAME)?

• Serious lack of citations; many statements and paragraphs are not cited to sources. Independent reviewers have nothing to help them verify the statements made. Because of this, no peer review can be started.

• Why are book sources listed even though no information is cited to them?

• Why is there a heavy reliance on execulink.com? What makes it a reliable source per WP:RS? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how reliable sources are generally determined. Unless there are quite a few sources relying on this site for their studies or cite its author as an expert, I see no basis to claim this site as reliable.

Note that I am predisposed to closing this, so it would be better to address the above in the Wikiproject review or on the article's talk page per instruction. Jappalang (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

---

The Hunger Games

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some advice on how to get it up to GA class.

Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 02:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• Please fix the three dead links in the article.

• Elizabeth Bird's article is not at the link presented.

Lede

• "It was originally published in hardcover ..."

  This is a fairly standard practice for novels...

• "It was originally ... It is the ... It introduces ..."

  There is a repetitive statacco here.

Themes

• What is the point of a single sentence section? Is there any more that can be found about themes? Publisher Weekly's Megan Whalen Turner certainly sees some more things into the items presented by the novel and the context of its portrayal.

Publication history

• "Citation needed" tag present

Cover

• PW: "the winner and 100 runners-up will also get an ARC of Catching Fire and a mockingjay pin (the bird featured on the books' covers)." How does this give rise to 'This is an image of the pin given to Katniss by the Mayor's daughter, Madge Undersee, as the image matches the description of the pin that is given in the book, except for the arrow: "It's as if someone fashioned a small golden bird and then attached a ring around it. The bird is connected to the ring only by its wing tips. I suddenly recognize it. A mockingjay."' This would be original research (and synthesis by using a statement in the story) since no source states the image on the book is that envisaged by the author.

Critical reception

• The section reads to me like the collection of blurbs on the author's homepage http://www.suzannecollinsbooks.com/.

• Personally, the premise of the plot strikes me as a copycat of several tropes and I am surprised not to read notable authors failing to spot this. But King's review does mention that and I wonder why this is not mentioned in the article, nor is his classification of the love triangle a standard trope in the genre. Without such criticism, King comes off as overwhelmingly positive over the title (despite the B). John Green also mentions the lack of originality, as well as the lack of power behind the words.

See also

• What is the point of putting these here without context? If they do have context (as pointed above), then they would have been linked earlier and thus not needed here.

Image

• File:Hunger games.jpg: While it can qualify as an identifying image, the rationale for why it can do so still needs beefing up. Furthermore, the size of the image should be reduced.

Sources

• How is jabberjays.com (fansite) a reliable source?

• What influence does the Cybil's Awards have? Is it a notable award recognised by the industry?

The overall balance of the article is a bit worrying: half is based on original sources (themes and plot, and the latter is 3/4 of that half). Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. It will definitely help. --Glimmer721 ^talk 02:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Tom Quinn (Spooks)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed GAN, and I was told to peer review it to see if there could be any grammatical improvements to the article. Thanks, Matthew RD 14:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interesting character, but I can see why this did not pass GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• First off, peer review is not for fixing problems as much as it is for identifying them. While I agree that this needs a copyedit, PR is not the place where that will happen (there not many reviewers and there are currently 22 articles in the PR backlog, which have been waiting for reviews at least 4 days). You can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors or at the list of people willing to do copyedits listed at the bottom of Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers. I will try to point out some rough spots in the language, but note that the GAN already listed several problem spots with the prose. One problem with a copy edit is that there are places where it is just not clear what is meant, so a mere copyedit is not enough, the meaning will also have to be determined.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Pauline Fowler is an FA about a character from a British TV series and it seems like it would be a good model article for this one.
• The lead seems to be fairly brief and seems like it could expanded. One idea for expansion is that the lead needs to be a summary of the whole article - could more be said on the character's development in the lead? I would say in the lead that the second episode of the third season is his last appearance in the show. I would also mention the number of episodes in which he appeared and at least the years when the character appeared on the series (perhaps even the dates of the original airings of his first and last appearances).
• Problem sentence During the second series, the producers were unsure of whether Macfadyen would return for the third; his character was originally killed off in the second series finale, though Macfadyen would later confirm [decide?] to appear in the first two episodes of series three. First off the grammar is rough and I have indicated some changes I would make. The other problem is that it contradicts the article in the "Character arc" section, where it says he is wounded and escapes into the North Sea at the end of Series 2. It sounds like it was a cliffhanger ending - the viewer did not know for sure if he were alive or dead until Series 3 premiered.
• I have never seen this show, though I did read the episode summaries here on Wikipedia for the episodes this character appeared in. The "Character arc" section seems to focus mostly on his love life, and not very much on his role as a spy. Even the very brief series summaries in the Spooks article here has more on his role as a spy (not revealing information even though his fellow officer was tortured to death with a deep fryer) than this does. I would also mention his behavior as a chief / section head in the I Spy Apocalypse episode in Series 2 - "Tom receives top marks for his leadership skills." I also think the reason he left as a character needs to be made clearer - he sabotaged an operation because he did not like what was being done to an innocent man.
• Spell out abbreviations like IT
• There is very little critical reception about the character himself - only two critics are quoted and they seem to be from fairly minor sources (Movie Freak and Enterline Media - neither has an article here). It seems like this is a pretty popular series and I find it hard to believe there was no newspaper or magazine coverage that mentioned the charater at the time.
• As an example of the prose problems, I will look at one paragraph, the first in "Conceptual history"
  • Some things aren't even phrases I've heard of "centric character"?
  • The next sentence in the paragraph also has problems "Wolstencroft wanted to write Tom's cover story whilst in a relationship with Ellie to work in IT, because in real life people would be reluctant to ask questions about this field of work.[23]" The subject is Wolstencroft, so it makes it sound like he was in a relationship with Ellie at the time, plus there are other problems. Perhaps something like Wolstencroft chose a job in Information Technology (IT) as the cover story Tom used in his relationship with Ellie, because he felt that in real life people are reluctant to ask questions about IT work.[23]
  • I reallly just don't understand this "To portray the character, actor Matthew Macfadyen followed what is scripted, and did not deviate by adding a biography of his character because he did not find doing so useful." I think it refers to the practice some actors have of making up a character biography / background to help them in their role?
  • My guess is that this is a paraphrase - I really don't understand it either. If it is a paraphrase, perhaps using all or part of the actual quote might be clearewr "Macfadyen was keen to explore the parts of Tom from within him for influence.[22]"

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ruhrfisch, for taking the time to review the article. I have dealt with a lot of the issues, and I can tell you misunderstood some of the statements (just proves my sloppy writing on the article). For instance, it was not Tom who was wounded, but Harry. I have since tried to rectify them. -- Matthew RD 16:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Battle of Borodino

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… In it's time frame, the Battle of Borodino and the French Invasion of Russia probably rank up there with the Battle of Waterloo in importance. Despite more than a few requests, I've had very little interest in getting help with the article and I will confess that it is one of the harder battle histories to work on since so much disinformation and distorted history has been wrapped around this particular battle. I've been working pretty hard to bring this article up from the two fat paragraphs that it once was (two editors were fighting so hard it scared everyone including me off the page) and I have brought it up to class B. I'd like to see where I am at and where I need to work on this more to bring it up to GA or A.Tirronan (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tirronan (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting account of a famous battle. I'm quite familiar with Tolstoy's account of it, but otherwise I have no outside information. I'm able to comment on matters of prose and style, and I have reservations about the heavy reliance on just two sources, Riehn and Mikaberidze. I haven't read them, but I would be careful about being swayed overmuch by any particular author or extremely small set of authors. More research and less deference to those two would probably improve the article.

Heads and subheads

• Wikipedia generally uses telegraphic heads. Instead of "The Battle of Shevardino Redoubt", "Battle of Shevardino Redoubt" would be preferred. Likewise "Position" instead of "The position".

Lead

• When the article is more-or-less complete, I'd suggest re-writing the lead to be a true summary. It's now a kind of introduction but does not mention Shevardino Redoubt, Bagration's flèches, Raevsky redoubt, or the historiography, for example. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of the central ideas of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has details.

• In some places in the lead, "Russian Army" appears with "Army" capped, while it other places the phrase appears as "Russian army". Probably "Russian Army" is better, but you should be consistent in any case.

• "Russian losses, while heavier, could be replaced due to Russia's large population, since Napoleon's campaign took place on Russian soil." - Maybe just delete "since Napoleon's campaign took place on Russian soil" since this is already clear from context?

• "instead of the forced pursuit that had marked other campaigns that he had conducted in the past" - Tighten to "instead of the forced pursuit that had marked his past campaigns"?

• "The entirety of the Guard" - Should "Guard" be linked to Imperial Guard (Napoleon I)?

• "By withdrawing, the Russian army preserved its combat strength, eventually allowing them to force Napoleon out of the country." - "Army" is singular. In this sentence, you correctly talk about "its" strength, but "them" should be "it" in the next phrase; i.e., "eventually allowing it to force".

Napoleon's invasion of Russia

• The first paragraph of this section lacks a source. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph, as well as sources for any sets of statistics, direct quotes, or extraordinary or controversial claims. Ditto for unsourced paragraphs later in the article.

• "Emperor Alexander I proclaimed a Patriotic War in response." - Why is Patriotic War in italics?

• "as it was 925 km" - The primary units are usually spelled out; i.e., 925 kilometers.

• "The central French force, under Napoleon's direct command, had crossed the Niemen with 286,000 men; however, by the time of the battle, it numbered 161,475 (most had died of starvation and disease)." - I'm sure you mean "most of those who died" rather than "most of the army" or "most of the 161,475". Better re-cast to make this utterly clear.

• "Kutuzov established his defensive line in an eminently defensible area near the village of Borodino, the best defensive position until the Russians reached Moscow." - Three reps of "defensive" is too many for one sentence. Suggestion: "Kutuzov established his line near the village of Borodino, the best remaining defensive position west of Moscow."

The Battle of Shevardino Redoubt

• "Historian Buturlin" - It's customary to give the full name on first use and then "Buturlin" by itself is fine on subsequent uses. Ditto for many other names in the article.

• "Historian Buturlin reports that it was used as a observation point to determine the course of advance by the French forces." - Doesn't this need a citation to a work by Buturlin? If the source for this claim is Mikaberidze, then the sentence should say something like "According to historian Alexander Mikaberidze, (first name) Buturlin reports... ". Ditto for "Witner & Ratch" or any other sources, such as Yermolov, being cited indirectly; to say that Jones said something is not the same as saying that Smith said that Jones said something. It's much better to quote Jones directly.

• "thus the Battle of Shevardion" - Typo.

• "supported by Compan's Division" - Who is Compan? Should this be "Compans' "? First name? Title?

• The final paragraph of this section needs a source or sources.

Opposing forces

• "Stung by the defeats of Austerlitz, Eylau, and Friedland, reforms had been enacted by the Russians... " - Should the three battles be wikilinked? Also, the reforms were not stung. Suggestion: "Stung by the defeats of Austerlitz, Eylau, and Friedland, the Russians had enacted reforms... ".

• "Starting in 1802 the Russian Regiment consisted of three Battalions with each Battalion having four Companies." - Lowercase generic nouns; i.e., "Starting in 1802, a Russian regiment consisted of three battalions, each made up of four companies."

Estimates by historians"

• Perhaps "Troop-strength estimates" would be a better head.

• "Butrulin"- Misspelling?

• First names for historians?

• Perhaps citation 33 should be placed right after the subhead to make it instantly clear that the numbers all come from Mikaberidze.

Battle of Borodino

• The Manual of Style advises against repeating the main words of the article title in the heads and subheads. This head repeats the article title exactly. Better would be "Central conflict" or something else that avoids repeating the title.

• The Manual of Style advises against fancy quotes. Use blockquotes for quotations of four lines or more. MOS:QUOTE has details.

• The first paragraph of this section has a source, but it appears at the end of the first sentence. What is the source for the rest of the material in the paragraph? For example, who says there were 19 12-pounder cannons?

• "Toll and others would make attempts to cover up their mistakes in this deployment and later attempts by historians would compound the issue." - Who is Toll? I know you don't mean that the historians were in the fight, but the sentence seems to suggest that on a first reading. Maybe something like "Later, some historians would make excuses for the Russian errors" or whatever is the case.

• "Indeed again Clausewitz complained about Toll's depositions being so narrow and deep that needless losses were incurred from artillery fire" - Mixing the time of the battle and the time of the criticism in the same paragraph is tricky. Readers will not necessarily know that Clausewitz was writing about the battle after the fact rather than participating in it unless you make this quite clear in the text. One way to handle this might be to relegate the historian's arguments to notes at the end of the article or to move them to the "Historiography" section.

Utiza

• "The 3rd area of operations was around the village of Utiza. Poniatowski and the Polish contingent contested for the village of Utiza effecting its capture with his 1st attempt." - Generally, numbers from one to nine are spelled out; i.e., "third" and "first".

End of the battle

• "Those compact squares made wonderful artillery targets and the heroism of the Russian Guard was all too evident that day." - In some places, the text of the article seems to parallel its source too closely. I say this without being able to see the source text, but "wonderful artillery targets" and "heroism of the Russian Guard was all too evident" are POV expressions that historians or other analysts might use but that an encyclopedia editor should avoid. In fact, this whole subsection, which passes judgment on both the French and Russian generals, depends on only two sources. Those judgments might be skewed or controversial. For example, does everyone agree with Riehn that "Only the misplacement of Russian forces by Kutuzov over both Bagration's and Barclay's protest prevented the ruin of the French army that day"?

Progression of the historiography

• "As with all things in this battle, the end of the battle changed with both time and the succession of historians that came with the political scenario surrounding them." - "As with all things in this battle" seems hyperbolic and improbable.

• "It should be noted that Kutuzov's abilities on the battlefield... ". - Who says it should be noted? That's the language of an academic paper but not an encyclopedia article. It would be better to make the claim directly and to supply the source of the claim.

Legacy

• The battle was famously described by Count Leo Tolstoy in his novel War and Peace as "a continuous slaughter which could be of no avail either to the French or the Russians". - This direct quote needs an in-line citation to the source, including edition and page number.

• The second paragraph needs a source or sources.

Historiography

• This whole subsection relies solely on one source, and that alone makes it suspect. A statement such as "Few events have suffered a more tortured history than that of the Battle of Borodino" sound more like poetic and academic hyperbole than indisputable fact. An improved section on the historiography would include the views of others as well as Mikaberidze.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to take a moment and thank you for the help. This hasn't been an easy article to write, nor as you have noted, are my sources all that wide, nor all that available. To make matters worse, this battle actual facts have been treated with cavalier hand more often than not. I'll see if I can get another book but its been a rare find at best to get a book on the battle itself. While my sources may not expand in the near future, the rest of this can be attended to.Tirronan (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Griffith Rutherford

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article just reached GA, and I want to see how it can be improved so it may achieve higher levels of quality, such as A class or even FA.

Thanks, Wikipedian1234 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

I'm not too familiar with the A-class criteria at various WikiProjects, so I tried to gear my comments toward the goal of eventually achieving FA status.

Sources

• There look to be several major sources you haven't explored yet. One of the big steps up toward FA class will be additional library research to get this comprehensive. I did a basic library search and found lots of great resources. For example, I found a great article from the journal Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, and one terrific dissertation is Politics of the personal in the old North state: Griffith Rutherford in revolutionary North Carolina by James MacDonald, ISBN 9780542564598.

Prose - This definitely will need a good copyedit after additional text is added after researching as above. Some example problems follow:

• "continued his militaristic service towards the British Empire until the start of the revolution in 1775" Unsure of the meaning here. Does this mean he was serving the British Empire or involved in military action "towards" the British Empire? Done
• "His career after this was mostly spent" Avoid the ambiguous "this" in writing. Always specify (ie this what?). Done
• "where he was wounded and taken prisoner by the British. He was later exchanged in 1781" Do you mean when? Done
• "Following the War, Rutherford continued to serve as a senator in North Carolina's state senate, which he had undertaken in 1779, until 1786." This contains a misplaced modifying phrase: "which he had undertaken in 1779" doesn't appear to modify anything that is present in the sentence. Done
• "Griffith Rutherford was born approximately in 1721" Just awkward—usually the "approximately" and "in" are reversed. Done
• "He is listed as being a member of the North Carolina General Assembly" Is "being" needed? Done
• "Rutherford moved his men to the Catawba and crossed it at Tuckesege Ford" Is that supposed to have the same spelling as "Tuckasegee River" earlier? Done
• "It was decided" and "It was resolved": not great constructions, especially following one another. Better to re-word in active voice. Done
• "arrived at the Loyalist's position" Assuming there was more than one, should be "Loyalists'"? Done
• "The Patriots took the Loyalist by surprise." One Loyalist? Done

I hope my comments were helpful. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've taken care of those grammatical errors as a start. Will look into those sources. Speaking of which, which volume and issue of the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography did you find that article in?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

Sure, it's Vol 17, No. 1, from Jan 1909 (!). It supports things you already have in the article (such as the 36 Indian towns destroyed) and now that I'm reading it, I'm not sure there's anything new you could take from it. However, it might be good for just presenting more variety of sourcing. I have the PDF—if you shoot me an email I can send it to you. On the dissertation, it now looks highly doubtful that you could obtain it, unless you get it via inter-library loan from the library here in AZ where it resides. So, maybe my comment on sources isn't all that helpful after all. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I sent you an email through Wikipedia. Thanks-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

I looked through the paper, and I couldn't find anything on Griffith Rutherford. It seems to be discussing a series of transactions, papers, and events from the 17th century. Wrong paper, perhaps? Thanks-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC))

I sent the wrong page range somehow—sent a new version. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read most of McDonald's piece on Griffith Rutherford and I've inserted several new facts on Rutherford's campaign in Wilmington. This source will prove extremely useful in beefing up the "Later Life" section. I'm gonna read the Virginia paper later on this week. Thanks again for the sources-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

I've incorporated most of the new facts from the source material into the article. Is there anything else that needs doing? Thanks-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

I would get a good copyeditor to go through it—you might find an interested party from the MilHist project. Find an experienced FA writer and they can help check for little things that might trip you up. It's not to say the writing is bad, but almost anyone can benefit from a close look by a second pair of eyes. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Magicpiano

Sources:

• This source (also by Wakelyn) gives the name of Rutherford's mother. Done
• Older sources that are fully viewable online should have links to such in google books or archive.org Done
• Book references should list OCLC numbers if they don't have ISBNs (these are findable via worldcat.org). All books should list: year, publisher, and location of publisher. Done
• An ACR or FAC discussion may probe you on the use of old sources; you should be prepared to justify your reliance on them. (For example, there are probably more modern descriptions of the action at Ramsour's Mill than Lossing; you need to show that you've at least looked at them.)

Should I just insert the OCLC number into the isbn section?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

{{cite book}} has an oclc parameter. There is also {{OCLC}}. Magic♪piano 15:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

More comments to come... Magic♪piano 03:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Prose: As Laser_brain says, the article's prose is not up to FA standards, and one or more copyeditors should be asked to look at it. A few observations:

• "James Grant's campaign" - "campaign" link is a bit of an Easter Egg; please add a few more words to elaborate. Done
• You also have space to expand the War of the Regulation period to its own paragraph, since there are plenty of people who don't know what it is, or who it was between.
• "under the title of Colonel" - I would call colonel a rank, not a title; per WP:MOSCAPS, ranks are not capitalized unless identifying a specific individual (e.g. "Colonel Rutherford", but "Rutherford's rank was colonel"). Done
• "who had sided with the British" ->"who were siding" or "who had chosen to side" Done
• "Indian's cattle" -> "Indians' cattle" Done
• There is a jarring cut between the end of Cherokee and Ramsour's Mill. His troops are disbanded, then he has 500. What happened in between? Why was he encamped at Charlotte? (If the militia was called out because of the British arrival in South Carolina, you should say this.) Done
• I would add more about his unit's performance at Camden, since its behavior (especially vis a vis other militia units) is noteworthy. If there are any contemporary quotes about this (you'll have search detailed battle accounts), try to include one or two.
• Ditto getting quotes for his 1781 campaigning, since it is implied there are quotes from Greene. (That sentence is also particularly awkward, and should be rewritten anyway.) If there is a detail of what he did with one of these Loyalist units (e.g. Raft Swamp), it might do to include an elaboration of one of them to illustrate the tactics being used.
• "end it was a success [26]" - missing period Done
• "may disapprove?".[27]"- perhaps you should use this one, it's extraneous Done
• I have no sense of how wealthy Rutherford was compared to other NC residents, or whether his land holdings were large. Was the Rowan County land the only land he is known to have owned? Did he own slaves?
• He married Elizabeth Graham; were the Grahams important beyond being neighbors (I'm not from the South, but the name seems to pop up in political contexts, and there a number of NC politicians listed in Graham (surname).)
• The last sentence (legacy naming) needs a rewrite.

Do any NC or TN state or university archives have digital collections that might have relevant portraiture? (I know, long shot.) --Magic♪piano 21:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a significant amount of information to be added about the time between the Cherokee campaign and Ramsour's Mill. Once I insert that into the article, I will appoint a copyeditor to scour the article. Thanks for the suggestions-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

Comments from Kevin Myers

• Don't confuse the militia with the Continental Army. Rutherford was not in the Continental Army, as the infobox and lede wrongly claim. Done —Kevin Myers 12:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm, not done. There are two more in the infobox. Magic♪piano 21:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Social model of disability

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently undergone substantial expansion and has also had many references added. I don't think it is still a Start class article.

Thanks, Roger (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I do not think the bold face type used in the hatnote "For specific activity related to implementation of certain aspects of this model, see the article Inclusion (disability rights) and the other articles and links there." meets WP:ITALIC
• Capitalization - is it "The social model of disability" or "The Social model of disability"? - both are used
• Make sure the lead follows WP:LEAD. It should probably be longer than one paragraph, and should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. As a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• Quotation marks should be double quotes "like this" and not single quotes 'like this' per WP:MOSQUOTE. SIngle quotes are used only for a quote within a quote.
• In History this statement is problematic The approach behind the model is traced to the 1960s. since it does not go into any detail. What was it that led to the development of the model? The first details are given for 1975.
• Problems with this: Oliver did not intend the 'social model of disability' to be an all encompassing theory of disability, rather a starting point in reframing how society views disability. First off try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - combine them with others, or perhaps expand them. Second, it needs a reference.
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Not all references have complete information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Avoid the passive voice. If possible identify who is making the statements quoted or paraphrased It is often contended that this attitude, often seen as stemming from a medical model and a subjective value system, can harm the self-esteem and social inclusion of those constantly subjected to it ...
• Most bullet point lists might be better as regular prose
• Is there more than one model or multiple bases for the model? This seems to imply there is The social model of disability is often based on a distinction between the terms 'impairment' and 'disability.'
• How does the ADA relate to the social model? Not clear from what is stated here.
• How about countries other than the UK and USA?
• Any chance for a free image or images?
• See also is generally for links that have not already appeared in the article. I do not think the same link should be in a hat note and see also.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Albany Pine Bush

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a GA that I tried to promote to FA. Issues were raised in the FAC process, I believe I fixed them, but it was archived. So I'd just like a second opinion before renominating.

Thanks, Gyrobo (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for working on this article. Having read it, I do not think it is ready for FAC yet, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead does not really summarize the article. One thing that should be in the lead, but is not, is some mention of Geology and the origin of the Pine Bush as result of ice age lakes and their sand dunes (if I read this correctly). If the lead is an accurate summary, it also serves as a better introduction to the whole article.
• I would give the acreage of the Woodlawn Preserve in the lead too
• I would also watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Capital District is linked twice in just the lead. Some articles link terms only once in the whole article, others link once in the lead and once on first mention in the body of the article.
• Also try to avoid adding links that are to common terms or that add little to the reader's understanding (so linking Europeans in and when Europeans arrived in the early 17th century to European peoples, itself a redirect to Ethnic groups in Europe) does little to improve the reader's understanding of who these settlers were.
• I also think the article would greatly benefit from a map of New York state showing the two counties, cities of Albany and Schenectady, and Hudson River would help, as well as showing the original extent and current extent of the Pine Bush.
• To me there seems to be a bit too much on the Nabokov butterfly in the lead - see WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT
• Speaking of maps, the File:Kings_Highway_Albany_Crop.png seems to be rotated by ninety degrees. If it were rotated 90 degrees clockwise, it would be vertical. I can do this if you need it done.
• I think the biggest problem this would face under close scrutiny at FAC is the language, which is a bit rough in spots. WP:WIAFA criterion 1a "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" . Some examples (not a complete list) of places that the prose could be polished follow
• To me at least, stretched seems more a linear description. WOuld covered work better in The Albany Pine Bush is the sole remaining undeveloped portion of a pine barrens that once stretched for over 40 square miles (100 km2),...?
• Awkward - avoid passive voice where possible This pine barrens was passed through by pioneers moving west and was the site of the first passenger railroad in the United States.[8][9] Why not something like Pioneers moving west passed through this pine barrens, which was later the site of the first passenger railroad in the United States.
• First sentence of the European colonization section would probably read better split in two (10,000 years ago as its own sentence)
• Next sentence is again awkward The Dutch from their trading outpost of Fort Orange, which was established in 1624, traded with both native groups. perhaps something like The Dutch traded with both native groups from their trading outpost at Fort Orange, which was established in 1624.
• Try to provide context to the reader for example, the location of Fort Orange is not given in the preceding sentence, so the uninformed reader has no idea without clicking on the link how far this fort was from the Pine Bush. Adding context concisely gives something like In 1624 the Dutch established an outpost at Fort Orange (present day Albany), where they traded with both native groups. As it now reads, Albany is not mentioned until the Dutch surrender it to the English later in the paragraph, and the connection between it and the fort is not very clear.
• Which war (or wars?) is (are?) meant here? First sentence uses wars (plural) and links to an article on four wars. The second sentence refers to a single war and gives dates not exactly matching any of the wars listed in the linked article: During the French and Indian Wars, the British military improved the road significantly, and after the war it was used by a large number of settlers moving west.[15] Also during the war from 1699 to 1707 Albany residents collected firewood from the Pine Bush for the large army that was camped at Fort Frederick.[11]
• Watch what goes in which sections. Herman Melville's 1851 description seems like it would be a better fit in the 19th century section (instead of the end of the Colonization section), and there are three sentence on 1910 in the 19th century section (that would be a better fit in the 20th century section).
• I am also not clear why the article does not follow chronlogical order. So the last paragraph of 19th century is 1871 and 1910. The first paragraph of 20th century is 1927, 1930s and 1940s, and then back to 1930 and 1933. The next paragraph is 1912, followed by 1950s and 1960s.
• Geography section is only three sentences and seems to contradict other parts of the article. The lead meantions Pine Bush in Schenectady city and county, but Geography makes it sound like it is only in Albany County.
• Surely some more photos could be added to the 20th century section - perhaps developments encroaching on the Pine Bush or one of the highways that cross it?
• Lepidoptera are moths and butterflies (not just moths)
• Another FA criterion is comprehensiveness. This includes sources. The article relies fairly heavily on internet and newspaper sources, with only four books in the refs that I saw. However, a quick Google Books serach find several books on the Pine Bush not cited here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Court of Common Pleas (England)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to stick it up at FAC soon.

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment: This looks interesting, as was Gray's Inn a year ago.I will try to give it a detailed look-over, but that might take a few days. Here are a couple of points that can be dealt with meantime:-

• Civil law links to a disambiguation page

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• The caption to the lead image needs to be more informative – it is not just a picture of the court at work. Tell us a little about the depiction.

  What do you think now? Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Further comments: I have heard of the Court of Common Pleas, but never really knew what it was, so I was interested to read this article. Here are some issues for consideration:-

• General point: rather too many legal terms requiring the use of a link, which disrupts the reading process. Is it possible to introduce a bit more explanation into the article?

Lead

• The first paragraph of the article should state the specific function of the court (actions between subject and subject, which did not concern the king). At present this information does not appear until paragraph two. Also, the first paragraph is too long and discursive, and needs to be split.
• Suggested rephrasing: "...considered the "lock and key of the common law" by Sir Edward Coke" → "...considered by Sir Edward Coke to be the 'lock and key of the common law'". (your choice, however).

  Fixed both, I think; like the organisation? Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Origin

• When was "originally"?
• "...a descendant of the witenagemot" - a brief explanation, as well as the link, is advisable.
• What is meant by "fixed paths"? Does it meansStandard rules?
• "at certain times" - does this mean intermittently, ad hoc, or at fixed set times?
• Overlong sentence: that beginning "This was originally interpreted..." needs to be split at some point.
• "better access" → "greater access"?
• Rather than saying that "legal historians have come to a different conclusion" etc, I would reword "...legal historians have concluded that Common Pleas arose out of the Exchequer of Pleas, another body split from the curia regis, rather than being created out of the curia regis directly."
• Bridgeman should be introduced, rather than making readers use the link to find out who he was.

Struggle with the King's Bench

• "...and similar courts" - a little vague?
• "for good reason" reads POVishly
• You say that Common Pleas became "increasingly conservative in its attempts to avoid ceding cases". I'm not sure what "conservative" implies in this context. Perhaps "determined" wouold be better?
• The following sentence begins "This was limited..." What is "this"?
• "best illustrated" - POV?
• "claims seeking the repayment of a debt or other matters..." ambiguous unless repunctuated.
• a "more revolutionary court"? Perhaps "more progressive"? Or end the sentence with "less ractionary court".
• "Interregnum" needs explaining, not just linking
• Whose is the quote beginning ""then the very attorneys..."? I am afraid that I lost the thread of the argument in this paragraph.

Unity and dissolution

• Any reason why Broughton's complaint needs to be expresed at such length, rather than paraphrased?
• "...but did not go to the trouble of..." Again, the phrasing is non-encyclopedic, tending to POV
• "The existence of the same courts under one unified head was a quirk of constitutional law, which prevented the compulsory demotion or retirement of Chief Justices." Sorry, I don't follow what this means.

Jurisdiction

• The quote beginning "was the court which more than any other" needs to be attributed as well as cited.

Structure

• I have no particular issues with this section, other than to reiterate the need to explain legal terms rather than just dropping them in with a link. Thus "oyer and terminer", Custos Brevium, "recognizances" etc. Better-known terms such as "Habeus Corpus" should still be linked, though I think no further explanation need be offered here.

I hope these comments are helpful. I am not able to watch peer reviews at present, so please contact me via my talkpage if you hae any points to discuss, arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment... you want to get ahold of Ralph Turner's article "The Origins of Common Pleas and the King's Bench" which appeared in the American Journal of Legal History volume 21 (1977) pp. 238-254. He goes more into depth with The English Judiciary in the Age of Glanvill and Bracton and The King and his Courts. Note that Robert Bartlett England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings pp. 191-192 dates the hiving off of the Court of Common Pleas to the 1190s. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Modern Family (season 2)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it become a good article and maybe a featured article

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Nod'onuts

• Well, for starters, the article needs to have coverage by some WikiProject before it can proceed with the nomination. Second, as the season isn't over yet, the article is going to be unstable, so it'll be bad time to nominate it again. Third, the lead is too short. Secret Saturdays (talk to me)^{what's new?} 02:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to clear something up, WikiProjects are not a requirement for, um, anything on WP. Articles can (and have) gone through PR, GAN, FAC and pretty much every other process on WP without having project banners on their talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• A featured article needs to be comprehensive and well-researched. There is no information on reception from audience/viewer ratings or critics. The main thing that the article needs is more information. As Secret Saturdays said above, the season must be over before you can even think about nominating this for GA. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• The criteria for both GA and FA both include some measure of completeness of coverage. WP:WIAGA requires broad coverage in GAs, while WP:WIAFA requires that the article be comprehensive in its coverage of the topic. The article currently does not even say how many episodes the second season will have. Assuming it has as many as the first season (24), only 6 or 7 have aired to date, so only a quarter to less than a third of the episodes have aired. This is not ready for GAN or FAC. Why not work on Season One? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  

---

William Arnold (settler)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first article, and I would like to see what kinds of improvements it needs to bump up its rating. Are the references OK? Are there enough sources? Are there comparable articles on lesser-known historical figures that I could look at?

Thanks, Sarnold17 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: First off, this is a commendable effort for a first article (compared, say, with my own first effort which was rubbish). There are, however, numerous points needing your attention if this is to develop into a first class article.

Lead

•  Done The function of the lead is to provide a general overview, or summary, of the article, without getting into too much detail. The first paragraph should state who the subject is and why he is noteworthy. The remaining paragraphs should briefly outline the course of his life, touching on but not describing the significant elements. At present, the second and third paragraphs are somewhat overdetailed., beyond the summary style requires in th lead.
•  Done It is not necessary to cite information in the lead when that same information (in greater detail) appears in the body of the article – which is where it should be cited.

Balance

•  Done Almost half of the article is taken up with "Ancestry and early life". This is disproportionate; the section needs to be reduced considerably. The section often appears written as journalism rather than as an encyclopedia entry, e.g. "Unfortunately, in this age of the internet, one can find websites that show attractive lineages of Nicholas Arnold back many generations, often incorporating some of Somerby's discredited work. However, not a shred of evidence has as yet been made public illuminating us to the ancestry of Nicholas Arnold." and "Mr. Somerby probably never intended for his work to be published, and he probably should not be entirely saddled with the blame". There are many uncited assertions, e.g. "The impact of both of these documents has no parallel in the realm of New England genealocial [sic - presumably "genealogical"?] research" .
•  Done There is further inconsequential detail in the "Voyage to New England" section, relating to a "Thomas Arnold" who is evidently unconnected to our subject.

material put into a note at end

Prose generally

I am not able to carry out a full copyedit, but here are a few pointers towards improving the prose:-

•  Done Avoid contractions such as "wasn't" and "didn't"
•  Done Arnold is referred to in the article variously as "Arnold", "William Arnold" and "William". Except when it is necessary to distinguish him from other Arnolds, as the aubject he should be called "Arnold" consistently.

I've changed the name in most instances to Arnold, but have retained the full name on several occasions for either style or because other Arnolds are mentioned.

•  Done Awkward phrasing, e.g.: "Arnold would become" ("Arnold became"); "Gorton had bought of the Indians..." ("from" rather than "of"?), etc. It would be a good idea to seek an independent copyeditor, to cast a fresh eye over the article.
•  Done The "Family" section should be given in prose rather than bullet points
•  Done ;Images

Possibly too many, and not all of them are necessary (three from England?). If at all possible you should avoid having text "squeezed" between two images, as in the "Settling Providence and Pawtuxet" and "End of life" sections. The left-hand image in he End of life section appears to have no connection with this article; according to the image description it is from the early 1800s.

MOS points

•  Done Be consistent in your formatting of year ranges. The generally approved format is "1571–72" rather than "1571/72" (using dashes, not hyphens).

the issue with the dates was discussed in the first note at end

• Dashes are also required in the footnote page ranges.

Not sure what needs to be done; I believe that my footnote references all have   dashes in them

•  Done Avoid overlinking; there are many everyday terms which do not require links, e.g. baptism, marriage, bible and many others.

many links have been removed

•  Done Values less than 10 should be written out rather than presented numerically.
• Is there a reason why dates are represented in the British style (1 September) rather than American (September 1)?

yes, even in the U.S., genealogists typically use day-month-year, and it is a strong personal preference of mine

I believe that there is the basis for an interesting historical article here, once the above points have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Magicpiano

I concur with Brianboulton, this is a good first effort. I've been working a lot on one of his most notorious descendants, but I was unfamiliar with the details of his ancestry before the first Benedict. That said, I have some issues that Brian did not mention above. I would recommend putting the details of the documentary controversy and historiography at the end of the article, after his life story. (Mention it at the beginning, but only present what is known today there.)

The points I raise below are not to denigrate your work; I point them out to illustrate that there are policies and guidelines about how to write Wikipedia articles that you probably need to gain a deeper understanding of.

•  Done "The impact of both of these documents has no parallel in the realm of New England genealocial research." This is peacock opinion language, and should not be presented in the editorial voice. If a historian said something like it, present it as that historian's opinion.
•  Done You don't need to say "it is a fact that"; the editorial voice is assumed to be presenting "facts" (it actually is supposed to present verifiable statements, which is not quite the same thing).
•  Done "even the very careful genealogist John Osborne Austin accepted this incorrect lineage, publishing it in his otherwise excellent Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island in 1887.[9]" The citation is to Austin himself; who is asserting that Austin is "very careful"? If this is your opinion, it is not suitable to present; you need to find someone else's published opinion of Austin to say that. This advice also applies to e.g. much of the second paragraph of "The correct ancestry".
•  Done The infobox says he died in Rhode Island. This entity did not exist before 1776; you should link the correct political entity that existed at the time of his death. As a rule, you should avoid these sorts of anachronistic usages, although using pipe links to more modern terms is OK (e.g. in this case using Rhode Island).
•  Done The "See also" section does not need to include links for things that are already linked in the article, like Roger Williams and Benedict Arnold (governor).
• You should include ISBNs for all books that have them, and OCLC numbers for those that do not. (You can get OCLC numbers from worldcat.org; {{cite book}} has an oclc parameter.) Older books that have full view through either Google Books or archive.org ought to include urls to one of those.

-- Magic♪piano 03:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Markus Näslund

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review with the intention of soon putting it up for FAC. In particular, I'd appreciate input in regards to prose, as many of my articles in the past have required extensive copy-edits. Aside from that, input in regards to anything that sticks out or could potentially de-rail this article's FAC would be greatly appreciated, as well.

Thanks, Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

Sources

• Unclear why you have certain works wikilinked and others not. I could see maybe on the first occurrence, but that doesn't seem to be the rule.
• For some of the web sources, the name of the work is missing, even though you list the publisher.
• You've neglected Canucks Legends: Vancouver's Hockey Heroes by Jeff Rud; it seems to contain quite a bit of information on Näslund. What is the reason?

Images

• Attention is needed to MoS for captions; there should be no periods if the caption isn't a complete sentence.

Intro

• "He holds the World Junior record for most goals scored in a single tournament, set in 1993" Why the teaser? We have to scan down to find the number?

Early life

• "The small city with a population of 30,000" That's a small city in Sweden? Seems subjective. List of urban areas in Sweden by population has it at #38 for the whole country.
• "During his youth" In his youth sounds cleaner, doesn't it?
• "He received the Sven Tumba's Award as the tournament's best forward." Why does this need two citations? Both list it as "Tumbas" no apostrophe.
• "They went on to join their Ångermanland team together" Replacing "their" with "the" would be better.
• Hm, Kent Forsberg likely to ever become an article?

Moving slowly on this one, sorry—more to come. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A few more:

Playing career

• "where he and Peter Forsberg formed one of the most productive lines in the league." The word "formed" troubles me, since one more person is needed to "form" a line. Maybe say "skated on"?
• I've read it a couple times here, so I'm curious: what's the difference between writing "points total" and "point total"? Just editorial preference?
• "Näslund remained in Sweden with Modo for two more years." Due to his contract with Modo I'm assuming? That might be worth stating here, because at this point I was wondering why he was staying.
• "Näslund did not dress in the post-season" I'm concerned that this might be jargon to a non-hockey person. Perhaps something like "Näslund did not participate in post-season play"?
• "at one point during the season he requested to be traded away from Pittsburgh." Can you safely remove "away"?
• "However, his production slowed down later in the season" Likewise, we can probably drop "down" --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Laser Brain, your comments are greatly appreciated. I addressed all the above issues with the exception of his contract with Modo.. still need to find some refs for that info. I'll also have to take a look at that Legends book you mentioned. Cheers. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Al Pollard

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FA. It may be a bit short, but there was not a great deal of material on him.

Thanks, ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Navajo Nation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was last assessed in 2007 and was listed as "B". I'm afraid I have to demote this to a "C", since it has quite a few unsourced claims (see Talk:Navajo Nation/Comments). I've been messing around with it getting the structure in a fairly decent order, but would like to get input from people who come to this article without any prior knowledge (obviously, I might take some things for granted which others might not find obvious). I have quite a few offline-sources on my shelf. Thank you for your comments.

Thanks, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Unfortunately, the article is not ready for a lengthy peer review, which is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." From what you say, you came upon the article when it was already long but lacking inline citations. I find it harder in some ways to repair such an article than to start from scratch because I don't like to delete other people's work. However, it's not always possible to find sources for something that someone else has written; after I make a good-faith effort to find sources for what seem to be supportable claims in articles that interest me, I don't hesitate to delete unsourced material for which I can find no source(s). To improve this article, you may have to track down sources and also do some judicious deleting. If any other editors have an interest in the article, you can always discuss large changes with them on the talk page. The book list on the existing talk page could be quite helpful, but unless the author of the book list knows which claims are supported by which page or pages of the books in the list, it will be extremely difficult to backtrack and add inline citations. A good rule of thumb is to provide a citation to a reliable source for any claim that has been questioned or is likely to be questioned, any set of statistics, any direct quotation, and every paragraph (except, usually, those in the lead). If one inline citation supports an entire paragraph, the citation can be placed right after the terminal period of the last sentence of the paragraph. As things stand now, most of the article violates WP:V and runs the risk of being deleted.

• Some of the few citations provided are incomplete. Citation 14 is an example. A good rule of thumb for citations to Internet sources is to list author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access.

• As far as organization goes, the article has too many extremely short sections and subsections. The tiny subsection called "Executive", for example, consists of a single sentence. If I were rewriting this, I would attempt to include all of the material under "Government" in one set of paragraphs with no subheads. I would probably try to arrange the material chronologically starting with the pre-U.S. governments (if reliable sources can be found) and working my way up to the contemporary government and its subdivisions. Along the way, it might become necessary or helpful to create a subcategory or two, but I'd only add them if I thought they were really needed. However, it's too early to decide on an ideal structure since it's not clear how much of the existing material can be retained or how much new material may be discovered and added.

• What makes citation 14 reliable? The source appears to be a middle-school paper written for a class. On the face of it, this would not seem to meet WP:RS even if the claims are true. Please find reliable sources for the article's claims.

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article rather than an introduction. A good rule of thumb is to at least mention in the lead the most important ideas from the main text sections. WP:LEAD has details.

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this page find two dead urls in citations and four links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

• I hope you will consider bringing this important article back to PR when it's well-sourced.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Ulnar collateral ligament of elbow joint

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive comments based on the following sections: classification, cause of damage, epidemiology, diagnosis, signs & symptoms, treatments, and ways to cite sources properly. Any grammatical, spelling, or punctuational errors comments are also welcomed. If there are any other comments/revisions that need to be made either for the good or the bad please comment. Much help is appreciated.

Thanks, Hipnotic88 (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article is not yet ready for a complete peer review, "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." However, here are a few suggestions:

• I like to use the "cite" family of citation templates to help me remember what is needed and where things go. You'll find them at WP:CIT, and you can copy-paste them into your sandbox to practice with. Don't mix them with other citation families such as "citation", which is also found at WP:CIT. You don't have to use templates (and I see that citations 1 and 2 are done correctly without templates), but just looking at the templates will tell you what information is needed and in what order it should appear. For citations to Internet sources, include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all those are known or can be found. You might look at Chagas disease, a featured article, in edit mode to see how these templates work in practice.

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article, not simply an introduction. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of the main text sections and not to include important material that is not developed in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.

• There is something strange about the way the "Classification" section begins. The first sentence says, "Ulnar collateral ligament, UCL, can be classified into two categories a slow deterioration of the ligament or an acute rupture." The ligament cannot be classified as two kinds of problems with itself. Since the article title indicates that the subject is a body part rather than a disorder, an organization along the lines of Hippocampus, a featured article, might be appropriate. In that article, sections called "Name", "Functions", "Anatomy", and "Physiology" precede "Pathology".

• The "unreliable source" tags in the article need to be addressed. Beyond that, unusual claims, statistics, and direct quotations need an inline citation to a reliable source. Each paragraph, with the possible exception of the lead, also needs at least one inline citation. If one source covers an entire paragraph, place the citation directly after the terminal period of the last sentence.

• The dab tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

• Rather than running the disclaimer in the "See also" section, it would be best to bring the article up to date.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)TC)

---

Internet linguistics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel this article could do some help with experts or users with good knowledge in this area of Internet Linguistics, clearing up any possible misinformation or possible biases in the way statements are made.

Thanks, Serenehj (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time or a full peer review, but here are some things I noticed:

• The whole article needs to be restructured in a more logical fashion. Right now it seems disorganized. Particularly, I don't see the purpose of a section like "further dimensions of Internet linguistics"—what does that actually mean, and how is it different than the other content of the article? Clearly defining the issues you want to discuss will help organize the article better.

 Done Thanks Rjanag for your pointers. The structure of the article are as follow: After the lead section, the 4 perspectives of Internet linguistics (as put forth by David Crystal) serves as an overview of the main aspects of which Internet linguistics could be looked at. After that, other major issues of Internet linguistics are explored. The sub-section "further dimensions of Internet linguistics" has been renamed as "Dimensions of Internet linguistics," (would appreciate if you would have any other suggestions for the title) in which other main related issues are explored, namely the Web as a corpus, Language identification and normalization, and the impact of its spread and influence through mass media and literary work. Finally it concludes with the linguistic future of the Internet. Lai eric (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• The only section I read, "The multilingual Web", doesn't make sense. Frankly, I can't tell what it's supposed to be about; what is the main idea of this section? Its second paragraph just randomly describes the results of what I assume was some study, without making any attempt to contextualize it or explain its significance.

 Done The section under "The multilingual Web" primarily seek to inform readers of the significant size of the web as a corpus, not just the massive amount of data available for a single language alone, but also the data of a huge array of languages that are available through the Web. A more detailed explanation of the significance of the study cited has been included. Lai eric (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• This article shouldn't be at PR and GAN at once. Please choose one or the other instead of spamming the projects. Thanks.

 Done Noted, we will list it in only one at once. The reason why we list in under peer review is because there wasn't any responses in the GAN page. Thanks for pointing that out to us. We are very grateful for your kind feedbacks and reviews. Lai eric (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, for anyone else reading this, just FYI, this article is being edited as part of a school project: Wikipedia:School and university projects/NTU HG252 Language, Technology and the Internet/Completed assignments. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Enugu

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it brought up to Featured Article quality. The article is already a Good article, and I think that it can be FA quality with a little bit of cleaning up. I would like a copy editing specifically, and the more editors that review the article better.

Thanks, Ukabia - talk 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - Wikipedia definitely needs more content on Africa. Unfortunately I this needs more than a little bit of cleanup to be ready for FAC yet, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Peer review is not a place where copyedits are typically done - instead it is a place to point out issues that need to be resolved before FAC. There are some options for finding copyeditors. There are people willing to do them listed at the bottom of WP:PR/V and the Guild of Copyeditors is another place to ask.
• I will try to point out some problem areas, though I will not point out places that just need a copy edit. Instead what I point out will be places where not only is a copyedit needed, but the article is also unclear, or where more detail is needed.
  • Lead The name Enugu is derived from the two Igbo words Enu Ugwu meaning "top of the hill" or "Hill top", named after Enugwu Ngwo which coal was found under and denoting the city's hilly geography. First off, since the lead is a summary of the rest of the article, it should have less detail than the body of the article. However, saying "top of the hill" or "Hill top" is too much detail for the lead, and I note the body of the article does not repeat "top of the hill". Second why is "Hill top" capitalized? Third, the link to Ngwo is to an article on a village or town, but it does not seem to be on the hill implied by the sentence. Fourth and last, the sentence is long and complex and should probably be split into two, or at least cleaned up.
  • Enugu was then renamed simply Enugu. we were never told what it was named before this
  • Try to avoid vague time terms like "today" or "currently" as they can be come out of date - things like "As of 2010" or "Since YEAR" work better. See Today there is no significant coal mining left in the city.
  • Could the years be added here? Enugu became the capital of the Eastern Region after Nigeria's independence; a succession of territory adjustments led to Enugu becoming the capital of what is now Enugu State.
  • Early history - when does the history start? There is no date given until the fifth sentence, when 1690 is given. Is there no archeology indicating any previous human settlements in the area?
  • Problem sentences The Hausa traders provided horses to the Nike which were used for rituals by the Igbo. Both groups migrated back and forth to what is now the City of Enugu and were considered foreigners to the area.[17] There are three groups mentioned in the first sentence (Hausa, Nike, and Igbo), so which are the the two mentioned as "Both groups" in the second sentence? More importantly, even if the Nike are considered part of the Igbo (so there are two groups), who else is around to consider them foreigners? If there were people already there before the Nike, they should be mentioned. I would also include the pronounciation of Nike here, not in the lead.
  • Industrialisation When did the British arrive in the area? One of the FAC criteria is comprehensive coverage, so these gaps in the history would be problems at FAC
  • This seems pretty important and probably should be in the lead Enugu became one of the few cities in West Africa created out of contact with Europeans.[1]
  • The WP:MOS says to put the whole name first on first use, followed by the abbreviation. This is backwards The area now known as the GRA (Government Reserved Area) became the European Quarters located north of the Ogbete River; alongside this was a section developed for African residents located south of the river.
  • Use "double quotes" not 'single quotes' - so fix The massacre that came to be known as 'The Iva Valley Shooting'[24] fuelled nationalist or "Zikist" sentiments among most Nigerians, and especially amongst Eastern Nigerians.
  • Watch out for gaps in History - nothing has happened in Enugu since 1991? 19 years?
  • Geography - some sort of qualifier needed for "best developed coal" - where? in Nigeria? Africa? the world? Enugu is located in the Cross River basin[38] and the Benue trough, where it has the best developed coal.[39]
  • Make sure units are consistent. Most places put SI (metric) first, then Imperial, but the lead has miles (km). Also the metric tonnes need conversion in Coal seams in the Enugu coal district measure between 1 and 2 metres (3.3 and 6.6 ft) in thickness and the reserves have been estimated to be more than 300 million tonnes.[39] The {{convert}} template works nicely for this.
  • If "City of Enugu" is an official name, it should be in the lead. If it is not, why is City capitalized?
  • Cityscape and architecture This has to be an error - six stories is way too short for the height given in The tallest building in the City of Enugu is the African Continental Bank (ACB) tower located in the Enugu Central Business District (CBD) in Ogui; it has six stories and a height of 750 metres (2,460 ft).[48] A story is roughly 3 - 4 metres tall, but these are 625 m each.
  • In File:Enugu panorama1.jpg, all I really see is the satellite dish. The picture shows me very little of what looks like a city to me.
  • The lead says there is no siginificant coal mining left in the city, then we are told there are 300 million tonnes of coal there, then we are told where the mines are. Are these closed mines? If they are still open, why does the lead say eat it does? If they are outside of Enugu proper, why mention them in this article?
  • Government - I know very little about Nigerian politics or governmental structures, but this leaves me confused. What is the defininition of Enugu city? If it is three separate areas, is ther any sort of overarching government for all of Enugu city? Is there one mayor or one city hall? It sounds like there are not, so what makes the city of Enugu these three LGAs? Also when I add the populations of the LGAs in their articles, I do not get roughly 722,000 (more like 600 K)
  • Demographics Some sort of map of the LGAs and neighborhoods making up Enugu would really help with comprehension
  • Crime - watch WP:RECENTism here. Also, when I think of Nigerian crime, I think of Internet scams - is there any resliable source material on such scammers working from Enugu that could be used here?
  • Culture As a Northern Igbo territory, Enugu shares cultural traits with its neighbouring towns... Is it a territory or a city?
  • Is Mmanwu the same as the Enugu Festival of Arts? The Enugu Festival of Arts was started in 1986; it has modernised the Mmanwu festival by transferring it from its traditional village surroundings to the urban setting of Enugu.[83]
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Nnamdi Azikiwe isl inked four times in the article, for example
  • 'Education - the lead seems to say the main university is located outside Enugu itself - if this is true, why is it mentioned in this article? ALso a Teaching Hsopital is not a University (though it may be a part of one)" University Teaching Hospital (UNTH) Enugu, under the university of Nigeria, is another university located in the city.[129]
  • Healthcare - if something is spelled out and its abbreviaton given once in the article, this does not need to be done again, especially in the very next section (one example is UNTH)
  • Healthcare - not sure what knowing Nigeria's emergency services number adds to this article and seems to ignore WP:NOT (not a phone book)
• Link checker finds two dead links and some others that may be problems. These will need to be fixed.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The review was helpful. I have corrected most of the mistakes you have pointed out. Ukabia - talk 16:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Poulton-le-Fylde

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it for GA. I'm looking for any comments or suggestions either relating to the GA criteria or for improving the article in general, to make it the best I can. I think the structure's ok compared to other similar articles. I'm looking in particular for comments regarding the prose and possible areas for expansion.

Thanks, BelovedFreak 23:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This interesting article is nearly ready for GAN, I would say. Here are a few suggestions about prose and style as well as a couple of modest ideas for expansion.

• No dead urls in citations.

• No links to disambiguation pages.

• Images look good. Image licenses look fine.

Lead

• The first four sentences are of similar length, and this makes the beginning a bit choppy. I did not notice any choppiness in the rest of the article, but these four bothered me. A small tweak would probably fix this.

Early history

• "There is evidence of human habitation in the area around Poulton from c. 10,000 BC." - It's probably better to use the more familiar "about" than "c."
• "and suggest their foundation in that period" - Would "founding" be slightly more clear? Or "that they were founded"?
• "The affix le-Fylde" - I like the explanation of the name origin, but I wonder if something could be added to explain that the Old English was merged with the French (le-Fylde)? I'm assuming that the name is a mongrel.

19th and 20th centuries

• "it was never granted a Royal Charter and so markets were held under prescription" - Should royal charter be linked and "under prescription" be briefly explained? I think this sentence will otherwise puzzle many foreign readers.

• "conceived by local landowner and Preston MP Sir Peter Hesketh-Fleetwood" - Maybe MP should be spelled out here as well as abbreviated and the sentence altered slightly: "conceived by Sir Peter Hesketh-Fleetwood, a local landowner and Member of Parliament (MP) from Preston"? I'm not sure foreign readers will know what MP means. It might be necessary to break the sentence into two sentences if you make this change. I see that you've linked and abbreviated MP in the "Governance" section, but the link and explanation seem to belong here instead.

Geography

• "It is situated on The Fylde, a peninsula coastal plain approximately 13 square miles (34 km2)." - Missing word, "of" as in "of approximately 13 square miles..."?

Demographics

• "98.9% of residents classified themselves as White... " - This needs to be altered in some way to avoid starting the sentence with digits.

Population change

• "Typically of rural agricultural settlements" - "Typical" rather than "typically?"

Landmarks

• "The market place at the centre of Poulton is the width of two streets and is now pedestrianised." - Is "pedestrianised" a real word? Does this mean that the market place has sidewalks, that no motor traffic is allowed, or something else?

• The first sentence of this section is sourced, but the rest of the paragraph lacks a source or sources. Something like "... many of the buildings surrounding the market place were rebuilt following a fire in the 18th century... " isn't common knowledge, for example.

• "The Thatched House pub existed in 1793 and may have been built in the middle ages." - Cap and link Middle Ages?

Religion

• "0.18% of residents of Wyre were Muslim" - Recast to avoid starting a sentence with digits.

• "9.40% of people in Wyre" - Ditto for this one.

Transport

• The second paragraph needs a source as do the last two sentences of the first paragraph.

Other

• The digit-century combinations (e.g., 19th century) should be held together with no-break codes that prevent them from being separated on computer screens by line-break. I added a few of these codes as I went along, but there are a lot more that need adding. WP:NBSP has details.

• Possibility for expansion: Parks and recreation. Most towns, even small ones, have a public park or parks. Many have playing fields, hiking trails, or biking paths. Anything of that sort in Poulton-le-Fylde?

• Possibility for "Transport" expansion: Mention the nearest airport?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Monadnock Building

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate it for FA soon and would welcome comments that anticipate issues that might be raised at FAC or would generally help improve the article.

Much obliged, Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I've seen this buiding in Chicago years ago, though I've never beeen in it. Thanks for an itnersting read. I think this is pretty close to ready for FAC, though there are a number of little things I noticed on my first readthrough, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The external link checker finds one dead EL that will need to be fixed - see the toolbox in the upper right corner here.
• I assume the photo in the Infobox is of the north half (Burnham & Root) of the structure? The caption should probably say which part of the building is pictured.
• Since the building is actually four buildings with four different names, should this (and perhaps the other three names?) be included somehow in the lead?
• Since Root died in 1891 (the same year the north half was built) and the firm Burnham & Root ceased to exist after his death, it just seems odd to read The north half of the building was built in 1891 by the firm of Burnham & Root, which would become one of the most renowned architecture firms of the 19th century. would it be OK if the struck part were just removed?
• The lead seems a but underlinked to me - I am used to seeing Chicago and Illinois linked, but even if they are not linked, some of the architectural terms should probably be linked, as should Printing House Row district
• I would say the Brooks brothers instead of just they in At Aldis' urging, they had retained the then-fledgling firm of Burnham & Root to design the Grannis Block.
• Does this need an apostrophe (Brooks')? Between 1881 and 1885, Aldis bought a series of lots in the area on Peter Brooks behalf, including...
• Would a "70-foot (21 m) by 200-foot (61 m) site" be clearer as "70-by-200-foot (21 by 61 m) site"
• This quotation appears to have typos in it and should either be mmarked with sic or fixed When Owen Aldis put up the Monadnock on Jackson boulevard [Boulevard?} there was nothing on the south side of the street between Sate street [State Street?] and the river but cheap one-story shacks, mere hovels. Every one thought Mr. Aldis was insane to build way out there on the ragged edge of the city. Later when he carried the building on through Van Buren street {Street?] they were sure he was.[16]
• Inches are usually converted to cm (except for rain where it is cm to mm). ...requiring walls 6 feet (1.8 m) thick at the bottom and 18 inches (460 mm) thick at the top
• Unclear / overly complex sentence Following Root's death in January 1891, encouraged by the early success of the building, Shepherd Brooks purchased the lot adjoining to the south for $360,000 and commissioned the firm of Holabird & Roche, who had designed his Pontiac Building in 1891, to extend the Monadnock south to Van Buren.[32][33] I think I would move the date of Root's death to the preceding sentence (end of the last paragraph). If the first phrase is removed, this might be OK, but it still might be clearer split into two
• There are images sandwiching text in the South half and early history (1891–1938) section - which WP:MOSIMAGE says is bad. Perhaps the two architectural drawings in the first section could be put side by side in a double image, and the aluminum staircase image moved up into that section?
• Mount Katahdin and Mount Wachusett could also be linked
• percent is usually spelled out per the MOS
• Early history section says would remain profitable for over 80 years (presumably from 1891 or so on), but the first sentence in Modernization says it began losing money in 1937, much less than 80 years later
• 1996 seems to be an error in In 1996, Aldis & Co., which had managed the building for the Brooks estate for 75 years, was dissolved and Monadnock was sold for $2 million to Sudler & Co., ...
• There should be some conversion to square meters given for those not familiar with the size of a square foot. Not sure if $ per square meter is needed too.
• The Post-restoration section is so short, I wonder if it could be combined with the Restoration section? Perhaps call it "Restoration (1979–1982) and after"?
• Make sure that quotations follow WP:LQ
• Problem sentence The Fisher Building, built by Burnham in 1894, was an engineering miracle—the first time one of the tallest commercial buildings to be built almost entirely without bricks.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful review and excellent comments. Very helpful, and appreciated, as always. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I thought of some more things about the article.

• Why did they choose different architects for the 1893 addition / second half (did Root's death have anything to do with it?).

Great question. There is only speculation, but it wad certainly a very strange decision. On the one hand, Burnham essentially abandoned his firm to lead the design of the 1893 Chicago World's Fair, and the Holabird & Roche design was cheaper, roomier, and faster to build. But the most plausible theory, on the scant evidence there is, is that the Brooks' just liked Root a lot more than Burnham. I added an explanation, but the source is at home and I am not. I'll cite it later. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Like the added text - thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• What damages were awarded for the El being built along one side of the building?

I would love to know, too. The appellate decision is widely cited in real estate and railroad law texts, but the case itself was remanded to the lower court and I find no record of that subsequent decision. One possibility is that the case was settled. My facility at running down century-old Cook County Court decisions is not what I would like it to be, but I'll keep looking. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is OK to have some mysteries left in the world. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• I somehow had the south addition attached to the long axis of the existing building until I looked closely at the pictures. Could the dimenions of the original north half be given (the lot size already is given as 70 by 200 feet), and then the dimensions of the new south half, and the overall dimensions. My guess is that the south half was also roughly 70 by 200 feet, so the overall building is probably about 70 by 400 feet (so in my misunderstanding I thought it went from 70 by 200 feet to 140 by 200 feet).

Would not have thought of that, but now that you mention it, it is easily confused. I added the dimensions of the south lot to the south half history. Does that help? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that makes it clearer. I think the infobox caption could be clearer too - currently the caption is North half of Monadnock Building seen from Dearborn street facing south in 2005. However both halves are visible, so maybe something like Monadnock Building seen from Dearborn street in 2005, the north half is in the foreground Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Rare Books and Manuscript Section

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was emailed to me by a Wikipedian who is a member of the said organization. He stated he is well-aware of the WP:COI policy and requested I (having listed my name at WP:HAU review it before it hits the Wikipedia. I have edited out quite a bit of information and links that were out of place for Wikipedia and have also cleaned up the references in regular {{reflist}} format. However, my areas of expertise do not include history, libraries, or organizations, so someone else is going to have to take it from here. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's not clear that the subject is notable. Shii (tock) 10:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As a friendly non-expert in that area, I did agree to wikify the article (and removed massive amounts which weren't encyclopedic) but told the editor I'd put it through peer review since I wasn't qualified to judge its notability or content at all. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your help with this. I am not an expert in libraries or this topic, but I do have some comments that should help improve the article.

• I agree that as written, it seems like the article may have notability concerns. However a quick search on Google Books finds a number of references to the Rare Books and Manuscript Section by reliable sources, so I think that it is notable. It would help very much to add these to the article.
• My guess is that
• The article needs more references, for example the first paragraphs of both the Governance and organization and Programs and activities sections have no references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• The refs that are in the article need more information (like the publisher). Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - the current lead needs to be expanded so as to be such an overview. As a summary, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the History section does not seem to be in the leas (as one example). Please see WP:LEAD
• Spell out abbreviations on first use, and lini on first use too. So, for example, American Library Association (ALA).
• The {{quote}} template is generally for quotes of 4 lines or longer, per WP:MOSQUOTE
• Writing is decent. I think obtaining outside views would also help to expand the article.
• I would add brief mentions and links to some of the articles linked here, like Society of American Archivists and the Antiquarian Booksellers' Association of America
• Any chance of a free image of the members at a convention? Or perhaps the non-free logo of the organization?
• Any notable chairs or officers who have served on the board?
• One dab link here that needs to be fixed
• Not a lot more to say as the article is pretty short.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Ashington A.F.C.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've run out of ideas of what I can do to improve it (and it's only a C-level article yet). The remaining two things I've thought of, pictures and a notable players section are somewhat on hold (the former because I don't live on the same continent as Ashington, though I may get some away pictures when they visit Whitley Bay in November, the latter because there's a discussion about what notable players are at this level). I assume I'm missing things to work on, so I appreciate all the help and suggestions you can offer. I should note that researching Ashington is slightly more difficult than say, Newcastle United; there's not the internet information out there, and I don't have access to the correct newspaper archives in Canada.

Thanks, Wmcduff (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You could try a Rivalries section, although they're hard to cite. Also, the history is recentist in its final few paragraphs. Finally, include a link to Category:Ashington A.F.C. players somewhere, possibly under the current squad section or in its own section entitled Notable former players and the like. Thanks. —Half Price 13:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• An image of the ground would be good. There are very few images on the Geograph project of the area so nothing available there. You could try one of the users in Category:Wikipedians in Northumberland to see if they could take one, looks like 2 of them are active. Keith D (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I've been talking with a Non-League Football project member near the Whitley Bay stadium in Newcastle, but Ashington is, alas, quite a ways north. I've also been trying to get Ashington A.F.C. forum frequenters to release a photo under CC with no success of yet. - Wmcduff (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• There are a few scattered points in the article that are uncited.

• What is the point of those globe graphics among the text in the Stadium section?

• External links should not be inline (Supporters section). Why must there be a link to this forum? This project is not meant to be a promoter of fansites or discussion groups. See Wikipedia:External links.

• What makes www.donmouth.co.uk (a personal homepage), www.rsssf.com (a personal homepage made for a newsgroup), www.nonleaguetables.co.uk, and www.nufc.com (a totally unofficial production by a totally unofficial website) reliable sources? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how reliable sources are judged?

• It is a violation of WP:MOSFLAG not to name the country on the first use of its flag; furthermore, the use of a single flag is pointless.

• File:AshingtonAFC1898.jpg: Wikipedia is reliant on US copyright law (see WP:IUP). The tag used here implies the image was first published (not just created) before 1923. In which publication was this photograph made available to the public? If you are going by age, first the work has to be unpublished, then who is the author? If unknown, the image is protected for 120 years since creation.[1] None of these conditions are fulfilled.

It is understandable that it would be hard pressed to find sources to cover a small club, but that would be no excuse not to follow the guidelines and policies of the project. Jappalang (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:FOOTY consensus is that rsssf.com is reliable BTW. —Half Price 11:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  

---

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like the help of an uninvolved editor to further improve the article in preperation for FAC, Thanks, — GabeMc (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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

---

The Tale of Mrs. Tittlemouse

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want to work this article up to FA level and need your input. I'm especially concerned about the lead, and "brilliant prose". Suggestions to improve the article for FA are wanted! This book is a children's tale about insect pests in the home and with the recent infestations of bedbugs here and there it should stimulate interest.

Thanks, Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment - since The Story of Miss Moppet looks like it is ready to be promoted at FAC, I would look carefully at that as a model article for this and all other Beatrix Potter story articles. I also worry about the copyright status of the images not published in the original. This may be worth getting an image review before FAC. Good luck, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think that's The Story of Miss Moppet, actually, but the point is valid. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

Prose

In general, the prose flows well and is pleasant to read. Don't get too hung up about the "brilliant prose" criterion; what is brilliant to one reviewer may be commonplace to another. All you can do is ensure clarity and grammatical correctness, and avoid overlong or repetitive phrasing. I think you have managed this. I do have a couple of particular prose points, however:-

• Some of the phrasing and spelling is definitely AmEng, which reads oddly when the subject is so quintessentially Edwardian English. For example, in Britain we would write "wrote to a friend", or "wrote to the Warne children"; we would write "offence" not "offense". My reading of WP:TIES is that an article discussing the works of a British writer should use British prose conventions.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Avoid the use of contractions (e.g. "doesn't") in the prose; they are not encyclopedic.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead

At present the lead does not fulfil the requirement of WP:LEAD to provide an overview of the complete article. For example, the lead at present does not cover either development stages of the book, or the scholarly commentaries. The rule is that everything of significance in the article needs to be touched on in the lead.

 Done Expanded. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Development and publication

Personally I doubt the need for the text comparisons that occupy a large part of this section. It is not as though the changes of phrasing are earth-shatteringly different; surely, every book ever written differs to some extent from its initial notebook form? I found these extracts distracting, and don't feel they add anything of great value.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception?

You have plenty of information on scholarly commentary, but what about reactions to the book when it was first published? What did the critics, and the public, say then? What about some practical information about sales volume, number of editions etc?

 Done No contemporary reviews of Potter's books found. They are 100 years old. Info about number of copies released has been entered. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

• These are generally delightful, though I don't think two depictions of the books cover (first edition and deluxe) are really necessary.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Some of the illustrations were, I thought, a little too large for their sections. I have reduced them using "upright"; please restore to their former sizes if you are not happy with that.

 Done Fine with me. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Pleas take note of Ruhrfisch's point, above, about the copyright status of the images not published in the original.

 Done These have been removed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• It may well be that as works of art, they are old enough to be free. Or it might be that one or both could be justified under WP:FAIR USE Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I am no copyright expert, but UK law for art seems to be life of the artist plus 70 years. I liked the Manylegs illustration, and can see it being justified under fair use (one does not think of Beatrix Potter painting such creepy crawlies), but that is your call. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Some nitpicks

• Hill Top links to a disambiguation page.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 35 says Dubay (DuBay)

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page ranges should have dashes not hyphens

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Altogether, this is an agreeable article that, after attention, I shall be pleased to see at FAC. If you wish to raise any issues from this review, please contact my talkpage as I am not able to watch individual peer reviews at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tim riley comments A delight to read. I see no reason why it shouldn't pass FAC with flying colours. A handful of what look like typos:

• "The tale is about housekeepeing "
• "country life were nutured"
• "Potter's adolescene"
• "assumed a presumputuous familiarity"
• "granted licencing rights" (should be licensing: participle of the verb "license" – not derived from the noun "licence")
• "granted licencing rights" (again)
• and as you are writing this in UK English, "ageing" is the usual English form. ("Aging" is not technically wrong but is hardly ever seen)

 Done Thank you for reading so closely! I'm embarrassed when others catch my typos because I try to do that myself before listing an article for review. Thank you again! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC). Tim riley (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• A great pleasure. Other people's typos are always easier to spot than one's own. Do let me know when you have this up for FAC. (I am not in the least biased by the fact that my family home is in hailing distance of Sawrey.) Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Alexander McQueen (brand)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think I have done an amazing job creating and researching it and it is now worthy of being a featured article.

Thanks, Reqluce (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Nominating editor is indef blocked Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Berghuis v. Thompkins

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Berghuis v. Thompkins was promoted to GA in June 2010. The article is stable and the write-up seems comprehensive, sourced to a high standard, and balanced. Other than technical matters related to law articles and any improvement to "brilliant prose" it's not easy to see what might be improved in terms of actual content. In relation to MOS and subtleties of presentation there's probably things to do though.

Some input on ways to improve the article, how ready (or otherwise) it is for FAC, and tips on what more is needed would be appreciated.

Thanks for your help,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• Dablink (tool in the box on the right of this peer review page) shows one disambiguation link; please fix it.

Lede

• "Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. ___ (2010) (docket 08-1470) ..."

  Why are there three underscores between U.S. and (2010)?

• "... in which the Court considered the position of a suspect who understands his or her right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona and is aware he or she has the right to remain silent, but does not explicitly invoke or waive the right. The Court held that unless and until the suspect actually stated that he was relying on that right, his subsequent voluntary statements could be used in court and police could continue to interact with (or question) him. The mere act of remaining silent was, on its own, insufficient to imply the suspect has invoked his or her rights. Furthermore, a voluntary reply even after lengthy silence could be construed as implying a waiver."

  Suggestion: "... in which the Court held that unless a suspect declares he is exercising his right to remain silent (per Miranda v. Arizona), his subsequent voluntary statements can be used in court and he is subject to further interactions with the police. A suspect's Miranda rights cannot be invoked by remaining silent in the presence of police; a voluntary statement made after a lengthy silence can be construed as a waiver of said rights."

• "The dissent, authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that Miranda and other previous cases had required a claimed waiver of a constitutional right to be shown more strongly, especially in light of a lengthy interrogation with a possible "compelling influence" during which the accused had remained almost entirely silent for almost 3 hours prior to the self-incriminating statement."

  Suggestion: "The dissent, authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that in Miranda and other previous cases, the waiving of a constitional right must be clearly expressed. She and her peers were not convinced that such a right was waived by a suspect who remained mostly silent during 3 hours of interrogation before making a self-incriminating statement under a possible "compelling influence"."

Media response

• Why is it in point form? The quotes used also seem to be overly long. The whole subsection could perhaps be written with paragraphs based on the themes/points in those articles quoted.

Images

• File:Anthony Kennedy Official.jpg is a copyright violation; Reid, the photographer, is not a government employee.

General

• (De-)capitalization of quoted text do not need to be encased with square braces.

• Several sections/paragraphs of text are not cited to a source. For example, last part of Legal background, State court appeal and federal court habeas corpus proceedings, etc.

• Is the article using spaced hyphens or spaced endashes when separating clauses? I believe the Manual of Style calls for either spaced or unspaced emdashes.

• Why are some quotes in italics?

• I find there is much lawyerly text (redundant or hard-to-understand wordings) in this article. It might make sense to practitioners of the law—exact and precise details and exclusions to preclude any wrangling of intent of the wording; however, I believe it overloads the comprehension of the layman.

• There are a lot of quotes in this article. I hazard that it was borne to a desire not to misinterprete the sources but it turns the article in my view into more a collection of opinion pieces than an overview of the subject. Can these quotes not be broken down, analyzed and rewritten (i.e. regrouped and reorganised based on the sources)?

-- Jappalang (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these. I'll work on them shortly. I've fixed the dab link, and the copyvio image. Some of the others need research or checking first. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

FT2, are you also a Commons administrator? The copyrighted revisions of the image should be deleted, not just overloaded with a valid "free" image. Jappalang (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not a commons admin. I'm not much involved in image work per se beyond an understanding of the key aspects of copyright, licensing, etc, and creating/sourcing/uploading images which I am reasonably sure are free or (for Wikipedia) valid fair use. I left a note at Commons help desk asking for someone to do whatever cleanup is needed. I've explained the action taken so far; whoever handles it will surely spot the deletion needed and clean up the pages concerned properly. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

---

List of 1948 Winter Olympics medal winners

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some constructive criticism on how I could better its chances of passing FLC. I'd welcome anything you have to throw at me!

Thanks, Arctic Night 18:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me, thanks for your work on it; here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FLC.

• The disambiguation links tool in the toolbox in the upper right corner here finds three dab links that will need to be fixed before FLC.
• Odd sentence Both men and women were permitted to participate in the 1948 Games, with women making an appearance in alpine skiing and figure skating.[3] permitted to participate?? How about something like While men and women participated in the 1948 Games, women's events were limited to alpine skiing and figure skating.[3]
• Tighten The United States placed fourth in the medal count, with nine medals, and Austria placed fifth, with eight.
• Per WP:ORDINAL Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark; it is often better to recast the sentence than to simply change format, which may produce other problems... so fix 13 out of the 28 competing National Olympic Committees won at least one medal, with 10 of these winning at least one gold.
• Tighten Sweden repeated its success in cross-country skiing, winning all three medals in the Men's 18 km event and all three gold medals for the Men's 18[,] km event, Men's 50[,] km and Men's 4x10 km events.[6]
• Alpine skiing section has a subhead that reads "Men's events" but it lists both men's and women's events in the table
• Speed skating's see also is wrong (currently reads See also: Speed skating at the 1936 Winter Olympics (copy and paste error?)
• Are all the sources used reliable sources? What makes www.sports-reference.com/ a RS, for example?
• While ref 7 does confirm that Henri Oreiller won three medals at these Olympics, it does not say that this was the most of any athlete (which is the more extraordinary claim and needs a ref).
• There is no Wikimedia Commons page for these Olympics, so does not need that link
• Not much else to comment on - images look OK in terms of licenses,

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

---

List of United States airmail stamps

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have finished adding an image for each stamp that I can legally add (only ones previous to 1978 - see this {{PD-USGov}} and I think its ready to nominate as a featured list. I also have dist numbers for all but a couple stamps from 1918-1949, other than that they were nearly impossible to find. I have date issued, Type (denom and color), subject, and Scott # for each and every stamp.

Thanks, Nasa-verve (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and useful list but not yet ready for FLC. I have quite a few suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

• I would suggest expanding the lead to say something about the total number of air mail stamps issued, the range in sizes and prices, and perhaps something about the kinds of images. Perhaps it could be said when it became possible to buy domestic air-mail stamps at any post office in the U.S. and not just for the early Washington–Philadelphia–New York route. Add a bit more of the history, in other words.

• "Domestic air mail became obsolete in 1975... ". - I think I'd clarify this by saying "Domestic air mail became obsolete as a special category in 1975... ".

Images

• It might be OK to add non-free images of the non-PD stamps if you use a non-free rationale for each one. See, for example, File:Lincoln 1995 Issue-32c.jpg, which appears in US Presidents on US postage stamps with a license with a non-free rationale. Each low-res image would have to have its own rationale specific to its use in this airmail-stamp list. I may be wrong, but I think using the images in this way in this particular context would meet the WP:NFCC guidelines, although you might get questions about criterion 8. Since it would be a shame to do the significant amount of work involved in adding the missing images and the many non-free rationales, I'd suggest getting a second and third opinion from trusted editors before trying this.

• Would it be useful to show a canceled stamp as an example of what one looked like?

Dashes

• Date ranges and page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. I ran a script to fix these. The script also changed some other hyphens to en dashes in the tables, and that seemed to be an improvement as well.

Underlinking

• Why link Niagara Falls but not Zion National Park or William T. Piper, or Junipero Serra for example,

Notes on types

• The "plate type" definitions need a source or sources.

• Could perforation be explained in the article's notes instead of sending the reader to an external site for an explanation? Something like "Perf 11" will not mean anything to many readers.

• Could "printing dryness" be more completely explained?

Other

• The tools at the top of this review page find five dead links in citation urls and one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

• The word "and" should usually be used instead of the ampersand (&).

• "Date Issed" is a misspelling that occurs in the first column of each table. Please replace with "Date Issued".

• Rather than adding a separate line, "Reference" under each table, I'd be inclined to move the inline citation to a position immediately after the table heading; e.g., "1918–1919" would have a ref number immediately after it, and readers would see that it applied to the whole table.

• Would it be helpful to add metric sizes for the stamps? If this seems too messy, would it be useful to add a sample conversion, maybe in the lead. Why are stamp sizes included in some tables but not others?

• Citation 5 is marked with a "deadlink" tag but seems to work just fine.

• Direct links (such as those in the last column of the "1930–1939" table) to external sites should not be included in the main text or the notes. Use inline citations instead.

• Some of the citations are incomplete. A good rule of thumb for web citations is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all are known or can be found.

• Make sure that the date formatting in the reference section is internally consistent. Citation 1 includes a nonconforming date, and others are apt to creep in as citations are added or altered.

• Do all of the sources meet the WP:RS guidelines? Sometimes dot-coms don't meet the guidelines; about these I'm not sure. I'm wondering if a dot.gov site might have the same information.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Finetooth. I will be working on these in the next couple weeks as I have time. Nasa-verve (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Round Church, Preslav

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm aiming for FA status with this article. Amazingly enough, there are only two FAs on churches and both are on 20th-century designs. I'm not a native speaker so I'll very much appreciate a copyedit and some grammar fixes/suggestions. Also, I'd like to know if the article is easy to understand, if it provides the necessary context, and if it is complete and comprehensive in its coverage. Anything is welcome, really, but referencing ought to be spot on :) — Toдor Boжinov — 20:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

• The opening sentence contains too many ideas; it can be broken into two sentences.

Background

• "... literary impact over Slavic Europe ..."

  "... literary influence over Slavic Europe ..."?

• "Some of the time's most eminent Bulgarian scholars ..."

  "Some of most eminent Bulgarian scholars during Bulgaria's Golden Age ..."

History and identification

• "... in the year 6415 [907] indiction 14, ..."

  It may be from a quote, but what does "[907] indiction 14" mean?

  In light of the explanation below, might I suggest "... in the [Byzantine] year 6415 [907 AD], ..."? In reading the indiction article, it is just a year indicator and I am not certain how it would flesh the article out or help here. If the indication was needed to help translate that time to our year (because 6415 Byzantine year does not exactly correspond to 907 AD), then I would suggest "... in the [Byzantine] year 6415 indiction 14 [907 AD], ..." Jappalang (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Narthex

• "... isolates two small, similar in plan parts of the atrium accessible through doors."

  "... isolates two small parts, similar in plan, of the atrium accessible through doors."

• "5 × 9.50 m (16 × 31.17 ft) in size, ..."

  The Manual of Style discourages beginning a sentence with figures.

References / Sources

• Foreign sources should also present a translation (official is preferable) of the titles.

• Being unfamiliar with Bulgarian, what makes liternet.bg, segabg.com, dveri.bg, and trud.bg reliable sources per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches?

Images

• File:Preslaw Goldene Kirche.jpg

  This was scanned from p. 196 of Stancho Vaklinov's Formation of the Old Culture VI-XI Century (1977). Thus, it is a copyright violation.

• File:Round Church Preslav cornice Grabar1963.jpg

  The 10th century cornice is in the public domain, but the photograph (1963) (with highlights and shadows) certainly is not. The inscriptions on the cornice are not 2D works of art, thus PD-Art does not apply.

  I found File:Cornice from Round Church, Preslav.jpg, which has an acceptable license, and boldly put it in place of the copyrighted photograph. Jappalang (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• File:PRESLAV 04 12a.jpg

  The uploader has uploaded other images into the public domain. It would be best for a local administrator to confirm if this photograph was uploaded with the intent of licensing under GFDL/CC. However, I am a bit worried over the veracity of the authorship, judging from the uploader's contributions and talk page.

• File:NHM-BG-photo2.JPG

  Where is this photograph on imagesfrombulgaria.com?

  This is in the template at the bottom of the article, {{Veliki Preslav}}. I have filed a deletion request for this; it is a derivative work of an unknown photograph. Jappalang (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall, an impressive article. However, why is there little information on the structure's current status? It is partially preserved, so what is its standing in the Bulgarian society? What measures or legislations have been enacted to protect it? How much have been spent on its preservation? Is it undergoing restoration (which seems to be true, judging by this photograph)? That seems to be a pretty big omission of information for this structure. Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, that was very useful! I guess I should be paying more attention to the details of image copyright. I've removed any dubious images and applied the grammar/style corrections you suggested. Which foreign sources are missing a translation of the title?

As for the quote "6415 [907] indiction 14", 6415 is the year in the Byzantine calendar, 907 is the year in modern chronology (not in the quote, thus in brackets), and an indiction (linked) was a medieval unit of time. What would you suggest in order to make this clearer?

About the reliability of Bulgarian online sources:

• Liternet (liternet.bg) is a publishing house which releases books both online and on paper. The source is actually a text book, and the author is a doctor of architecture.
• Sega (segabg.com) is a national daily newspaper. The link is actually an online archive of the printed publication.
• dveri.bg is an Orthodox portal. Its team of editors consists of theologists, historians and cultural scholars.[2]
• Dneven Trud (trud.bg) is a national daily newspaper, and the link is also to the online archive of the printed publication. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can add on the church's current state, you're making a good point there. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 08:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the images you have listed above as of dubious copyright should be deleted. I've added some details on the church's status as a cultural monument and a tourist sites and some further info on its reconstruction. Do you think this side of the article is now adequately covered? Also, can you please answer my questions about the indiction quote and source name translation? — Toдor Boжinov — 08:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See above for the indiction quote. About the current status, it looks good. However, I am curious about "Despite not being an active church, today it is commonly used for baptisms and weddings." It seems none of the church is covered at all, so I think "Despite not being an active church" is kind of irrelevant (unless having church sessions in the open is practiced there). Am I right to presume that "commonly used for baptisms and weddings" is akin to how function rooms, ballrooms, and "special places" are hired to hold such events? In that case, is it more precise to say that the ruins have become more of an attraction than of some religious site? Jappalang (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for indiction quote is excellent, I'll implement it right away. There are a few reasons why I included the "active church" bit. I suppose its tourist value does have a role in its popularity for weddings and baptisms, but you should note that in Bulgaria, Orthodox weddings (not the civil marriage thing) are not normally performed outside churches and in the open. Civil marriage takes place in special halls owned by municipalities, and the separate Orthodox ceremony is typically in a church, so that would be a major part of it. As a whole, of course, the ruins of Preslav and the Round Church are a tourist attraction, not an active religious site of any kind.

P.S. I'll be doing a vector drawing of the floor plan in the near future, I think it's a pretty important asset that the article shouldn't be missing. — Toдor Boжinov — 15:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if every year (modern calender) in the article now has to be appended with AD... I do not think so, but you might want to consider it. With regards to your plan of a vectorised floor plan, the drawing in Vaklinov's book can serve as a reference (thus alleviating any concern that there is no factual basis for the plan) for the the general shape and layout. However, it should not be a copy of that floor plan (Vaklinov's). That would be a clear derivative (and potentially a copyright violation). The vectorised floor plan should come up with its own art style for the structure. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think adding AD everywhere would be redundant, it's only necessary in the indiction quote where it makes the whole thing easier to understand.

I'm aware that my floor plan should not be a copy/vectorization of any existing drawing. I'll be using Vaklinov + a few plans of the church in Nikolova as a reference, but I won't be copying them. Thanks! :) — Toдor Boжinov — 08:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I finished my floor plan last night and I added cite IDs with links to the Sources section, so it's looking pretty sleek now. Anything else that you've spotted? :) — Toдor Boжinov — 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

---

{{|page=WikiProject Video games/Peer review/PlayStation|date=2010-11-23T11:10:22Z }}

---

Asthma

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a top priority article that was once a FA but it was taken away and is not B/C class. I think it is very important to have this reviewed to help all users learn where to start to fix it.

Thanks, Peter.C • talk 01:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

General point: Judging by the edit history of the article, there seems to be a lot of edit warring going on. A detailed peer review is impossible unless an article is relatively stable. However, I can advise on some of the presentational aspects of the article, if restoration of FA status is the goal:-

• Lead needs to be expanded so that it is a concise summary of the whole article. The lead should touch on all aspects covered in the article, without discussing them in detail. In general, citations of material should be in the main text rather than in the lead.
• The "infobox" is presented in a style that was evidently accepted in medical articles some years ago, but which is completely incomprehensible to general readers. In my view it would be better to ditch the infobox altogether than to retain it in this form. I don't know what the Medicine Project's view is, but this cryptic presentation of information does not, I think, further the general aims of the WP project.
• The "History" section, which already has an "expand" tag, should be at the beginning of the article rather than the end.
• The "Research" section contains one piece of information which is not worth a section of its own. Either expand to a proper section ("Current research") or absorb into History.
• Prose structure: far too much subdivision into sections and subsections, some of which contain a single sentence of information. In other cases the prose is chopped into very short paragraphs. Current FA prose criteria will require to have a better flow, organised into fewer sections and longer paragraphs.
• Parts of the article are written in bullet-point format. This is deprecated at FAC; the material should either be converted into prose, or presented in a formal wikitable with appropriate commentary.
• It may be worth perusing this essay, in view of the inevitable technical language.
• Attention needs to be given to citation formatting. Some, e.g. 57, lack publisher information, retrieval dates are missing, etc.
• The toolbox on the upper right of this page indicates one disambiguation link and several dead external links.

I hope these general points are helpful. I have no medical knowledge so I can't really suggest more. The most important thing is that a group of editors with knowledge and interest should start working together to improve the article. There is evidence of this happening on the talkpage but not, alas, in the edit history. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Korean Air Flight 858

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I have worked on and significantly expanded the article for just under a month, and think it is just about ready to go through FAC. I would like to know anything that needs addressing, with a mind to the FA criteria.

Thanks in advance for your comments, wackywace 17:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The Continuing tensions section has a huge recentism bias. About two thirds of the contents is about the Cheonan incident. If you are doing a comparison between Korean Air Flight 858 and Cheonan incident, you need to have a source that explicitly compares the two events. If not, then the Cheonan incident should not have more weight than all other events outlined in the second paragraph of the Continuing tensions section. Jim101 (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I know what you mean, but there isn't much to replace it with. The idea of mentioning the Cheonan incident is to signify the relations between the two countries since KAL 858. I don't think it takes up about 2/3 of the relations section, it is about 50:50 with the discussions between the two countries. Other than the Cheonan, there hasn't really been that much serious newsworthy conflict between the two. If there are any incidents that you feel warrant mentioning, I would be very happy to add them to that section. wackywace 17:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "News worthy" is not a valid criteria to determine the weight of contents, since Wikipedia is not a news service. The approach you should take with this section is to reflect the views of current experts on the North-South relations. Trimming the Cheonan incident does not make the this article less complete, since you are just making sure everything is put into proper context in accordance with NPOV policy. To put things into context, the Cheonan incident is an episode of the larger Crab Wars and Northern Limit Line disputes between South and North, and the Crab Wars between South and North is just one aspect of a larger conflicts between South and North (nuclear tests and balloon hunting anyone?). Improvements of this section really boils down to more detailed research with academic sources that gives an comprehensive view of the North-South relations. Jim101 (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
      

---

WhiteWater World

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is of a higher quality than the current B standard that it is ranked. I have contributed significantly on the article and I would like an outsider's opinion. Thanks, Themeparkgc  Talk  10:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Infobox

• Why is a flag needed? Why should nationality be emphasized here? Please refer to MOS:FLAG.

• Are we supposed to provide phone numbers? Is Wikipedia a phone directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)? This infobox looks more suited for Yellow Pages than an encylopaedia (again WP:NOTDIRECTORY). I fail to see how {{Infobox Water park}} was constructed with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in consideration.

Lede

• "WhiteWater World is a water park situated directly adjacent to the Dreamworld theme park, ..."

  Spot the two redundant words.

• "Just over AUD$56 million ..."

  Either one or both of the first two words are redundant.

• "... was invested in eight Australian beach culture themed, world-class attractions."

  Invested in what aspects of the attractions? Furthermore, "Australian beach culture themed, world-class attractions" is a clunky and biased statment that is not supported by the article. Which international authority rated these the best of the world?

• "... has invested in two additional attractions."

  In what aspects?

• "Since opening, the park has consistently performed above expectations."

  What performance? Safety, popularity, financial, social, and so on?

Rest of the article

• There are so many capital letters in the first sentence of History...

• "Together, they recognised the need for sustainable water management and environmentally friendly technology during the operation of the new water park."

  So they are unable to recognise the need on their own? Does that ("need") also mean that other water parks fail because they did not have "sustainable water management and environmentally friendly technology"? Does this need only apply "during" the operation of the park? The way the sentence is structured makes me think that they are free to waste water when doing maintenance or can ignore such aspects when planning on how to expand the place.

• "After six months of operation Ardent Leisure announced that WhiteWater World attracted 247,360 visitors, producing revenue of AU$8.7 million and a profit of AU$4 million."

  Bad sentence structure that gives rise to ambiguities: after Ardent Leisure has been in buisness for six months, they made an announcement that generated that millions of dollars.

• "The Get Wet Surf School makes use of the pool for its lessons outside of normal park operating hours."

  How is this information within the scope of an encyclopaedia?

• "The park is remaining tight-lipped about the expansion with external relations staff commenting on the high cost of the expansion just after the financial crisis of 2007-2010."

  This phrase belongs more to a newspaper article than an encyclopaedia. Furthermore, it is extrapolated from a single forum post (of an unknown staff).

• While it might be notable for the park to have a tie-up with a TV show (albeit now cancelled), the phrasing about the replica clubhouse is not encyclopaedic in my view.

• History, in my view, has lost focus with the insertions of little details of questionable significance. The events chronicled in History should be items that significantly influenced the park's operation or reputation, not events that just happened and had no lasting impact (does it matter that little mention was on Dreamworld in the announcement? Why should every announcement of the park's development be covered?). There are items that would be better placed in Performance (opening day's figures) or Attractions (the chronology of attractions, notable events held in the park). There are several ways for a better struture, but it might bear consideration to integrate Performance into History, renaming it Commerical history. In that way, one can explore the history of the park and link its fate to its performance (see Belle Vue Zoological Gardens).

• Why are the names of certain attractions enclosed with single quotation marks?

• "The Wedgie is a ProSlide SuperLOOP."

  Aside from the violation of the MoS regarding capitalization of letters in a trademark. This sentence makes no sense for a casual reader. What is a SuperLoop? The same goes for ProSlide Tornado and other later attractions.

• Many sentences of are of the noun plus -ing construct. These sentences can be problematic, introducing ambiguities or awkward associations. See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing on the issues with such constructs and how to resolve them.

• Serious sessions of copy-editing are in order as well.

Sources

• How do parkz.com and roller-coaster.com.au qualify as reliable sources per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches?

• The Youtube link is a copyright violation. serkan4407 does not have permission from the advertisement's owner to upload it to Youtube; it should not be linked to at all. See WP:LINKVIO.

Images

• File:WhiteWater World Logo.PNG

  Where are the fair use rationales? How does this pass all ten criteria of WP:NFCC? Why can we not create our own "free" photographs of the entrance or of the entire park instead of using a single copyrighted logo?[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

• What is the point of having File:Whitewater World 1.jpg and File:Super Tubes Hydrocoaster and The Green Room at WhiteWater World.jpg (a much better photograph) in the article? They are practically of the same subject from the same angle.

• File:The Bro WhiteWater World.JPG

  It would be better if a larger resolution of the photograph is uploaded.

I feel more work is still needed to get this beyond B-class. Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your extended comments on the article. I will endeavour to improve this article as per your recommendations and beyond. Thanks Themeparkgc  Talk  23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Kampung Boy (TV series)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
While in the course of researching Lat (now a Featured Article), I had enough material to write up articles on The Kampung Boy and its animation spinoff (this article up for peer review). I plan to nominate the article about the animation as a candidate for Featured Article and seek help and opinions on any further improvements that should be made before bringing it to FAC. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

Hi Jappalang! I'm not all the way through this yet, but I do have a question about sources. I did a search at my local university on Kampung Boy, and found some sources that discuss its translation and/or release in different countries, awards, performances, etc. You don't seem to cover these in the article. Was it an editorial choice, or did you lack sources that discuss it? I would of course be happy to share the sources with you, but if you made a conscious decision not to include such information, I'd be interested in the rationale. For example:

• Abas, Azura (16 December 2006). "Lat's 'Kampung Boy' makes it big in US". New Straits Times. Discusses the release, reception, and awards in the US.
• "Lat's 'Kampung Boy' gets the orchestra treatment". New Straits Times. 19 April 2009. Discusses a major production with the Malaysian Philharmonic Orchestra featuring Lat's animations, including Kampung Boy.
• Othman, M. Husairy (14 February 2006). "'Kampung Boy' arrives in Brazil". New Straits Times. Discusses the translation into Portuguese and release in Brazil.

There are others, but that's a start from the first page of results. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andy, it is more of an editorial decision. Most of these newspaper reports replicate each other. Furthermore, because of the closeness of the names between the novel and the animation series, a source could be about the graphic novel, The Kampung Boy, instead of the TV series. For example, Azura is talking about the US release of the novel. Husairy's is a simple short article about the novel as well; it has a short blurb about the animation: "The animated version of Kampung Boy is also on the cartoon network worldwide." The orchestra treatment piece is about Lat's Window to the World, an animation vignette accompanied by Carl Davis's score; the animation is a separate work based on Lat's novels (not just The Kampung Boy). I believe I have pretty much used most of the sources that focus on the TV series. Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the response. I was sure you did your due diligence, but sometimes different database searches turn up different articles. I will leave further comments soon. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

• "The stories focus on the meeting between traditional and modern ways of life, either depicting the village way of life as superior to urban lifestyles, or discussing the merits and integration of modern conveniences." I've been trying to think of a way to re-word this, but I keep coming up flat. Essentially, everything from "either" onward modifies "stories", and I think the two are way too far apart.

  I have rewritten the lede. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• "The seeds for the animation adaptation" Use "animated" here instead? Seems a more apt adjective.

   Done Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Lat decried those productions for promoting negative values" Any examples given in the source? Would be a nice way to expand this section.

• I'm not following the narrative from Origins to Production. You state that the Prime Minister wanted local companies to produce animation, but then you say that Lat proceeded to have his ideas produced in foreign countries. Wouldn't that have violated the spirit of the initiative?
  • Note: It makes more sense after reading to the end of Production.

    The Malaysian government wanted to produce local content whose majority owner are locals (politics come into play here, and this is not really explored by Lent and others). Trying to explain all this here can raise all sorts of issues and undue weight. I could remove the two lines "The Malaysian government ... to produce animation for local television." if need be. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Lat was of the opinion that Lacewood had accommodated him" Again, an example might be useful to the reader. What were some of the requests he made that were accommodated?

  Lat did not really go into specific, save to say that he was there to tell the artists what he would like to see and they just did it without question. I have expanded this. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• "In 1995, Matinee Entertainment was engaged to complete the project; Lat started to fly back and forth between Kuala Lumpur and Los Angeles" Who engaged them? If Lat, we could re-word more smoothly as: "In 1995, Lat engaged Matinee Entertainment to complete the project and started to fly back and forth between Kuala Lumpur and Los Angeles"

   Done Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• "The creators of Kampung Boy deliberately refrained from copying Western and Japanese cartoons." Unsure of the meaning here. Do you mean using stylist elements from Western and Japanese cartoons?

  Something like that, I have tweaked the sentence. Have a look. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• "It has also attracted criticism for its similarities to United States cartoon series The Simpsons" This hasn't been discussed elsewhere, and will be a real curiosity for many Wikipedia readers. What sorts of comparisons were drawn? The animation style? The humor? Etc.

  Rohani said they pointed to similarities between Mat's family and Bart's (without going to what sort of similarities—antics, or structure). I expanded this. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a very nice article, and I enjoyed reading about the series. I'm curious about where I could see some episodes now! --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have rewrote the lede and Themes and hallmarks. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

---

European Union

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I suppose this article should be nominated for featured article, which it was in the past, I believe most of issues from past revisions were already handled and I would like to see others opinions on what else needs to be fixed, there is already discussion in the article regarding this nomination so you may find some suggestions on what needs to be reviewed there

Thanks, Petrb (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While I am glad that editors are working to improve this article on a very important topic (and thank you for your work on this), the article itself is a pretty long way from being ready for FAC, and I am not sure it would pass GAN in its current state. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The Link checker finds two dead links and others which may be problems. These would need to be fixed before FAC.
• The disambiguation links checker in the toolbox in th upper right corner of this page (EL checker there too) finds several dab links that will also need to be checked.
• The lead does not follow WP:LEAD, which has a limit of four paragraphs maximum (this currently has five paragraphs in the lead). See WP:LEAD
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.

The lead was already mentioned (see talk page) and some users said this lead is better because it is not easy to put it to four, I will try to discuss it again. Petrb (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• One of the things that is somewhat characteristic of the EU (and its predecessor bodies) in my opinion is the ability of member states to pick and choose to some extent what parts of the EU they participate in and what parts they do not. So not every EU country has adopted the Euro. The EU also allows non-member states to participate in aspects of membership to some extent - so not all EU countries are in the Schengen Agreement, but some non-EU countries are, and the EEA and Western European Union are / were the same way. I think this should be in the lead somehow.

Improved, WEU does not longer exist, you mean to add that participation of member states on certain EU parts is only on their own decision so many states does not have to participate on several things, if so I do not think it is actually true in all cases, opt-outs in eurozone are only in few special cases so I do not think it needs to be mentioned in lead section (partially it already is) and concerning other institutions excepting UK almost all other states participate on the same Petrb (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew WEU was defunct, which is why I had the is / was construction. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• The biggest problem I see is a lack of references in places. As examples, just in the History section these statements need references. Jean Rey presided over the first merged Commission (Rey Commission). and With enlargement towards Eastern and Central Europe on the agenda, the Copenhagen criteria for candidate members to join the European Union were agreed. and followed in 2008 by Cyprus and Malta, and by Slovakia in 2009. In June 2009, the 2009 Parliament elections were held leading to a renewal of Barroso's Commission Presidency, and in July 2009 Iceland formally applied for EU membership. plus the whole paragraph On 1 December 2009, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force and reformed many aspects of the EU. In particular it changed the legal structure of the European Union, merging the EU three pillars system into a single legal entity provisioned with legal personality, and it created a permanent President of the European Council, the first of which is Herman van Rompuy, and a strengthened High Representative, Catherine Ashton. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Another problem (and this was pointed out back in 2008 in the last unsuccessful FAC) is the heavy reliance on EU sources. Now obviously if the text of a treaty or law is being quoted, the EU is a fine source. But WP:V and WP:RS point out that articles should rely as much as possible on sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. There are many books on the EU and it is covered by many newspapers and magazines and scholarly articles as well.
• Some references do not provide enough information - see current ref 6 for example, which is just "European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions [1]" or refs 172 to 175 which are just URLs. Iinternet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
• Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but current ref 7 is just a link to another article. "Gibraltar is part of the EU" linked to Special Member State territories and the European Union

That article contains many reliable sources. Petrb (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

SOrry to be unclear, but the reliable sources have to be given in this article. Everything has to be sourced here, as part of this article's references. Wikilinks are fine, but they are not refs and cannot be used as refs or links to refs in other articles. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Many of the notes are things that need references.
• The article is written in a fairly choppy manner - there are a lot of short paragraphs (one to three paragraphs) that disrupt the flow of the prose. Where possible, I would combine the short paragraphs with others, or perhaps expand them if needed.
• There are also places where it seems someone jsut came along and added a sentnece about something and no one has tried to make sense of it within the larger section of the article or to integrate into other parts of the text. One example: The European Union Satellite Centre (EUSC) is an agency of the EU which gathers information through satellite images.
• WP:MOSIMAGE says to avoid sandwiching text between right and left justified images, but there are such sandwiches in Environment, Monetary union, and Foreign relations sections (and some other places that are not quite as bad)

Improved Petrb (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• The article is WP:OVERLINKed - for example customs union is linked in two consecutive paragraphs in History. ALso do not link words and phrases whose meaning is lcear to almost all readers - what is the benefit from linking passport? It just adds to the sea of blue links and detracts from the lkinks that are useful.

Improved. Petrb (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the talk page discussion - there seems to be little in the way of criticism of the EU or controversey in the article. Again using third party sources more should help with this.
• Do all 16 external links meet WP:EL?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Into Temptation (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has already achieved GA status and I'd like to eventually nominate it for FA. It's somewhat brief, but I believe I've exhausted all sources available about the film. I'm hoping for a review focusing on both the grammar and any other elements that might come up in a feature review. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 03:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks good except for prose and style problems here and there. I cleaned up a dozen or so minor things (typos, missing nbsps) but no doubt missed a few. The images are good-looking, and the licenses look fine to me. The lead looks good. There are no dabs in the article or dead urls in the citations.

Plot

• "Father John returns to the red-light district and speaks to a prostitute named Miriam (Greta Oglesby), who suggests a powerful pimp named James St. Clair (Ansa Akyea) might know about the woman. As they speak in a bar, the prostitute enters and solicits a john... " - Link pimp? Link "john" to Prostitution#Etymology and terminology?

• "Later, Father John hires Lloyd Montag (Bruce A. Young), an unemployed boxer at his church, to serve as his bodyguard as he talks to James St. Clair. St. Clair, who knows Lloyd... " - "James St. Clair" should just be "St. Clair" here since the man's name is spelled out in full earlier. The second "St. Clair" could be changed to "The pimp", to avoid repeating St. Clair twice in a row and also to remind readers of St. Clair's identity. This passage would then read: "Later, Father John hires Lloyd Montag (Bruce A. Young), an unemployed boxer at his church, to serve as his bodyguard as he talks to St. Clair. The pimp, who knows Lloyd... ".

• "Father Ralph says that even if Linda is dead, her soul is immortal, so Father John's penance is to absolve her now, which Father John does." - This might have one too many clauses. Suggestion: "Father Ralph says that even if Linda is dead, her soul is immortal, and that Father John's penance is to absolve her now. Father John does."

Writing

• "The script for Into Temptation was conceived by Patrick Coyle's thoughts over what kind of priest his father would have been." - It was conceived by Coyle rather than his thoughts. Suggestion: "Coyle conceived of the script for Into Temptation while imagining what kind of priest his father would have been."

• "the Rev. Damian Zuerlein, who married Coyle and his wife and baptized their children" - Not a threesome, probably. Suggestion: "the Rev. Damian Zuerlein, who performed the marriage ceremony for Coyle and his wife and baptized their children"

• "Ann Luster, who would become the film's producer, was involved with Coyle from the earliest stages of the script." - Don't tell Mrs. Coyle. Suggestion: "Ann Luster, who would become the film's producer, helped with the script from the earliest stages."

• "drew very large congregations for weekend mass" - Link "mass" to Mass (liturgy)?

Casting

• "Coyle cold-called Kristin Chenoweth's agent" - Link "cold called" to Cold calling?

Filming

• "Filming began in May 2008,[9][19] and took place entirely in Minneapolis, with several scenes filmed in the city's Uptown commercial district, where Coyle lived." - Rather than using the "with" clause, I'd suggest recasting as "Filming, which began in May 2008,[9][19] took place entirely in Minneapolis. It included several scenes staged in the city's Uptown commercial district, where Coyle lived."

• "Coyle approached Russell Holsapple, a Minneapolis-Saint Paul native and relatively inexperienced composer, to compose the score... " - Maybe substitute "create" for the second "compose" to avoid repetition?

• "Coyle approached Russell Holsapple, a Minneapolis-Saint Paul" - I believe Minneapolis – Saint Paul should take a spaced en dash (spaced because Saint Paul is two words) rather than a hyphen, here and elsewhere in the article. It's already written correctly in the lead.

• "Percy said the final cuts provided to him already contained the strongest performances that were shot from the actors" - From which end? Suggestion: "Percy said the final cuts provided to him already contained the actors' strongest performances... ".

• "When his health started to decline, Patrick Coyle... " - How about "When his father's health started to decline, Patrick Coyle... "?

Themes

• "Throughout the film, Father John is warned that his role as a priest comes with boundaries, and that he should not become personally involved with the congregants and actively try to help solve their problems beyond providing counsel." - Tighten? Suggestion: "Throughout the film, Father John is warned that his role as a priest comes with boundaries, and that he should not become personally involved with the congregants or try to solve their problems except through counseling."

• "The film also advocates repentance, and the extent of Linda's victimization can be interpreted as a sign of how catastrophic an unrepentant life can be." - The meaning here is not clear to me. Who should repent? Not Linda, I think, but her "elderly stepfather Donald Dupree". It is not clear from your description of the plot that he does not repent. Is that the lack of repentance you mean? If so, better make that more clear by adding a something to the "Plot" section and by adjusting this last sentence of the "Themes" section.

Reception

• "Variety magazine writer Rob Nelson said Into Temptation was Coyle a well-photographed film... " - Doesn't make sense as written.

• "Coyle said, 'This is one of very few American films to deal with religious beliefs about faith and salvation with empathy and insight.' " - Do you really want to include Coyle's analysis of the film in this section? It's not part of the reception by the audience(s). Or did someone other than Coyle say this?

• "Lavender magazine writer John Townsend said the episode conveyed compassionate views of Christianity and complimented the cinematography." - "Movie" or "film" rather than "episode"?

Award

• Instead of creating a separate one-sentence section, I'd suggest adding this sentence to the last paragraph of the "Reception" section. Another possibility would be to expand the "Award" section, but I assume there is nothing more to say.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant was promoted to GA in April 2010. The article is stable and the write-up seems comprehensive, sourced to an appropriately high standard, and balanced.

Input would be appreciated on ways to improve the article, how ready (or otherwise) it is for FAC, and tips on what more is needed.

Thanks for your help!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• "three Roman historians born subsequent to the events of 52 AD" is rather awkward; I think there's a better phrasing to be found, perhaps '3 later Roman historians'
• 'The first known record of the phrase is in the writings of Suetonius:'... The key quote is already given in the original Latin; why is this block quote in Latin when the later blockquote from Dio isn't?

In general looks pretty good. It would be nice if there were a more detailed modern-usage section (eg. didn't Gladiator (2000 film) have a nice sequence with this quote which could be screen-capped?), since I think pretty much everyone who reads this article is interested because of modern usage and not because they happened to be reading Suetonius and wondered if Wikipedia had an article on a very minor incident he mentions... --Gwern (contribs) 19:21 30 October 2010 (GMT)

1. Yes. I haven't changed it as much as this, because it's quite important to the correct context that the reader understands unambiguously that these people not only wrote after the events but were born after the events themselves took place. I've had a go at rewording it slightly to fix any awkward flow.
2. The reason is mainly "cite once at length in original and English, then further cites (including in other languages) show only those parts relevant". Probably one of those decisions that can be done a number of ways, see what others feel. One option is to do the first like the second and just translate the actual expression. I've provisionally done that now - is it any better?
3. The problem with the modern usage is that there is actually almost nothing else you can say about it, except to note it is pervasively used and evidence that. The only comment one can make on it seems to be the comments that have been made, namely that it is a pervasive image held of Roman times. The previous sections document that and the standing section shows and sources the degree of pervasiveness; as an encyclopedia that's really what needs coverage. A screenshot could be added to make that section more interesting but the text itself can't really be embellished – there doesn't seem to be a mainstream discussion or commentary on modern usage beyond that noted. I think the introduction makes it interesting enough that someone motivated to look up the phrase will find the article enlightening. (Surely they look up the phrase to find what it means and where it comes from!)

Thank you for the comments, more thoughts on this article equally warmly appreciated FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Current ref 3 has a bare numbered link in it, per the MOS it should be formatted with a link title.
  • Current ref 5 - can we get this formatted into something like "Grant, Michael (1979). "Introduction". The Twelve Caesars. (give publisher here). p. (give page number here). to match the other citations?
  • You should give publisher, year of publication, etc for information from books, even when you've given a Google books link.
  • Current ref 11 should have a source for the information. You may want to break your explanatory references out using the {{#tag:ref|(information)<ref>|group=(Name for the explanatory footnotes section)}} system of marking them. See Wilfrid or Hemming's Cartulary for examples in action.
  • Current ref 39 should give publisher and last access date at the least.
  • Current refs 40 and 41 need citations showing this is tied to the phrase.
  • In general, citation formatting and the quality of the sourcing is quite high for FAC candidates. You may have an issue with the number of primary sources that you're using - i.e. from the Roman period, without having much secondary commentary on the phrase itself.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Dan Bain

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it passed GA a few months ago and I think it could go for FA, I just need to know what to expand and improve on before I do that. Any advice is appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

After taking a quick read:

1. He was an all-around athlete, competing in ice hockey, roller skating, gymnastics, figure skating, golf and shooting, among others. Sounds kind of awkward; maybe "golf, shooting(,) and other sports"?
2. He won two Stanley Cup titles playing with the Winnipeg Victorias in 1896 and 1901... kind of implies that he only played for them those two years.
3. Is "Vics" a standard nickname? Seems kind of casual.
4. I don't really understand what HMCS Chippawa is, which isn't really your fault. Is it a ship or an office or both or what? If it's a ship, you may want to use {{Ship|HMCS|Chippawa}}, which provides the semi-italics and wikifies it.

Good luck getting it to FA! –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 02:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Addressed everything here. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been searching, and struggling, to find any info on Bain's early personal history: family, ancestry, etc. Being an 19th century athlete, I wasn't expecting it to be easy. Unfortunately, the Calgary Public Library doesn't have much in the way of old Winnipeg newspapers. Have you had any luck finding info of this type, Kaiser? Resolute 14:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish it were that easy. I've spent some time on Google Archive Search, but information is rather limited on anything about hockey from that era, let alone the relative backwater of turn of the century Winnipeg. Hopefully something will turn up eventually. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting account that's broad in coverage, though I can't say whether it's comprehensive or not. Its weak link at the moment, I'd say, is the prose. I made a dozen or so small copyediting changes, and I have a list of suggestions for further improvement.

Infobox

• I'd recommend spelling out ON, CAN, and MB.

Lead

• "With the Winnipeg Victorias hockey team, whom he played for from 1894 until 1902, he won the Stanley Cup twice as champions of Canada." - Since the team won the cup rather than "he", I'd recast this. Suggestion: "The Winnipeg Victorias, for whom he played from 1894 through 1902, won the Stanley Cup twice during those years."

• "the last half of the 19th century" - Constructions like 19th century should be held together by a no-break code to keep them from separating on line-break on computer screens. WP:NBSP has details. Ditto for any similar constructions in the article.

• "He built the Mallard Lodge on the shores of Lake Winnipeg, a building that endures today as a research facility at the University of Manitoba." - Since Lake Winnipeg is not a building, I'd revise this sentence a bit. Suggestion: "He built the Mallard Lodge, a building that endures today as a research facility at the University of Manitoba, on the shores of Lake Winnipeg."

Sports career

• "by winning a three-mile race" - The distance should be given in metric units as well. I like to use the {{convert}} template for most conversions: 3-mile (5 km). I rounded to the nearest whole number. The "adj=on", which you can see in edit mode, adds the hyphen.

• "The team was greeted by a huge crowd at the Canadian Pacific Railway station when their Union Jack and hockey stick decorated train returned to Winnipeg... " - To avoid the awkwardness of so many adjectives in a row in front of "train", perhaps: "The team was greeted by a huge crowd at the Canadian Pacific Railway station when their train, decorated with a Union Jack and a hockey stick, returned to Winnipeg... ".

• "He scored four goals in three games in a 1900 challenge against the Montreal Shamrocks, but again lost the title." - This should be rewritten to avoid saying that Bain lost the title. The team lost the title.

• "the first time in Stanley Cup history that the winning goal was scored in extra time" - This should be an independent clause but lacks a main verb. It might be better to make it into a separate sentence. Suggestion: "This marked the first occasion in Stanley Cup history that the winning goal was scored in overtime."

• "lost the Cup to the Montreal AAA... " - Spell out as well as abbreviate on first use?

• "He won over a dozen titles, the last of which came at the age of 56, while he made appearances until the age of 70." - This glues two different ideas together in an awkward way. Suggestion: "He won more than a dozen titles, the last of which came at the age of 56, and he continued to make appearances until the age of 70."

• "made appearances" - What does this mean? It seems not to mean that he competed since the next sentence says he retired from competition in 1930. He would have been 56 in 1930, the year of his last title.

Personal life

• "Winnipeg and operated in numerous cities" - Should that be "operating" rather than "operated"?

• "He constructed the Mallard Lodge on land adjacent to the club as a personal retreat. He strictly enforced his privacy, even building a road to his lodge that he allowed no one else to use requiring members of the Portage Country Club to use a different route." - Suggestion: "He built the Mallard Lodge as a personal retreat on land adjacent to the club. He strictly enforced his privacy, even building a road to his lodge that he allowed no one else to use. Members of the Portage Country Club were required to take a different route."

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed the prose issues. So far as I know, Donald H. Bain Ltd no longer exists, but I am trying to verify that. Thanks for the review! Resolute 03:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Malaysia

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because when I nominated it for GA earlier it failed, and i'd like to get outside comments on it before submitting it again. I hope eventually to get it to a WP:FAC.

This article has undergone a couple of peer reviews and failed feature article candidates over the years, and I've tried to go through them all and fix the issues. I think the most likely issue would be copyediting, that was a point raised in the recent GA request. Obviously this could always improve, and if an editor sees a specific area they feel could be improved greatly by copyediting pointing that out would be much appreciated. If any editors know much about picture requirements, if they could zip through the pictures and check them out, that would be appreciated to.

Thanks in advance to any responses, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wooo! I'm in Malaysia right now! I'll take a look at the article soon. 219.95.180.34 (Nightw) 11:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• One nitpicky thing: the redlinks in the references are annoying, and don't do anything. Consider removing them. Nightw 13:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, figured out how those work! Replaced a couple with actual bluelinks, got rid of rest. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do you know the reason for using the ASEAN map instead of the ordinary orthographic projection? Nightw 09:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose its a similar reason to EU countries showing themselves in a map of the EU, it's part of a greater body. Admittedly nowhere near as closely related. However, I would oppose using that orthographic projection at any rate. It isn't centred on Malaysia at all. It's the projection map of China which someone has simply recoloured. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Amakuru's comments

Hi Chipmunk. First of all, congratulations. The article seems well written and engaging and hopefully has an excellent chance of making it to FA. A few comments from my quick reading of the history section:

• I wonder if this section is slightly under referenced. For example, I can't see a citation for the sentence Between the 7th and the 13th century, much of Peninsular Malaysia was under the Srivijaya empire, which was centered in Palembang on the island of Sumatra. However, the article on the Srivijaya itself has plenty of references so perhaps this isn't an issue (and would in any case make finding a suitable reference for this article not difficult).
• The first colonial claim occurred in 1511, when Malacca was conquered by Portugal, who established a colony there. - what happened to this colony? How long did it last? It does not seem to be mentioned again in the history.
• Singapore was occupied slightly after this. - you probably want to tie that into the previous sentence somehow. It looks slightly out of place at the moment, and also uses passive voice which is discouraged.
• During World War II the Japanese army invaded and subsequently occupied Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore for over 3 years - is there any more to be said about this? What were conditions like in the country during this time?
• The proposed date for the formation of Malaysia was 31 August 1963, to coincide with the independence day of Malaya and the British giving self-rule to Sarawak and Sabah. However, the date was delayed until 16 September 1963, due to opposition from the Indonesian government led by Sukarno and attempts by the Sarawak United People's Party to delay the formation of Malaysia. - this might be a little bit too much detail; you could just say the country became independent on this date.
• After the 13 May race riots of 1969, the controversial New Economic Policy—intended to increase proportionally the share of the economic "pie" of the bumiputras ("sons of the earth", which includes the majority Malays, and sometimes, but not always, the indigenous population) as compared to other ethnic groups—was launched by Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak. - this sentence seems a bit long, and possibly contains too many subsentences.
• economic growth from the 1980s, a 1985-86 property market depression,[43] and returned to growth through to the mid-1990s - "from the 1980s" suggests that the whole of the 1980s and beyond were growth. However, the 1985-86 property depression seems to contradict that. Perhaps "during the early 1980s"?
• I suspect that the prose may also need refining and tightening in places, but unfortunately that's not really my area of expertise so I'll let others comment on that.

Overall, very good though. I'll try to look at the other sections if I have a chance, but off on holiday tomorrow so may not be back to it for a few weeks. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ta, I've tried to cover everything, so far I've edited for everything except the WWII situation. Trying to think of how to summarize. If you see something that needs citing somewhere, feel free to slap on it! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

---

List of airports in the Philippines

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Wow...it's been a while since I last sent anything for a PR! :P

But anyway, I would like to send the article List of airports in the Philippines for peer review. It appears that it is in a fairly advanced stage of list development, and having worked on this list for years alongside other editors, I think this can make for a fine featured list if the opportunity warrants it. Responses will very much be appreciated, and thanks in advance to everyone for the suggestions. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The list contains a lot of valuable and interesting information, but it will need a lot of work before it is ready for FLC. Below is a list of suggestions for improvement. I would suggest working on the sourcing issues first and then tackling the many Manual of Style issues.

• The dab-checker tool at the top of this review page finds one link (Sulu) that goes to a disambiguation page rather than its intended target.

• Per WP:MOSBOLD, I would recommend removing the double bolding of "airport" and "Philippines" from the first sentence of the lead. Also, "Airport" is too common to need a link.

• Featured lists have moved away from starting with the formulaic "This is a list", and the words of the article title don't have to be exactly repeated if those words force the "this is a list" construction. Instead, you might use something like this: "Airports in the Philippines fall into three classes defined by the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP), or they are unclassified."

• I'd expand the lead to include a summary of what the lists include. For example, it would be helpful to say how many airports are international, how many are "community", and so on. Perhaps the "Classification" systems should be briefly mentioned here too since the lead is to be a summary of the whole article.

• Per WP:MOSBOLD, italics would be better for emphasis than bolding in the ATO and CAAP subsections and also in the tables, where the bolding causes double-bolding problems in the "Airport name" column.

• The "Classification" section is largely unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph (except the lead if the summarized material is already sourced in the main text), every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every claim that is apt to be questioned.

• When did the change from the ATO system to the CAAP system occur? The text says, "The change was made pursuant to the Philippine Transport Strategic Study and the 1992 Civil Aviation Master Plan." This sounds a little like government-speak and includes the indefinite "pursuant to". Sometimes plans are announced many years before they are carried out.

• The em dashes in this section should be unspaced.

• Abbreviations such as IACO, ITAI should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use.

• "are assigned RPL- and RPU- codes; those in the Visayas, Masbate and Palawan (except for Cuyo), RPV- and RPS-; and those in Mindanao, RPM- and RPN-." - I don't know if these can be spelled out, but they should at least be explained in a general way. What are they for? What do they mean?

• "Airports whose ICAO codes are in italic may be obsolete as they do not fit the current scheme." - None appears in italics.

• What is the meaning of the slashed-out abbreviations in the ICAO column?

• What are the reliable sources for the coordinates? If one source supports all the coordinates in any particular table, you could add an inline citation immediately after the "Coordinates" head at the top of the column. Ditto for the information in the other columns.

• The general references listed at the bottom aren't sufficient to meet WP:V. You need inline citations that support specific individual claims or groups of claims. They would generally resemble the form of Footnote 1. It would then make sense, I think, to merge the "Footnotes" and "References" under one head, "References".

• Footnote 1 is complete, but the other footnotes are not. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of those are known or can be found.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

---

List of current sovereign monarchs

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Just looking for some comments regarding where and how other editors feel I can make further improvements to the list. A previous submission is archived here. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Nightw 14:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and useful list, and I enjoyed reading it. Here are suggestions for further improvement.

• "Current", "now", "today", and similar words are often troublesome because indefinite. Would it be better to rename the article "List of sovereign monarchs"? One advantage of the shorter title is that it makes no claim to be always up-to-date. Each time a monarch dies or otherwise leaves office, the list is bound to be out-of-date for at least a little while. During that time, the longer title will contain a false claim. Ditto for the "current" in the first sentence of the lead.
• The dab checker at the top of this review page finds three links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

• The Manual of Style advises against repeating the main words of the article title in the section heads. Instead of repeating "monarchs" in each of the heads, I think you'd be better off with "African", "American", and so on, to avoid redundancy.

• Lists have been moving away lately from the formulaic opening, "This is a list... ". Something else might be more appealing. The exact words of the article title don't necessarily have to be completely repeated and bolded in the first sentence. See List of Governors of New Jersey, for example.

• I see overlinking in the lead. Common words and phrases like "head of state", "birth", "authority", "inherits", "life", and "otherwise incapable" should not be linked since most readers of English already know what they mean.

• Since the tables are static rather than sortable, there's no point in linking something like "Queen" more than once.

• On the other hand, I think it would be worthwhile to link polity (in the lead) and primogeniture (in note 4), which many readers may not know. Oh, I see the latter is linked in note 20. The link should be moved up to the first instance.

• The snippet view of citation 3 is of little use since page 6 is not included in the snippet. I would be omit the url and simply cite the book.

• WP:MOSBOLD advises against double bolding. I would not double-bold the country names. Lesotho, for example, is sufficient and doesn't need to be Lesotho.

• The background color in the country column seems to convey no information. I would consider deleting it.

• Would it be useful to explain in the lead or in a note the difference between a flag and a standard? What is the importance of the standards? How are they used and by whom? Does a blank in the "standard" column indicate that no standard exists for a particular country?

• I would not include anything in the "See also" section that has already been linked to in the main text, the notes, or the tables.

• Note 34: "While" is preferred to "whilst", which is archaic.

• Two really nitpicky things: (1) You don't need terminal periods at the end of notes consisting solely of a sentence fragment. (2) Even though the notes have internally consistent date formatting and the references have internally consistent date formatting, one set uses one system and one another. Since you use d-m-y (e.g., 30 April 1980) in the main text, the tables, and the notes, if this were my article, I'd change the ref dates to match.

• Would it be worth pointing out in the lead that South America is the only continent with no monarchs?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thank you, Finetooth, for your comments! I'm in the process now of looking into the issues you've identified. Thanks again! Nightw 11:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't get the first point at all. List of sovereign monarchs would not seem to exclude former monarchs. As far as being out-of-date for a little while, this just seems silly. It will be out of date for a couple of hours, at most, given how few monarchs there are in the world and how much stuff like that gets watched. I'll add that while I generally agree with most of the rest, especially on over-linking, I do think that head of state ought to be linked. john k (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you there, John. Most of Finetooth's suggestions were very helpful, however. Would you have any? Even small details. I'll probably take it to WP:FAC after this, so I'm trying to smooth out as many kinks as possible. Nightw 09:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with john k that my first suggestion is a bad one. I simply did not think of the category of former sovereign monarchs. Oops! :-) Finetooth (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Short comments by Chipmunkdavis

• Last sentence of lede seems fairly irrelevant to a list article. Perhaps move the last sentence linking to pretenders to the first paragraph, after you link to constituent monarchs.

• Fourth paragraph of lede has "for example, "king" and "queen", "prince" and "princess", "emperor" and "empress", etcetera" I don't think you need "etcetera" if you have "for example", but that may just be me.

• FAC might get your for sentences in the lede such as "These systems defy the model concept of a monarchy, but are commonly considered as such because they retain certain associative characteristics." which appear not to have a source and seem very OR (model concept). If these unsourced sentences are sourced by inline citations after following sentences, make sure that is known.

• The idea of your wikilinks is brilliant, but due to this don't overlink things like Elective monarchy, which for example you've linked to twice in the african section. You may not want to link to them at all in the continent lists, as you already link to it in the lede. This would ensure that only further information about the monarchies is found in the lists, not just general information about monarchy. If there's an article on the election process, that could be wikilinked from Elective!
  • Note Haven't gone through every single wikilink you have (though if I'm bored later...) but you've also linked to Constitutional Monarchy in places like Bhutan, Absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia, etc. This is confusing due to some such as Thailand having the same word linked, but it goes to information directly about the thai monarchy, instead of in general. I'm convinced it would be better to just make sure everything is linked in the lede, leaving the lists for specific articles.
  • Note2 Perhaps if you do remove all generic wikilinks, explain in the lede that the linked words go to specific articles.

• Get rid of the List of Constituent Monarchs section. What is that doing there? You've already provided a link in the lede.

Especially due to the direct wikilinks, this is an excellent list. Good luck. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate! These was really helpful, I was able to make a few improvements to things I'd overlooked. No more duplicate links in the tables, which only link to specific articles now. Do you have any suggestions about the shading? I don't like it as it is, but I'm trying to think of a way to highlight the subject being listed (i.e., the people). I still think it's best to sort them by country, but I want readers to know what the main links are (without bolding them). Nightw 10:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Links still general:

• Mixed in Asian (although there is currently no mixed in the lede)
• Ef Officio after Andorra (again, no link currently in lede)

Additionally, kill the wikilinks that are redirects, such as most of the Commonwealth ones (Caribbean countries, PNG, Solomons) under Queen which redirect not to a list of Monarchs (like most other wikilinks) but to a description on the monarchy of the country, which you also link to under the Type.

Kuwait and Brunei, are they N/A for standards?

As for shading, the easiest way would be to just shift the grey from the countries to the monarchs name and title? The only problem with which may be looks. You could just remove the colour from the countries and leave it all white. If this is unwanted, perhaps just highlight the top cell of the monarch column (saying monarch) in a different colour? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks, I'll play around with it for a bit and see what looks good. I'm not sure how to deal with the Mixed and ex officio... I have to incorporate them into the lead somehow. A blank in the Royal standard column means that they exist, but Wikimedia doesn't have them on file. I should probably mention something about that somewhere. Thanks again! Nightw 10:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Three Laws of Robotics

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

Article was previously at FAR and demoted and I feel that significant work has been done to get it back up to a reasonable standard.

Prior to a GAN or FAN I feel a peer review could bring to light any problems before it is listed for GA or FA.

Also I realise that I have listed it as Language and Literature, but it easily falls into the categories of social sciences & society as well as engineering & technology. If there is a way to put those other cats in I am unaware so chose langlit as the "best fit".

Thanks, Chaosdruid (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is just a general observation that most of the article appears to be in-universe. It's a notable theoretical concept in robotics that has also been criticized, so it deserves to have most of the Asimov consistency check (was this canon? wasn't it?) removed, and replaced with more stuff about why the subject is important. Shii (tock) 00:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I was wondering if you could explain what you meant by "so it deserves to have most of the Asimov consistency check (was this canon? wasn't it?) removed" - I particularly did not understand the Asimov consistency check referred to, nor in what particular version of definition the canon was to be applied: representing a field or accepted as authentic?

THe THree Laws have been fairly long in coming to their present state of acceptance as the SF robotics ethics standard, but realistically that is all they are. This is why there is 20% to their founding through Asimovs early years, 60% dedicated to development after their initial inception and 20% to their use in media and in present & future technology.

I thought that the applications of The Three Laws are not accepted as any real laws to be used by the field of AI in reality, and more as a base for discussion, was explained in the article. The section Three_Laws_of_Robotics#Applications_to_future_technology has links to two "main" pages, Philosophy of artificial intelligence and Ethics of artificial intelligence, and a brief summary is in that section with examples of how the laws are looked on by two or three sectors, other SF writers and scientists. The section mainly deals with criticism of the laws actual application to technology, particularly the last paragraph: a quote by Woods.

I thought that the section was enough but welcome suggestions on how it might be added to. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I meant this: "2.1.1 First Law modified 2.1.2 Zeroth Law added 2.1.3 First Law derived differently by other Asimov Universe cultures 2.1.4 Removal of all Three Laws 2.1.5 Alternative definitions of "human"". I'm not entirely sure all this information is necessary, since Wikipedia is aimed at the general public and not Asimov fans solely. This is just my personal opinion and once this gets a full review you can hear someone else's opinion of how the article ought to look. Shii (tock) 06:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section "First law derived differently by..." - It was totally superfluous and unecessary as the information is better included in "First law modified". I have also changed "Alternative definition" to "Alternative perception" Chaosdruid (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Emmerson Boyce

This peer review discussion has been closed.
My first real attempt at trying to significantly improve an article. I've spent a lot of time expanding and finding references for the article, and I thought I'd get a second opinion on how to improve it further. Ideally I'd love to expand it further so it can become a good article candidate, but I feel that I've exhausted most of the sources that I could find. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

• "... but couldn't prevent the team from being relegated to the Championship."

  Contractions should not be in an encyclopaedia. Furthermore, this clause is casting a hint of bias by making it seems that this one man has the ability to prevent a team from being relegated. Case in point: football is more of a team game.

Done

Early life and career

• "... where he still holds athletics records."

  Five years from now would it hold? Ten? Twenty? Just the fact that he made records in the school will do.

Done

• "From the age of twelve, Boyce attended the Luton School of Excellence, and eventually became an apprentice at Luton Town."

  Unsourced

Fixed

Luton Town

• Last sentences of first paragraph are unsourced.

Done - new source added

• "Boyce was a key figure in the following season for Luton ..."

  How was he a "key figure"?

It's sourced at the end of the sentence. If that's not sufficient then I'll remove it. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• "... after only managing a draw against Charlton Athletic."

  Drop the inherent bias (with using "only" as an adjective) for a simpler neutral "... after drawing a match against Charlton Athletic."

Done

Crystal Palace

• "He was a key player ..."

  Again how was he a key player?

Done

• "With only 12 months remaining ..."

  Again "only" is redundant and problematic.

Fixed

• "Not wanting to lose him for nothing the following summer, ..."

  There are better and plainer ways to write this and link "free transfer"...

  Done

  The change to "Not wanting him to leave on a Bosman the following summer, ..." would be confusing to one who does not follow footie much... I suggest "Rather than letting Boyce leave for free at the end of his contract per the Bosman ruling, ..." Jappalang (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that reads much better! J Mo 101 (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Palace eventually accepted ..."

  "Eventually" is redundant.

Done

Wigan Athletic

• "... for a initial fee ..."

  "... for an initial fee ..."

Done

• "... but was often utilised as a centre back."

  "... but was often deployed as a centre back."

Done

• All last sentences in this section are unsourced.

Done

• "... three goals - the most ..."

  Why is a hyphen used here?

Fixed - was meant to be a dash.

International career

• "Boyce's Barbados-born parents made him eligible ..."

  His parents pushed him to join Barbados national team, or is the origin of his parents the key factor in his eligibility for the national team?

Done

Style of play

• "... often been described as ..."

  "Often" would not be simply attributed to two newspaper reports.

Done added some more sources. Hopefully this is satisfactory now.

Outside football

• What was the reason for a US organisation to choose him as an international ambassador? What were his thoughts about this role?

Done - expanded the section to give more details.

References

• Please follow the MoS; all-capital letters are not compliant.

Fixed

Image

• File:Emmerson Boyce - Wigan Athletic.jpg

  Copy violation: John Dobson placed his image under a non-commercial license.

  I didn't add the image, and I'm by no means an expert on this sort of thing, but doesn't the flickr source indicate that it can be used under the Creative Commons license? J Mo 101 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  The Creative Commons license at Flickr carries a non-commercial clause, which is anathema to Wikipedia's aim to be an encyclopaedia of "free" content (the meaning of "free" is for any purpose, even commercial). Note that the initial license at Flickr might have been changed since the author of that photograph had a compatible license for File:CHELSEA (2) v (1) wigan.jpg in the past (the photograph at Flickr now carries the non-commercial clause). Commons has a review process that validates the license; Wikipedia does not. As such, there is no way we can be confident that the source of File:Emmerson Boyce - Wigan Athletic.jpg was ever released without a non-commercial clause. Advice for those looking to upload appropriately licensed Flickr images, please upload to Commons. Jappalang (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem rather skimpy as a biography. Perhaps, a few years later that might be more sources to flesh out the man? Jappalang (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah hopefully more information will appear about him in due course. Thanks for your feedback! J Mo 101 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Issues with some of the sourcing used for the unsourced sections pointed out above. How is soccerbase.com supposed to vouch for his regular sitting on the substitute bench, and becoming a first team regular? Jappalang (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Put a more suitable reference next to the example you mentioned. I think everything else is sorted as well now unless I've missed something! J Mo 101 (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Oldelpaso

It isn't easy to write a comprehensive article on a player like Boyce. He's had a reasonable career at the top level but isn't the type who grabs headlines or catches the eye. Despite having seen him play in the flesh a number of times, I'd be stretched to tell you more about his style of play other than being a right back who can play elsewhere in defence at a pinch.

• Its worth mentioning the level he made his league debut and Palace debut at. For Palace this is in the lead, but all facts in the lead should appear in the body as well (WP:LEAD).
• Sources appear to be mainly the BBC and Sky. Nothing wrong with using them of course, but it suggests there may well be more out there. If you haven't already, it may be worth looking for freely available material on Google News Archive Search, going through chronologically. For example, I quickly found a short piece about him filling in at left-back while at Palace [10].
• Sections covering the latter half of his time at Luton and his time at Palace seem a little thin. User:Cliftonian is our resident Hatter, so it might be worth asking him if he has any suggestions.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

History of hip-hop dance

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I split it from hip-hop dance since that article was becoming too big and edited it a little so that it could stand on it's own. I would like feedback on the grammar in particular.

Thanks, Gbern3 (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments from Adabow

• You should probably leave a short paragraph in hip-hop dance to summarise the history
• I also think that you should renom this for GA, rather than simply rating it GA-class.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches
  • ??????... Definitely didn't copy and paste anything (except quotes). Example, please?
    • In response to your query on my talk page, please accept my apologies - I was not accusing you (or any editor who has contributed to this article) of plagiarism. I was trying to stress the importance of making sure that the article does not plagiarize or closely paraphrase any of the sources. The reason for the increased scrutiny in terms of possible copyvios is that there have been several high profile copyvio cases recently. The Halloween WP:TFA was pulled from the Main Page as it had plagiarism issues - see Talk:Grace Sherwood. Then a recent FA I was involved in was found to have a lot of close paraphrases and some statements not backed up by the references used - see Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet. After these incidents and others at DYK, I started adding a standard statement to all peer reviews I do - please see User:Ruhrfisch/PR. On this article, I checked one statement which had 4 refs. Two refs were print sources (which is fine, no problem with that) but the other two that were online were problematic. The ref either did not back up the statement (ref says many roots of breaking including James Brown's dance, but the article says it all started with James Brown's dance) or was broken. As noted, I also saw a ref to an NPR review of a documentary and wondered why the doc was not used a ref, and saw some refs that seemed like they might not be Reliable sources. All of this led me to put the sources review first in this review, and the statement you objected to first. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• I tried checking some refs - for example I tried to check this sentence The purest hip-hop dance style, breaking, began in the early 1970s as elaborations on how James Brown danced on TV to his song "Get on the Good Foot". which has four refs. Two are not online so I could not check them. One reason I wanted to check this is that it seemed odd that a whole style of dance could be traced to one event (James Brown's dance), so I looked at the online refs. Current ref 3 Physical Graffiti... The History of Hip Hop Dance mentions the James Brown song and dance, but also mentions several other sources (not just this one). Current ref 5 is supposed to be an NPR story, but instead links to ref 3 again. So of the two refs I could check, one does not really back up the sentence (it mentions lots of sources, not just this one) and one is broken / points to the wrong web page.
  • Fixed broken link. That ref (the formerly broken one) quotes Afrika Bambaataa directly "When you're dealing with the b-boys and b-girls, you can take it... straight back to the Godfather of Soul," says DJ Afrika Bambaataa... He says that the song "Get on the Good Foot" inspired crowds to imitate the singer's dance moves... "It was a big dance, everybody was doing the Good Foot, and you was playing all the James Brown records... and then you expand on it." There is also ref 8, the quote from Crazy Legs who cites James Brown, "Our immediate influence in b-boying was James Brown, point blank". This one came from a book I read so it's also not online, sorry. I know online sources are easier for you to check but I don't feel like the print sources should be disregarded for that statement because you can't see them on the Internet.
    • Thanks - I am fine with books and am glad this article uses them. I was not disregarding them, only saying what I could check in terms of refs. Based on what you said, I think that I would say something like "Afrika Bambaataa traces breaking back to imitations of James Brown's dance moves to his song "Get on the Good Foot" ..." and cite it to the fixed ref, then quote or prarphrase the other refs that differ on the sources (the one I could check, the books if different). Current ref 8 is only about toprock and uprock that I can see. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It's the reference located in the quote box for Crazy Legs. It's now ref 6; the number probably changed after I edited the article.
• The only other NPR ref is also potentially problematic - Edwards, Bob (April 25, 2003). "Profile: Rerelease of the classic hip-hop documentary "Style Wars"". Morning Edition (NPR). Presumably it discusses what is in the documentary, but I would think that the doc itself should be used as a source here.
  • Agreed, the documentary would be a better source but I have not seen the documentary. I only read the NPR article at the library which discusses both it (the doc) and breaking.
• Please make sure that all refs are formatted consistently - for example why are author names sometimes last name first, and other times first name followed by last name? Or why isn't The New York Times italicized? Or why do two refs to IMDb.com also list Amazon.com as sources?
  • Fixed author names. Note: in the {{cite web}} template there's a parameter for work (the website which is in italics) and for publisher (who published the website, not italicized). IMDb.com is the website I got the information from; however, Amazon.com owns IMDb.com. I took out Amazon.com anyway to avoid confusion. This is probably better because I don't know if IMDb.com's information is hosted on Amazon's servers.
• I would also make sure that the sources used meet WP:RS - for example, what makes RapBasement.com a reliable source?
  • RapBasement.com is an online hip-hop magazine. It 2007, it won a VH1 Hip Hop Honors Award for "Best Hip Hop Lifestyle Site". Click here for a screenshot of the webpage.
• Since this was split off from the Hip-hop dance article, I agree that a short summary should be left in that article, with a link to this article. Please see WP:Summary Style
  • Already integrated in the Main Styles sections of the hip-hop dance article.
• The first sentence of the lead makes it sound like the history only took place in the 1970s, The history of hip-hop dance encompasses the people and events in the 1970s that contributed to the development of the early hip-hop dance styles of uprock, breaking, locking, popping, and electric boogaloo. changing "in the 1970s" to "since the 1970s" would make it clearer that the history is ongoing
  • Changed. Great observation.
• The caption of the lead image should say where Union Square is located
  • Changed.
• I would watch WP:OVERLINKing - United States really does not need to be linked in the lead. Also watch underlinking - Soul Train should be linked in the lead.
  • ? Not sure how to determine which terms are over/underlinked but I did change the examples you gave.
• I know this is showing my age, but I would at least mention that breaking was sometimes known as "break dancing"
  • Done.
• Needs a ref These new dance moves came about with the formation of crews—groups of street dancers who get together and create dance routines. Crews are comparable to a dance company but informal. As crews are formed by a group of friends, relationships within a crew are familial. Members are not apart of a union, nor are there a series of auditions. Unless the crew is well-established there usually is not a studio to practice in either: rehearsal generally happens in homes and on the street.
  • Don't know how I missed that one. Fixed.
• Bob Edwards reviewing a documentary is the only basis for this extraordinary claim?? Rock Steady Crew (RSC) is the most famous breaking crew in the world.[11] Also the RSC article here on Wikipedia gives a different year for its founding.
  • Removed sentence. The RSC article on Wikipedia does not give a source for 1979. Ref 17 and Crazy Legs' official website both say 1977.
• The naming debates sections are both pretty short and seem as if they could be merged into the history.
  • Merged sections together, see next comment.
• I owuld also make sure that the events and people listed in the timeline are also mentioned in History. So the Jackson 5 are only in the timeline, not in the rest of the article
  • That's a lot to pack into the history section. History is already pretty long. Adding the naming debates section + geographically separated isolated dance events with the Jackson 5, Thomas Hergenröther, Ruza Blue, Michael Jackson, Flashdance, breaking for the Queen of England, breaking in Harajuku, Beat Street, Tony Go Go, Battle of the Year, etc. would create disarray. I don't know how I could integrate the information from the timeline into the history section and still have the article flow seamlessly. That's actually why I created the timeline. For example, Rize and UEL's degree program are the only events in the timeline for hip-hop dance history in the 2000s. Aside from the overall hip-hop dance theme, these events aren't related to each other at all. One is a movie, the other is a degree program. The movie was made in the projects in L.A., the degree is only offered in London. I don't know how I could make information like this be cohesive in paragraph form with the rest of what's already in the history section.
    • My point is just that it seems inconsistent to have the Jackson 5 in the Timeline (which is presumbly a list of the most important events, or else why are they included there?), but then not to mention them in the applicable subsection of History. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Moved Jackson 5 event from the timeline to the history section.
• Grammar and language seem OK to me
  • Great! Thank you for your review.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Klang (Stockhausen)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it may be nearly ready for nomination for Good Article or Featured Article, but would like some feedback.

Thanks, Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I know a little about music but nothing about Stockhausen. My comments are limited mainly to issues of style and layout. The article is broad in coverage, but it needs more work to prepare for GAN.

Lead

• The lead is to be an inviting summary of the entire article. If you can imagine a reader who can only read the lead and nothing else, you can see why the existing lead is too skimpy. It includes virtually no information about the nature of the work or its component parts. A good rule of thumb for writing leads is to include at least a mention of the main ideas in the main text sections and not to include material that is undeveloped in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.

• Linking directly to an external site from within the text is a Wikipedia no-no. If you want to link to MusikTriennale Köln, one way would be to create an inline citation to replace the direct link.

• "The twenty-one completed pieces... " - Numbers bigger than nine are usually written as digits unless they start a sentence. I would use 21 here instead of twenty-one.

• Shouldn't the citation to Gimpel 2010 include a page number? It may be that I just don't understand, but the Gimpel listing in the "Sources" section says, "Gimpel, Othmar (ed.). 2010. Karlheinz Stockhausen, KLANG, 8. und. 9. Mai. Cologne: MusikTriennale Köln". This appears to be a book. Does it have an ISBN number? Does it have individual chapters or essays written by someone other than Gimpel?

• Would it be helpful to include the pronunciation of Klang?

Images

• An image caption consisting solely of a sentence fragment doesn't take a terminal period.

Heads and subheads

• Would it be better to simplify the "Hour" heads by using an overall head, "Hour", and making the individual hour sections into subsections of "Hour"; i.e., "First", "Second", "Third", and so on? That would eliminate 20 repetitions of "Hour" The few subsections of the "Hour" subsections might become sub-subsections.

History and character

• "several possibilities for the title: Day, Nacht und Tag (Night and Day)" - Is the first "Day" a typo?

• "the INNER EAR, for the divine Klang, the mystic sound of the beyond with the voice of the conscience, in German: die Stimme des Gewissens" (Stockhausen 2006a, 10)" - Is this an exact transcription? I ask because of the all-caps for INNER EAR and the bolding on Stimme and Gewissens. Those typographical effects should not be added by Wikipedia if they are not in the original.

Extramusical aspects

• The two blockquotes should probably be ordinary quotations embedded in the text. Is the bolding part of the original?

• Rather than introducing the hour sections with "The individual pieces are:", would it be better to delete this sentence? I don't think readers would be confused if the sentence were not there.

First hour

• "Himmelfahrt (Ascension), for organ or synthesizer, soprano, and tenor. 2004–05 (36 mins.). Work number 81. The specified colour is deep violet-blue." - Although the article seems well-sourced, it's good practice to provide at least one source for every paragraph except, usually, the paragraphs in the lead. Most paragraphs in the article are sourced, but this one isn't. A claim like "the specified colour is deep violet-blue" must have come from a source. Which one? A similar situation arises with the "Katikati" subsection of the Fifth hour.

• I would make the lead statements, such as the one beginning with "Premiered at", in this and other sections below into complete sentences.

• "in a chromatic time scale, and the organ/synthesizer part requires 24 corresponding registrations/timbres... " - It's generally better to replace the front slash with "or" or "and", or in some cases a hyphen, whichever is appropriate.

• The direct link at the end of the section should be removed.

Short paragraphs and sections

• Extremely short paragraphs such as those in "Eleventh hour" and "Twelfth hour" would be better if merged. It might also be useful to think of combining extremely short sections like these two into a single section with a head like "Eleventh and 12th".

Thirteenth hour

• I would not use so many direct quotations. Would they not be better paraphrased and merged?

Centered offsets

• Six long quotations set off in centered texts may be about five too many. I think it might be a useful device for the sake of variety or to call special attention to something, but it seems overused here. Other possibilities are to use pull quotes (with box) at the side for one or more of these or simply to include them as normal quotations embedded in the text. You can see an example of a quote box in Columbia River#Dams: harnessing the river.

Other

• Is "First Hour" correct, or is "first hour" correct?

• Is Klang correct, or is "KLANG" correct? How about "Cosmic Pulses" and "COSMIC PULSES"? My point is that the titles appear in more than one form in the article. Should they be consistent throughout, or is there a good reason that they differ?

• The dab-finder tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one link, Teatro Rossini, that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

• The link-checker tool shows Oxfordmusiconline.com as "forbidden". You should probably add (subscription required) to the "Sources" entry.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Finetooth. Most of your suggestions have been implemented. To answer the seven open questions: (1) the source Gimpel 2010 is unpaginated, and contains no signed material; I have annotated its listing to clarify this point. (2) I don't think an overall heading of "Hours" with subheads "First", "Second", etc. would be an improvement; I have instead added the titles of the individual pieces to the headers. (3) Regarding "'several possibilities for the title: Day, Nacht und Tag (Night and Day)' - Is the first 'Day' a typo?" No, this is exactly as in the source. The composer considered the English title "Day", the German title "Nacht und Tag", etc. (4) All "typographical effects" are exactly as in the source. It is improper to change anything in quoted material, except for exchanging single and double quotation marks when nested within a quotation. (5) "Pull quotes" are inappropriate for block quotations (see the instructions for the "Cquote" template). Quote boxes are new to me, and look interesting, but seem inappropriate if the text then requires an inserted "see box at the left". (6) "First Hour" is correct, because it is a subtitle within the cycle. That is why it always appears capitalized. (7) The different formats for Klang/KLANG and Cosmic Pulses/COSMIC PULSES has to do with quoted material, which may not change anything except for exchanging single and double quotation marks, etc. The composer's publishing-house style presents titles of his works in full caps, so that material quoted from those sources has them that way; otherwise they are treated according to Wikipedia:Manual of style (music). Thanks once again, and I will certainly return the favour as you suggest, by reviewing another article in this review list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley At first read-through these three typos jumped out at me:

• "et in terra pax in hominibus" – just "pax hominibus" – no "in"
• "a stentorous trumpet" – a conflation of stertortious and stentorian? I think you mean the latter
• "bassett horn" – only one "t" according to the OED

More pernickety spelling points: the article is mostly written in UK English, but I have spotted "catalog", "spatialized", "counselors" (though you may class that as part of a quotation), "centermost" and "analyze". Contrariwise, if the spelling is intended to be American, there are the English "colour", "panelled", "sulphur", "analysing" and "realisation."

I'll read through again and come back with any more comments shortly. I shall enjoy the task - there's a lot a good stuff in this article. Tim riley (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Final pernickerty comments:

• "Ensemble recherche" or "Recherche"? Both appear.
• If (as above) this article is, as it seems, written in UK English, the Americanism "through" ("Mantra (1970) through completion"; "comprising hours six through eleven") strikes a jarring note.

More generally, this is a highly technical article. It is well presented; the layout and illustrations help the eye along. Nonetheless, readers will need a fair grasp of musical terms to understand all of it (not that I claim to do so completely). However, in my view, a reader who turns to this article is prima facie likely to be willing and able to cope with the technicalities. It is not a general "life and works" composer article and therefore can reasonably stray from lay language here and there. It is duly blue-linked for the hard words. I shall be interested to see if the assessors at GA/FA agree with me. It would be a pity to dumb-down such a scholarly article. – Tim riley (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim riley, for your kind words and sharp eyes! Corrections have now been entered. In the process, I discovered a few more Americanisms (as an American myself I find these easy to overlook), such as "English horn" instead of "cor anglais". Some of these stem from the style used by the Stockhausen-Verlag, which at base uses UK English, but with a few deviations (such as "English horn" instead of "cor anglais", and note-names as "quarter note", "eighth note", etc., instead of "crotchet", "quaver", etc.), mainly on grounds of comprehensibility in a context of English for non-native speakers, but also I think because they are closer to the German equivalents. This should not be transfered to Wikipedia, of course, except in direct quotations. "Counselors" (as you note), is an example, which is found in a quotation of the "official" translation of the text of Uversa. This could be a typo—I shall double check this against the source—or may reflect the spelling in The Urantia Book, which of course is an American publication. That book was responsible for a few other American spellings in this article on Klang though, again, they should be retained only in direct quotations. Thank you once again, and I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I find the title of this article confusing. I had never heard of Stockhausen before, so I had no idea what the article was about until I clicked through. Would this not be better titled something like "Klang (composition series)" or "Klang (compositions)" or something like that? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does not appear usual to so specify other composition cycles, such as Die schöne Müllerin, Winterreise, Der Ring des Nibelungen, or indeed Licht or Tierkreis by this same composer. The title is already sub-categorised with the composer's name (the usual procedure on Wikipedia when a musical work's title is not unique to that work), and an explanation of what it consists of occurs in the first sentence of the lede. The logical extension of this suggestion would be to retitle, e.g., Winterreise as "Winterreise (song cycle)", or more generally, String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn) as "String Quartets, Op. 76 (compositions)". If Klang happened to be a cycle of compositions to which several different composers contributed, this might be a different matter, but even the Genesis Suite is not so treated, and how many people who do not know Stockhausen's name would recognize Nathaniel Shilkret, Darius Milhaud, or Ernst Toch?.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, I must had too much wine in me or something, but from what I can tell none of those articles you linked to have the composer's name in the title of the article? Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not, apart from the String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn), of course. If you would like some more examples of work titles that require this kind of differentiation, you might try Symphony No. 8 (Piston) as opposed to Symphony No. 8 (Shostakovich), Symphony No. 8 (Beethoven), etc.; The Seasons (Cage), The Seasons (Haydn), The Seasons (Tchaikovsky), The Seasons (TVB Program); Stabat Mater, Stabat Mater (art), Stabat Mater (Szymanowski), Stabat Mater (Dvořák), Stabat Mater (Boccherini), etc.; Faust, Goethe's Faust, Faust (Spohr), Faust (1926 film), etc. There are indeed other ways of dealing with these, such as Faust (opera) (which will not lead you to Spohr's opera, but to Gounod's—and this seems to me less than totally helpful). It seems to me that the likelihood of someone looking for some musical composition titled Klang, without knowing that it was composed by Stockhausen, is extremely low, and a search for just plain Klang ought to lead (eventually) to a disambiguation page that will sort such things out. Klang (music), unfortunately, will simply add to the confusion. (That article obviously needs a hatnote.) Have another glass of wine.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that very last assumption. That's not how people find anything on the web. They will, if they do, come across this page by typing "klang" into Google. They may type another word to narrow the search, but I doubt that word would be the hard-to-spell "Stockhausen". I would much more likely be "music", "opera" or even "song". Try that right now, and you'll see the problem. I had no idea who Stockhausen was before reading this article, but I had heard of Klang. Had I gone looking, this article would have been buried in the search results. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I am very curious to know how you could have heard of Klang without at the same time hearing the name Stockhausen, since as far as I am aware all publicity concerning this cycle of compositions has been with reference first to the composer's name ("New Stockhausen Piece “Balance” Premiered in Cologne", "[http://www.anygivensound.com/ Klang: A Tribute to Karlheinz Stockhausen", "MusikTriennaleKöln: Karlheinz Stockhausen KLANG", "Stockhausen: more parts of Klang completed", etc.). I'll grant you, doing a Google search for "Klang" and "music" produces some amusing results ("Places for music near Klang, Selangor, Malaysia", "Carl Klang, Music Ministries", "Klang Music Centre Sdn Bhd", "Donnie Klang | Music Videos, News, Photos, Tour Dates, Ringtones ...", etc.), but I fail to see how this is supposed to help the browsing newbie find this particular information, without typing in the composer's name (which, BTW, is not at all difficult to spell—try finding Violin Concerto No. 1 (Szymanowski) sometime). It is also true that Google searches work very differently from article-title searches on Wikipedia, and while it is always worth considering what a Google search will turn up (i.e., what keywords should we be sure to include in the lede paragraph), it is more important to make sure a Wikipedia search is as transparent as possible. Have you checked Klang (music) yet? That one is already taken on Wikipedia, and already needs a hatnote to a disambiguation page, since there are eight other music articles that direct to the name Klang—this one and Klang (album), Kling Klang Studio, Klang Box, Klaus Klang, Donnie Klang, Kling Klang (band), and Der ferne Klang. No, it is clearer and clearer that the best way of listing this cycle is with the composer's name—which, BTW, is how it is done with all of the other works with ambiguous titles in the List of compositions by Karlheinz Stockhausen, namely Amour (Stockhausen), Gruppen (Stockhausen), Klavierstücke (Stockhausen), Kontakte (Stockhausen), Kontra-Punkte (Stockhausen), Mantra (Stockhausen), Mikrophonie (Stockhausen), Sirius (Stockhausen), Tierkreis (Stockhausen), Trans (Stockhausen). Are you going to argue that the reader would find Amour more easily on Wikipedia by searching for "Amour (cycle of five pieces)", or Kontra-Punkte by searching for "Kontra-Punkte (composition for ten instruments)", or Mantra by searching for "Mantra (ring-modulated pianos)"? Doing a Google search with these terms should work in any case, because these keywords all occur in the lede paragraph of the respective articles, just as "cycle of compositions", "chamber music", "solos", "duos", "trios", "septet", and "electronic composition" occur in the lede of the article here under discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My roommate was a music major at York, he played it. But I'll bow out here, it's clear my objection is not being shared by anyone else. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Played "it"? I'm sorry, but I really am curious to know which of the Klang pieces your roommate played, since they have only existed for between five and three years now, and so not many musicians have had the chance to learn them. Could it have been Natural Durations?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Shapley–Folkman lemma

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has an exceptional graphic (better than any publication, imho) and is well-documented (although the formatting could be improved for consistency). It describes applications with greater specificity and range than the 2nd edition of Starr's "New Palgrave" article ([4]).

It does not seem helpful to duplicate proofs from the literature, which tend to be short (for mathematicians) or long (for economists).

(This is the first article that I've nominated for peer-review.) Why two peer-reviews, mathematics PR and economics (social science) PR? The Shapley-Folkman lemma is a mathematical theorem that plays a central role in mathematical economics. Listing this article for two subjects is non-standard, and I apologize for not asking for guidance before hand. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Review by Paul M. Nguyen:

• Strengths
  • The article structure overall is very strong.
  • The lead section captures the topic well, though it could include a concise statement about Shapley and Folkman and at least the decade in which the lemma was developed. This addition would make the lead more comprehensive.
  • The article is well-referenced.
  • Appropriate images are not lacking.
  • Connectedness: other than the numerous (and appropriate) 'see also's and wikilinks, the article could use some navboxes like {{Geometry-footer}}, {{Economics}}, {{Microeconomics}}. See Category:Mathematics templates and Category:Economics templates.
• Weaknesses
  • Though the article is highly technical, more could be done to make the topic accessible to a non-technical audience without sacrificing the precision it presently contains. I recommend expanding the lead section to include a second paragraph that treats the applications in simpler terms, relating both the economics and mathematics to readers not experts in either field.
  • Mechanics of the article:
    • References should follow punctuation, not fall "inside", as is the case in numerous places.
    • The SFS abbreviation is introduced in the section on "Probability and measure theory" but the expanded form is used prior to that and the abbreviation is not used anywhere else. The abbreviation may be omitted or introduced at the first occurrence and used exclusively thereafter.
    • The statement of the lemma should be a blockquote rather than whitespace-delimited.

It was a pleasure looking at this one. I'd appreciate your input on GNOME's PR, if you're interested. Thanks! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Response by 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC): Thank you for the very helpful review.

I immediately incorporated some of your suggested improvements: Adding geometry and microeconomics footers and block-quoting the theorem. I plan to follow your suggestion on SFS abbreviation, and probably also to follow your suggestion about another lead paragraph (non-technical).

On the other hand, mid-sentence footnotes appear when each specifies a particular contribution, for example, in the sentence noting economic applications of the Shapley-Folkman theorem; combining such footnotes into the end section would impair their usefulness to the readers, imho. Nonetheless, I shall review the WP guidelines on footnotes, and seriously consider your suggestion for each footnote. No doubt, some of the in-sentence footnotes could be modified to follow punctuation.

Thank you for your help. I shall try to look at the GNOME article soon. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to follow your suggestions, I expanded the introduction and expanded the SFS abbreviation. Thus, only the footnotes remain unimproved despite your suggestions! Best regars, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated background material on convex sets and convex hulls. It would be preferable to develop graphics that are closer to Eppstein's illustration for the Shapley Folkman lemma, of course. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I included an illustration of Minkowski addition from the Italian Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Followup Review by Paul M. Nguyen: You're quick! A couple notes based on the revisions made since my review:

• Great job addressing connectedness.
• I was not clear enough in my comment about references. What I meant was that a reference should not fall between a word and punctuation that follows it (I suppose a dash would be an exception). Wrong example: fact^[12], next point.^[13] Correct: fact,^[12] next point.^[13] I did not notice any periods being "orphaned" by a reference, but there are several orphaned commas as in my example.
• Excellent work expanding the article. I think the convex geometry material helps.
  • The introductory sentence to the section, "Stating the Shapley–Folkman lemma requires some definitions and results." could be rephrased to be more active and declarative, like "The Shapley–Folkman lemma depends upon the following definitions and results from convex geometry."
  • The section title "Results from convex geometry" seems awkward to me. I think the article structure would be strengthened if the statement of the lemma and the requisite convex geometry definitions were to fall in the same == section, with the concepts upon which the statement of the lemma depends listed first. A more obvious (and more generic) title would need to be chosen for the top-level section, like "Definition" or even promote "Statement of the lemma" to encompass this information. The final subsection could then be titled simply "The lemma", following upon the convex geometry. I would, however, recommend keeping the theorem and Starr's corollary in a separate section, as they are presently.
• Lead section: wow! I think too much was added to the lead, though. For the present second paragraph, I recommend the following, which retains the added application-oriented context but condenses the middle as would be appropriate in a lead section:

The mathematicians Shapley and Folkman derived the Shapley–Folkman lemma to help the young economist, Ross M. Starr (1969), who was investigating the existence of economic equilibria when some consumer preferences need not be convex. Starr proved that a mathematical transformation that causes all preferences to be convex yields an economy that has general equilibria that are closely approximated by "quasi-equilbria" of the original economy. In Starr's corollary to the Shapley–Folkman theorem, Starr bounded the Euclidean distance between a Minkowski sum of nonconvex sets and the sum's convex hull; Starr's corollary is sometimes called the Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem.

–Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Paul. You were very helpful and gave miraculously quick feedback.

Thanks especially for the clarification about footnotes. (I was needlessly afraid that I would have to change WP policy to keep in-sentence footnotes.) I shall fix the remaining footnotes tomorrow, following your examples.

Your suggestion about the lead paragraph was very helpful, and I shall incorporate it (nearly verbatim, I now believe) tomorrow.

Have a great day/night, and thanks for your help!

Yours gratefully, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Paul, Thanks again for your help. I incorporated your paragraph (crediting you in the edit summary), but your contributions have been so substantial that I wish that you make some official edit, so that you are credited as a contributor to the article. I also changed the footnotes to conform with the WP suggestion that footnotes follow punctuation marks. Thus, I believe that I have followed all of your suggestions. (I also incorporated an illustration of convex hulls and combined the illustrations of convex versus nonconvex sets.) Thanks very much for your excellent suggestions, which far exceed what I'd expected from this processs. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I edited a couple things just now, but nothing crazy. Cheers! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the section/subsection(s) for the lemma and the preliminaries, trying to follow your suggestions. Thanks again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from RJHall

Comment from RJHall The very first sentence of the article seems ambiguous, so I am not quite able to grasp what it is trying to say:

...the Minkowski sum of many non-convex subsets of a finite-dimensional vector space is nearly convex.

Are you saying this applies to the net sum of a sufficiently large number of non-convex subsets, or it applies to many individual instances of the sums of non-convex pairs? What is meant by "many"? It is also vague about what is meant by "nearly convex". Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Shapley–Folkman lemma applies to the sum of N sets when N > D, the dimension of the sets; thus it would apply also to the sums of subsets of M sets when D < M ≤ N.

Providing a short informal summary of the theorem is difficult. I'll look at the Carathéodory's lemma on convex hulls for inspiration. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what Starr's lead says in the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics:

"The Shapley–Folkman theorem places an upper bound on the size of the non-convexities (loosely speaking, openings or holes) in a sum of non-convex sets in Euclidean N-dimensional space, RN. The bound is based on the size of non-convexities in the sets summed and the dimension of the space. When the number of sets in the sum is large, the bound is independent of the number of sets summed, depending rather on N, the dimension of the space. Hence the size of the non-convexity in the sum becomes small as a proportion of the number of sets summed; the non-convexity per summand goes to zero as the number of summands becomes large."

Starr's opening is more precise than ours. I'll paraphrase Starr's.Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated Starr's ideas in a revised first paragraph:

In geometry and in mathematical economics, the Shapley–Folkman lemma and the closely-related Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem suggest that the Minkowski sum of many non-convex subsets of a finite-dimensional vector space is nearly convex. The results of Shapley, Folkman, and Starr give an upper bound on the degree of non-convexity of the Minkowski sum of N non-convex sets. This bound on non-convexity depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the summand-sets; however, the bound does not depend on the number of summand–sets N, when D < N. Because the sumset's non–convexity is determined by the non-convexities of only D summand sets, the average non–convexity of the sumset decreases as the number of summands N increases; in fact, the average degree of non–convexity decreases to zero as N increases to infinity.

Thanks again, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC) 23:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The information is much clearer now. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ruslik0

I want point your attention to some contradictions in the first paragraph:

1. This bound on non-convexity is defined in terms of the Euclidean distance and it depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the summand-sets. I would say that the (upper) bound 'depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the D summand-sets'. The current phrasing means that the bound depends on non-convexities of all summand-sets.
2. The next sentence read Because the sumset's non–convexity is determined by the non-convexities of only D summand sets. I think the non-convexity itself depends on non-convexities of all summand sets as opposed to the upper bound.
3. I also noticed that you use either 'd' or 'D' for the vector space dimension. Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear and focused comments, Ruslik0. It's late and I shall have to review the article & finish replying tomorrow.

1. Suggested phrasing (in reply): "depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the collection of the sums of D summand–sets". Argument: The selection(s) of D (or fewer) convexified summands depends on the point; even pointwise, a SF-bipartition lacks uniqueness. (I did not wrote "all" but the mis-imputation of "all" should be much harder now.)
2. As noted previously, I updated the wording to emphasize "the collections of the sums of D summand sets".
3. Regarding the dimension d or D: I capitalized all occurences of the dimension as D (having previously tweaked David Eppstein's original i to n and capitalizing the upper index N).

Reviewing the article today, I added a reference to Puri & D. Ralescu's 1985 article, whose Shapley-Folman application empowers R. Cerf's article (already cited).

Thanks again for your very helpful comments and suggestions. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to address 1 and 2. Ruslik_Zero 16:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the unfinished business. I appreciate your effort, and thank you!

I am sorry if I misunderstand your intention, or wrote poorly. I thought that I had addressed your comments. I am sorry if I seem irritated now when I write --- my time is very limited.

1. Your suggested phrasing errs in using the definite article "the" in "the D sets". First, the SF lemma gives the existence of a pointwise representation in terms of D convexified summand sets and N-D original summand sets. There are many problems with points having multiple representations, so uniqueness fails even pointwise. When (on some problems) the point varies, then the representation must vary, and so one needs to consider the collection of the sums of D convex hulls of summands (and N-D original summand sets). (Continued) Again, the phrasing never inserted the universal quantifier "all", so your imputation of "all" is unwarranted; as I wrote before, I tweaked the sentence so that this mis-reading should be more difficult.
2. The SF lemma and SF theorem and SFS theorem state bounds. Unless you can find a reference discussing "degree of nonconvexity" as you suggest, your suggestions seems to follow under original research.

Reading my responses, I am very unsatisfied with my progress on clarifying things. I apologize for having left a brusk & probably unclear response, now. I shall try to review and edit my response tomorrow. Thanks again for your suggestions. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

---

List of awards and nominations received by Santana

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Please review this article; is it ready for FL? I'm not sure about the lead. thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Good research, but I don't think this is ready for FL yet. Work needs to be done in each of the following areas:-

• (General note) The list seems to have been prepared on the same template as other lists of artists' awards. As this format has been accepted for all the featured lists in this category it is I suppose OK, though it does not work well in this case. Of the 17 sublists, 12 have only one item; this makes for an unfortunately fractured presentation.
• You need, in each case, to explain who makes the award and what it is for. In most cases, no information at all is given (Amigo Awards, Billboard Music Video Awards, Blockbuster Entertainment Awards etc)
  •  Done
• Where you do give information, it should not state what is immediately evident from the table, e.g. "Santana has won two AMA" and "Just Feel Better" was awarded in 2007".
  •  reworded
• Lead: this seems rather short. It also has various prose issues:
  • Pronoun conflict: "It first came to public attention after their..."
    •  Done
  • Awkward repetition: "...followed in the next two years by successful follow-ups..."
    •  Done
  • More repetition: "The band has received numerous awards, including ten awards[1] and two nominations[2][3] for the Grammy Awards, three Latin Grammy Awards".
    •  Done
• References:
  • Some of these are lacking publisher information: 10, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23
    •  edited
  • Give the names of the website publishers, not the website name. For example, the publisher for ref 1 is The Recording Academy, for 2 and 3 it is Rock On The Net (is this a reliable encyclopedic source, by the way?), etc.
    •  reworded
  • Ref 5 does not have a title.
    •  Done

I hope these points are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

---

2009 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for the past month to try to get it to GA and ultimately FA status. I have looked at it long enough now and need a fresh set of eyes to go through it before nominating it. I know its a longer article, but any feedback (especially with the prose) will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Patriarca12 (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry this has taken me so long. I think this looks pretty good and will make some fairly nitpicky suggestions for improvement. I think it is pretty close to GA, but needs some more work before it would pass at FAC.

• Lead I think I might say they were undefeated and National Champions in the first paragraph of the lead - it is a pretty big deal, and details can be in the later paragraphs of the lead.
• I would add "The Tide" to the alternate names given in the lead
• MOS says to use numbers if greater than 10, so fix It was the Crimson Tide's 77th season as a member of the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and its eighteenth within the framework of the SEC Western Division. (i.e. 18th)
• I think I would add "coach" before Nick Saban in The team was led by Nick Saban...
• Is there any sort of free team picture that could be used in the infobox? I know there are some later in the article, but am not sure if any of those should be moved up.
• The article seems to use a fair number of verb + ing constructions - this would be a problem at WP:FAC as several reviewers there do not see this as the best prose. So for example In the BCS National Championship Game, the Crimson Tide defeated the Longhorns 37–21 in capturing their first ever BCS Championship. the phrase "in capturing" could be replaced with "to capture" or perhaps "and captured"
• I would at least link LSU in the lead (first mention) and would probably spell it out instead, so "Louisiana State University (LSU}"
• FAC requires proefessional quality English, but I think this needs a copyedit first (GAN is more tolerant of decent prose that is not brilliant). So The season marked the first time a player for Alabama won the Heisman Trophy. Mark Ingram won the award, edging out Stanford running back Toby Gerhart. Other award winners included Rolando McClain winning both the Butkus Award and the Jack Lambert Award and defensive coordinator Kirby Smart winning the Broyles Award as the nations top assistant coach. could be polished and tightened to something like this The season marked the first time an Alabama player won the Heisman Trophy, as running back (RB) Mark Ingram edged out Stanford RB Toby Gerhart. Linebacker Rolando McClain won both the Butkus and the Jack Lambert Awards, and defensive coordinator Kirby Smart won the Broyles Award as the nations top assistant coach. (avoided three verb + ing constructions here)
• Before the season is there any better name for this section? Background and preseason?
• Awkward sentence However, the Tide went on to lose their final two games to the Florida Gators 31–20 in the SEC Championship Game, and to the Utah Utes 31–17 in the 2009 Sugar Bowl to finish 12–2.[2] makes it sound like they played the Gators twice in the last two games. Could the word "postseason" be used here? Maybe something like However, the Tide went on to lose their final two games to end the seasons 12–2. They lost the SEC Championship Game against the Florida Gators (31–20), followed by the 2009 Sugar Bowl against the Utah Utes (31–17).[2] Not perfect, but maybe it helps ge the idea across
• I was confused by these sentences: Alabama reached No. 1 in both the AP and Coaches' Polls for the first time since the final polls in 1992 and during the regular season for the first time since 1980.[3][4] The Tide also reached No. 1 in the BCS rankings for the first time in school history.[4] I think it would help to give the week(s) they were ranked No. 1, and also to add what their end of season ranking was.
• I also notice the article uses both No. 1 and #1 - should probably pick one and be consistent
• Missing word? On June 11, 2009, the NCAA Committee on Infractions sanctioned Alabama for "major violations" stemming [from?] textbook-related abuses involving 16 of 19 sports, including football.[11][12] Also not sure what textbook related abuses are - can a note or link be added?
• Might want to note in Returning starters that two players were on both the Special teams and another (as 12 returned, but 14 are listed)
• I think all of the abbreviations (RB QB LB etc) in Recruiting class need to be defined first
• Schedule - it would help to say when the Sagarin and Cosgrove computer programs determined Alabama had the toughest schedule for the season - was it after the season ended? Before it began? See WP:PCR
• I think the MOS would refer to Coach Nick Saban as just "Saban" in the text, after his full name is introduced - the article seems to use "Nick Saban" every time.
• Captions are Ok to use the full name, but this could be tightened Head coach Nick Saban entered his third year as Bama's head coach for the 2009 season. or just "The 2009 season was head coach Nick Saban's third at Bama."
• Introduce team nicknmaes in the text - After defeating Clemson in the inaugural Chick-fil-A College Kickoff, Alabama announced in December 2008 they would return for the 2009 edition against the Virginia Tech Hoikies.[27]
• In the Hokies game "negating the lone scoring opportunity for either team in a third quarter" is used, when I believe "in the third quarter" is meant - the first would mean neither time scored in a third quarter this season, the latter that neither team scored in the third quarter of this game.
• I owuld make sure that some things only in the boxes or captions are also in the text. For example, Alabama started the season ranked #5, but this is not clearly in the text that I could see, just in the box for the Virginia Tech game and much later in the table of rankings. I do not think every game needs to say their rank, but surely thie first game, and each game where their rank changed from the previous week should mention the fact? I also see there is both a photo and sound clip of their visit to the WHite House, but no mention of this in the text.
• Overall I think this article has all the details needed, and sources look good for the most part (but see below please). I am guessing it would pass GAN with some cleanup required (never know what the reviewer might want fixed), but the language would be a problem at FAC. A copyedit would be very useful - see WP:GOCE for possible help.
• The little infoboxes for each game are uncited or at least it was not clear to me what the ref was for each. WHile it is not likely to be challenged that Brent Musberger did play by play, attendance figures and the like require a ref.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look the article over Ruhrfisch! I will take the time to address them over the next few days/weeks and look for a future copyedit to bring it more up to par. Very helpful comments! Thanks again! Patriarca12 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to see this as a featured article on the main page at some point. I believe a peer review is necessary before it can be nominated. Also, I would like to verify the definitiveness of the article I wrote.

Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V.
  • What makes the following reliable, high quality, sources?
    • http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.14.00/cover/manson-0050.html
    • http://www.nyrock.com/interviews/2000/mm3_int.htm
    • http://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/IS_ADULT_ENTERTAINMENT_KILLING_OUR_CHILDREN%3F_OR_IS_KILLING_OUR_CHILDREN_ENTERTAINING_ADULTS%3F
    • http://www.alternet.org/media/11052?page=2
    • http://scandalist.thefablife.com/2008-08-04/47-marilyn-manson/
    • http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/marilyn-manson-columbine-faq.htm
    • http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=46&releaseid=8615&magazinearticleid=122340
    • http://lyrics.wikia.com/Marilyn_Manson:Lamb_Of_God - Another concern here is that the words of the lyrics are almost certainly copyrighted, so linking to a site carrying them as a copyright violation shouldn't be done.
    • http://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Interview:1999/07_Revelations_of_an_Alien-Messiah also a concern with linking to a copyright violation
    • http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Music/2001/05/Manson-Interview.aspx
    • http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Music/2001/05/Marilyn-Manson-Will-Quote-The-Bible.aspx
  • Per the MOS, article titles should not be in all caps, even when the original is in all Caps.
  • Using an article that's on the MansonWiki, even if it was originally published in Rolling Stone, is going to be a problem, as how do you know that the item was correctly transcribed? Also, it may be a copyright violation on the MansonWiki, which we're not allowed to link to.
  • Magazine and newspaper titles should be in italics.
  • Current refs 15 and 16 lack all formatting.
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6n5Oi4714o - concern with reliability (the snippet could have been edited) as well as linking to a copyright violation

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am seeking the advice of more experienced editors on what else I can do to improve this article so that it will be successful when going through a review for FA class. The article was recently upgraded to GA class after a successful GA Review, which you can find here.

Please do note that I have done a search on the internet multiple times for sources and, as far as I know, the sources in the article are all that is available online. If you can offer other sources for inclusion, I would appreciate it. But please do not just ask in your review for more sources to be added, as I do not know where any more are to be found.

Thanks, Silverseren^C 01:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have found a few more sources:

• Daniel, Lillian. The Christian Century, 3/27/2002, Vol. 119 Issue 7, p36
• Hollander, Paul. Partisan Review, Winter2003, Vol. 70 Issue 1, p142
• Nelson, Kathleen. The Lancet, 8/10/2002, Vol. 360 Issue 9331, p496

If you would like me to forward you copies of these, send me an email. --maclean (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sadads

I am doing a really quick read right now and will do something more substantial at the end of the week. (I have the whole of next week off, so I should be really productive online.), Sadads (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Content section

• "Each chapter is an individual essay that was published by itself." I think I know what this means, but can you clarify what "published by itself" means. Were they published in journals? Were they all previously published before the publication? The wording doesn't seem very clear in general, Sadads (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think i've clarified this. Let me know if it's still confusing. Silverseren^C 05:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think a little more discussion of the structure of arguements in the content section, or a fuller understanding of why the conclusions which are in this section are in fact there would be useful. Remember, summaries of content don't need to be cited by outside sources, as long as it is free of interpretation of content, Sadads (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • For example I don't know what "All of these issues formed because the "intellectual foundation...makes a permanent underclass possible".[14]" that sentence means,especially in relationship to the three previous sentences, Sadads (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I reworded things a bit. Let me know if that's better. Silverseren^C 06:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment: Please do not use second and third levels on the review page, as they interfere with the transclusion. Fourth-level headings are fine. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Modern Family (season 1)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it can become a good article after a lot of editing

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Finetooth comments: Though I haven't seen the show, this sounds like a good series. To get the article up to GA, you'll need to improve the prose, attend to Manual of Style issues, and possibly beef up or combine some of the really short sections. You might be able to get some copyediting and proofing help from WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.

Lead

• "Comedy" and "television series" are probably too well-known to need links. On the other hand, since you link "Vietnamese", you should probably link "Columbian".

• "The show later received critical acclaim from most critics with many naming it the best new show of 2009 and was nominated for 14 Primetime Emmy Award the most nominations for a comedy series after Glee and was also nominated for 3 Writer Guild of America Awards winning 2 and won a Peabody Award." - Too complex. Suggestion: "The show later received critical acclaim from most critics, many of whom named it the best new show of 2009. It was nominated for 14 Primetime Emmy Awards, the most nominations for a comedy series after Glee. It also won a Peabody Award and two of the three Writer Guild of America Awards for which it was nominated."

Crew

• "Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan as show runner." - Shouldn't that be "show runners" since there are two of them?

• "Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan previously worked... " - This should be "Lloyd and Levitan" on second and subsequent uses.

Conception

• Again, "Lloyd and Levitan". No link since they are already linked only a few sentences earlier in the article.

• "about their family" - Maybe "families" since there are two?

• "Originally the camera crew would be run by a Dutch filmmaker named Geert Floortje who had lived with Jay's family as a teenage exchange student... " - Isn't Jay a fictitious character? Oh, I see. This "camera crew" is fictitious too. Better make it clear here that the fictitious Dutch crew differs from the real camera crew.

• "The creators pitched it to the four major networks except for Fox with CBS not ready for a big commitment, NBC already having two mockumentaries, The Office and Parks and Recreation, and ABC like CBS not ready for a commitment especially since they never had a single-camera show before, but eventually they picked it up." - Too complex. Rewrite for clarity. Avoid using "with" to tack on clauses; a terminal period after "Fox" would be a good way to start the rewrite. Then you could say, "CBS was not ready for a big commitment; NBC had... ".

Production

• The subsections in this section are awfully short, which give the article a choppy look and feel. I might suggest merging "Crew" with "Cast" and maybe renaming the section "Cast and crew". Perhaps "Concept" and "Writing" could be merged or expanded.

Writing

• "Although the show is scripted they are moments when the actors are allowed to improvise." - Needs a comma after "scripted", and "they" should be "there".

Reception

• "The season ranked 21st in the seasonal 18-49 demographic ratings with an average of 3.9 rating/10% share in the demographic." - Instead of the front slash, clarify what it means. Does it mean "and" or "or" or "equivalent to" or something else? Ditto for front slashes elsewhere in the article.

• "with an average of 9.48 million" - Constructions like 9.48 million" need a no-break code. WP:NBSP has details. Ditto for similar constructions in the article.

References

• Citations 42 through 65 lack access dates, and other citations are incomplete. Citation 24, for example, lacks the author's name, Matt Richenthal. A good rule of thumb for web citations is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if these are known or can be found.

• The date formatting in the reference section should be consistent. Some, like citation 26, use yyyy-mm-dd, while others, like citation 65, use m-d-y.

Other

• The tools at the top of this review page find no links to disambiguation pages, but the link-checker seems to be temporarily down. I see that citation 11 has a dead-link tag that will need to be addressed.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC) )

---

Ronald Skirth

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to resubmit it to FAC and would like to get any suggestions on improvements that would help it to pass as FA. (A previous FAC process is archived on the talk page, and I believe all objections from that have been addressed.)

Thanks, Dwab3 (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An intriguing article, that needs a bit more work.

• "...he made deliberate errors in targeting calculations to try to ensure the guns of his battery missed their aiming point." Perhaps I am naive, but...wouldn't the range simply be recalculated and the guns fired again? This point is reinforced later in the text, when we learn that he mistargeted the guns so that they "never once hit an inhabited target on the first attempt" (my emphasis

Y Have clarified this - it was on the first attempt, so that the enemy had fair warning to evacuate. Dwab3 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "On the same day he had an epiphany when he stumbled across the body of a dead German of about his own age..." Whose choice of phrase is "he had an epiphany"? If it is in the sources I suggest you put it in quotes, and attribute it.

It was originally in quotes and a previous reviewer (I think at GAN) suggested removing it - see talk page. I am happy to put it back in, but maybe should get consensus on this? Dwab3 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Skirth and a comrade "deserted their posts"? That is a capital offence in the face of the enemy. The phrase is also suggestive of cowardice. I would suggest a change to the less emotive "left their posts".

YGood point, thank you. Dwab3 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "He felt that the "just war" he had signed up for was anything but..." Why did he conclude that the war was unjust, rather than merely brutal? Does the source give any amplification?
• What reason is given for his declining the Military Medal though he accepted others?

Y Have given brief explanation of this. Dwab3 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Later Life" section: This deal with Skirth's life from 22 to 80, which can hardly describe as "later life". I suggest you find a more appropriate title. If the section is a summary account of Skirth's life, it is extremely thin - we learn almost nothing about him. Did he join or seek association with any pacifist groups? Was he religious, et. etc? Also, the section needs to mention the memoir, and perhaps indicate what caused him to write it, so many years after his experiences
• "After the war, Skirth returned to England to commence teacher training in September 1919, which he had signed up for before he had left to serve in the army." Needs better phrsaing. Suggest: "In September 1919 Skirth returned to England, to commence teacher training for which he had signed up before leaving to serve in the army."

YHave reworded as you suggest. Dwab3 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Who was it that labelled him "crank, visionary, communistic and impractical"?
• Character and beliefs section: rather than keeping this as a separate section, you might consider distributing the material to earlier parts of the article. It would help flesh out the War service and "Later life" sections.
• Thomas D'Oyly Snow was a general. Unless we are told that, the point of John Snow's anecdote is largely lost.

YThanks for this good point - have amended. Dwab3 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Critical reaction: the comments of critics should be paraphrased and summarised, perhaps with the odd quotation of key phrases. They must not be presented in verbatim blocks (copyvio issues).
• Ref 38 needs to be formatted
• Page range in refs 20 and 34 need dashes not hyphens. 34 needs to be pp. not p., and for consistency the range should be written as "352–353"

YHave corrected these.Dwab3 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Patriot link goes to a disambiguation page.

YThanks - have fixed this.Dwab3 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions help. As I am not watching peer reviews at the moment, please leave a message on my talkpage if you have any issues you wish to raise regarding this review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Linkin Park discography

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this one is close to be a featured list.

Thanks, Neo139 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is an interesting article, I do not think it is yet ready for FLC. Thanks for your work on it, and here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. The two most recent FL discography articles are Mariah Carey singles discography and Celine Dion singles discography and I would look at these carefully and compare this article to them.
• I do not think the current lead really follows WP:LEAD. For one things the first sentence does not meet the requirement there that The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. The subject is the discography of the group, not the history of the group. Looking at the two recent FL discographies, one starts with The singles discography of American recording artist Mariah Carey consists of sixty–one official singles, six promotional singles and eight other appearances. and the other with The singles discography of Canadian recording artist Celine Dion consists of 137 singles and 5 charity records.
• I think I would start this article with something more like The discography of the American rock band Linkin Park consists of four full-length studio albums, two live albums, ten extended plays, 20 singles, seven video albums, and 29 music videos.

Done

• Focus on the discography. I would only include history that directly affects the discography - so Xero is out as they seem not to have released anything under this name, but keep Hybrid Theory as they released an EP.

Done

• Not sure about the band members - I only looked until I found two discographies, but they were of singles and by individual artists. It would help to find recent FL discographies about bands / groups, and preferentially discographies that had all their output (not just singles or albums). Wilco discography is a FL by a group and may be a useful model.
• I realize there is a general reference here, but parts of this look under-referenced to me. What are the sources for the soundtracks or compilations, for example? I looked at the Allmusic article (the general ref) and did not see any sort of mention of these.

Done

• I would try to be as consistent on information provided as possible - why do some albums have WB catalog numbers and others do not, for example?

Done

• Given the new emphasis on making sure copyright is respected here, please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

---

FCC fines of The Howard Stern Show

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have listed this article for peer review because I would like some guidance on how to develop it to GA status. I think it is on the right track, but it does need some tweaking (grammar, quality prose, another suitable image maybe? etc.) to get there. I am horrible at writing leads, so I will consider looking at available volunteers, and willing editors, to help out. Also, could the article be rated in terms of current quality grade and importance? Or does the Wiki Project Radio do that?

Thanks, LowSelfEstidle (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Very brief comment: You need to make it clear in the first paragraph of the lead that the focus of this article is the fines paid by the show. The inclusion of the ambiguous words "fine history" does not of itself make it obvious what the article is about. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, no fines were paid by the show. They were paid by the owners of radio stations that carried the program (and were cited in the fine). I was not sure on any other titles. Thanks for the note :) LowSelfEstidle (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with the above comment, here are some more suggestions for improvement.

• The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD and needs to be revised. According to WP:LEAD The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. but fines are not even mentioned in the first sentence, and the current first sentence talks about Stern's Sirius XM show, which cannot be fined by the FCC by law.
• WP:LEAD also says The first paragraph should define the topic without being overly specific. but fines are not even mentioned in the first paragraph.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However Sirius XM is only mentioned in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• While refs in the lead are allowed, the lead should either be cited just like the rest of the article (everything cited) or (more commonly) as summary, does not need refs since these are repeated in the body of the article (except for direct quotations and extraordinary claims). The article currently cites one sentence and should either cite everything or just let the refs be in the text.
• The language is OK, but could use a copyedit to clean up some rough spots. For example the subject of this sentence The Communications Act of 1934 and First Amendment laws limited the agency's power to take further action, and thus employed a "hands-off" approach.[7] is the Act and laws, but the second clause seems to be about the agency and is thus unclear.
• Another problem in this sentence Stern and his show gained national recognition in the 1990s while on terrestrial radio, gaining a peak audience of 20 million listeners to as many as 60 markets across the United States and Canada. people listen to stations and live in radio markets, so it should either be "listeners in as many as 60 markets" or "listeners to as many as 60 stations"
• I think the article needs to distinguish between fines levied and fines paid better.
• It should also explain discrepancies - in the "Super Bowl XXXVIII aftermath (2004)" section it says On March 18, the FCC proposed a $27,500 fine to Viacom for sexual and scatological discussions from a Stern broadcast on WKRK in Detroit from July 26, 2001.[6] The fine was settled on November 23, when Viacom agreed to a payment of $3.5 million to the FCC, the largest settlement with federal regulators.[54] How do you go from $27,500 to $3.5 million??
• Is it also possible to explain why the same broadcast was fined in some markets, but not others? Seems odd.
• Internet references need date accessed added.
• This File:Howard 100 News Team, Winter 2005-2006.jpg image might be used at the end for the move to satellite radio. Not sure if there are images of the FCC commissioners, but might be worth checking.
• See also is generally for articles not already linked in this article - the Super Bowl Halftime controversey article is already linked in the body
• I also wonder if the title is the best - what if it were "History of FCC fines of the Howard Stern Show" or just "FCC fines of the Howard Stern Show"?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time in reviewing the article. Much appreciated! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

---