Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2013

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

La Luz del Mundo[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it up to GA article status after receiving constructive feedback from other editors. Note: I have listed the article at WP:COPYEDITORS to deal with copy editing.

Thanks, Ajax F¡oretalk 01:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American football[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been aiming to get this article to Featured article (FA) status, an achievement only accomplished at the baseball and association football articles. This article is a basic overview of the game, aimed at providing a basic understanding of both the game and aspects that accompany it. At the same time, the article comprehensively covers all required topics. I hope to see most issues cleared out here so that a potential featured article candidacy can run smoothly. Toa Nidhiki05 20:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorine[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Main objectives:

1. Footnote format: find issues and fix them. Whole article. Thanks for hands on help.

2. Review of the wikilinks: stem to stern first linking...prefer very low density of blue bumps, dabs, all that).

3. Standard: prose, content, expert review, non-expert, images, boxes/cats/templates. Since it is long, section reviews are fine. For prose glitches or formatting, just fix them please.

-TCO

  • Will have to be scarce during the week, please carry on.
All of you, people, who have taken your time or plan to do so to check this article, thank you very much.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • May need to be away some time with work and with a looming death in family. Please excuse any ignoring, if I'm scarce. Appreciate all the work so far and I see Wehwalt and Axl still working on topic. When complete, will close the review and thank all participants.208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki[edit]

  • File:Happy_Pan_Poster.jpg is pretty clearly not the uploader's own work - any idea of source or licensing?
    • Had similar concern. See [1]. Should I get CLindberg to do a registration search? Scrap it?
      • If you can find more info it'd be great, but if not you'll probably have to scrap it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • cut from article and nommed for deletion at commons.
  • What's a "crash program"?
    • [2]
      • An "[intense course of training or research] was making significant quantities of Teflon"? Not sure that makes sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's normal usage, but I reworded.
  • What are the page numbers supposed to be for Barrett 1967? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 740-743
  • What makes askthenerd and gdrc.org reliable?
    • Kill askthenerd. Here are substitutes, please. I think the first is best (since the point is trivial, a textbook is the clearest explanation): [3], [4], [5].
    • I can't find gdrc.org in article. Which link is it?
      • Currently FN195. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please kill gdrc.org and add pages 208-216 to the IPCC reference (it covers the content, just very long so I want page number specified).
  • There are a couple of {{cite doi}} awaiting automatic expansion, but with the deny-citationbot tag they're not going to be automatically expanded. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Help?  :( (I don't even like doi cruft.)

StringTheory11[edit]

  • Probably better to move the compounds section to between the characteristics and occurrences section.
    • Please no. That is is a structural review of the compounds. The general reader can understand the development fine and the "pill" of all that techie content at the front does more damage than help. I am fighting for making technical articles accessible. Chemistry of the Elements has the same structure to put the hard core chemistry at the back.
      • My thoughts were that it would make sense for compounds to come before applications, so that some of the compounds discussed there can be introduced. If you want to do it some other way, though, that's fine by me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Only way to know if your way works is to try it. Done.
  • I think there may be too many images, especially galleries. They, at least to me, disrupt the flow of the article, and we should cut back on some of them.
    • killed several images and galleries and shrank the pictures.
  • Any information on the production of non-natural fluorine compounds, not just fluorine gas?
    • I added a para on ECF/CoF3 with fluorocarbon industry and a sentence on fluoropolymer production.

More to come later. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LudicrousTripe[edit]

I live for tedious repetitive Wikipedia tasks! I will {{Harvnb}} the shit out of them!!! Cheers! LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I like the LDR aspect from the use of these shorter templates (less cruft in edit mode)71.127.137.171 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
aside from that, what are the advantages of this system? (I'm not criticizing, I wanna know)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure, though perhaps others know. Personally, I just like {{Harv}}ing the references because it looks wheel pritty and it's how it's done it t3h real-life books!!?!?!?!?!? Adieu! LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt[edit]

  • "A growing fraction of modern pharmaceuticals contain fluorine" Where is it supported in the body that the percentage is increasing? (I guess that is what "growing fraction" means) I see the use, I don't see the trend.
    • Trend was there before, but got trimmed for length. Let's rewrite lead to say "a large minority".
  • The definition of fluoride seems rather lost and isolated and I question its presence where it is within the lede. It strikes me it is better handled when the term is first used, perhaps as a parenthetical or clause.
    • OK, cut it. [I was pimping the subarticle (linked) and also trying to get an "easy" idea up into the top para...but no big attachment, guess it didn't work.]
  • The lede strikes me as rather jumbled. Is there a system you are using to decide what is in what order?--
    • The lead is very important to the reader and I sweated it, so your comments make me sad. But...that is why I wanted the thing murder boarded. The structure is (1) characteristics of the element itself (2) occurrence which segues into extraction and then history (3) industry and applications, (4) biological aspects. [A few aspects like hazards, environmental, as well as a touch of the structural compound review are added where they seem to fit...mostly within 3.] Please feel free to do a fundamental re-org. Only way to know if there is a better structure is to try it. (P.s. thank you)71.127.137.171 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hydrofluoric acid is a weak acid in terms of chemical strength, so "powerful" is a misnomer. HF is noteworthy for its corrosive nature (it eats through glass) as well as the poison danger from skin contact (I believe the 19th century injuries were actually mostly from working with HF). We could also just not bother describing HF's features in lead.
      • Dangerous was used twice in the lede, one seems to be the max. Pick your word. I did notice the way you've packed the lede with words that are strong, don't know if I like that or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cut both usages. Added poisonous (F2) closer to the front of lead.
          • I'm going to add a little more to the burn section to clarify the weakbutdangerous versus strongbutnotsodangerous, more. Doesn't help us that much in lead, but just given both you and Axl had this confusion, it is worthy to call it out. I think we had more of that, but I tightened the thing a lot a while ago and it got harder to grasp with less step by step explanations.
    • There was a chronological flow in the second para (formation within stars, deposition in the Earth, extraction and naming of the mineral, isolation of the pure element, and use of the pure element), that also matches the order in the article.

Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am starved for time and will look in in short amounts. Why do you want to say STP conditions for the appearance? I understand the significance of STP, but isn't that going to be a stopper for a lot of people? If it doesn't make it totally plebeian, what about room temperature? After all, it doesn't matter what room, if the person in it is still alive, the fluorine is a yellowish gas.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Violent agreement. Hate a techie term when a common one will work.71.127.137.171 (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any thoughts on the changes to the lede?
        • I like how you moved the basic description to the second sentence. Not crazy about the arrangement of second para (what is the rationale for order of the sentences?) I think you have to try different things and I have to stay away from it and let you play with it, though.
          • I felt there was cohesion in the arrangement I have. Start with the general (universe), move to the specific (Earth's crust) and then to the even more specific (mineral). Then we have a comparison with the element, which allows us to move back to discussing the element. Since fluorite was involved in the discovery (the stoppers and so forth), it's defensible. I feel it flows. If you don't agree, change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks good now, but I'm not totally following you (that's what I wanted, you had something different with history in front of occurrence)208.44.87.91 (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not a trained writer, and lack the terminology. I just rearranged your sentences until I found an arrangement that seemed to work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I saw your edit comment about the 99%. Difficult basically means expensive (not something that is not technically understood), but can also be thought of as difficult in terms of cautions, special materials, etc. Consider that PVC is routinely made from chlorine gas (a massive commodity), but PTFE is made from HF. Also, the sources tend to make a big point about how little fluorine is converted to the element.108.162.44.194 (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Possibly there's also no great demand for elemental fluorine in that form. Just commenting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll look in again as I have time, which may not be until after the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've ce d the first two sections, and will continue in that way, leaving hidden comments. If I feel there's something that would benefit from being brought here, I will.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alright, here's something. I think there is the need for the occasional brief lay explanation, perhaps saying something along the lines (where you discuss F adding an electron), that (suggestion) it readily combines with atoms of other elements. And where you discuss difluorine and its weak bond, make it clear (in your own language) that the fact that the bonds are so easily disrupted means that difluorine is not found naturally on Earth. Sorry if I make any chemical gaffes, I haven't really studied this stuff since high school (I passed the AP exam in chemistry and so did not take it in college).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've added the explanations and thanks for your edits.98.117.75.177 (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not a problem. I only wish I had more time for this, but I'll catch up with it sooner or later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, what is going on with "reference [12]"? Can't you think of something more useful to do with that space?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put a note at the template page. Can't edit it. I also want the length of the infobox reduced. For instance some of the icon graphics are duplicative, not worthy of a data table, and some of the info (crystal structures) not high value for a RT gas. I really don't control it (more the opposite).208.44.87.91 (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just below the Nobel citation, an image illustrates a "cell". I do not see that term used in the description of the discovery of F. I suggest you either use it in such a way that the reader knows what it is, before the reader encounters the image, or that you make an appropriate link for "cell".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " he was unable to release the gas although the weight had not changed." This isn't written entirely clearly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote a little more explication. Feel free to brush up, cut things, etc.208.44.87.91 (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks OK. I'm down to the end of noble gas, it's very sold.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, big guy. Watch out, one of the po-lice will accuse you of a Freudian.  ;-) 208.44.87.91 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small molecules
  • "However, the functional group is available for reactions or may make the molecule behave as a surfactant." It's Greek to me.
  • Explained this more. (BTW, what would you think of moving compounds to article end?)
Industry and applications
  • "extracting 4.5 million tons per year" You may need to clarify whether this is Imperial or metric units.
  • Specified and added back some content (the year was bugging me) and then changed the flow a little as it bugged me too.
Inorganic fluorides
  • In the making of aluminum, if most of the fluorides are recovered for reuse, I would say so.
  • I had, but now explained more.  :)
Refrigerant gases
  • I think you need to make it clearer to the reader which of these is what he thinks of as "Freon". For people who turn directly to this section
  • I added a little more, including a note and also went and redid the flow to be better. You are under a misconception that "Freon"=CFC, but it doesn't. Not just from a geeky thing of DuPont marketing some HFC substitutes as Freon but from people using the word colloquially (still) to refer to the refrigerants in common use (now HFCs and HCFCs).208.44.87.91 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read what I wrote. I am noting the misconception, not making it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
K.  :) 208.44.87.91 (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fluoride ions
  • Toothpaste. This begs for expansion with something like "though few cases require medical attention" or whatever it must say". Come on, human interest.
I'll add a couple epidemiology papers in there. I really don't want the nutters or the "fight the nutters" types in here. Or to open too many doors I can't close, but OK.208.44.87.91 (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's all I've got. It looks very good. I'll give it another read during the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man.208.44.87.91 (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak[edit]

I'll have a proper look when I get time, just a couple of things for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lipitor and Prozac— why are the commercial names preferred to generic?
    • I want to use the terms that mean the most to the reader. Similarly, I eschew parentheticals because the exec summary should be direct. The article body has the additional detail. Same applies for Teflon. -TCO
      • I've bent on this and gone with the parenthetical (say both) approach, given two people are put off. My concern is the readers, readers, readers. Think Wiki has a Caesar's wife fear of appearing commercial as well as a bit of faux academic stiffness. But the whole thing was no big deal and in any case, O acceded.
  • Fluorine's outer electrons are relatively separate from each other. Hence, they do not shield each other from the nucleus—I'm not convinced by this. The effective nuclear charge increases because there are more protons in the nucleus, but only the same number of inner, screening, shells. It's true that electrons in the same shell don't shield each other, but that misses the main point
    • I've rewritten this based on Wehwalt's comments to include more step by step explication.71.127.137.171 (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(thanks in advance)

  • decide whether to do conversions for masses. You have 23 kg (51 lb), but metric tonnes later are unconverted (I don't mind, just need consistency)
    • Can we discuss this? (All peeps)? I knew this was coming. The conversion of metric tons to short tons is 1.10 (to long is 0.98!). Given the inherent swaggish accuracy of the data (market estimates), I hate to clutter up the prose with a bunch of parenthetical numbers. Really hate slowing the reader with cruft. Anyhow, I could do some cheesy note to this effect at first usage of ton. Or I could just put the parens in. Or I could strip all conversions. And note the issue comes up with temperatures too. I sorta liked having them at the front for phase changes, but then really hate having to have them in the compounds section. Actually my inclination is to strip them all out. It's a science article, not geography or weather. I'm a red white and blue hunter killer and even I'm fine with metric in a chemistry article. I think I will just strip. You all need to back me up if someone gets unhappy they are gone.  ;-)71.127.137.171 (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stripped them all. If I missed one, fix pls.
  • Within Earth's crust, fluorine is the thirteenth most abundant— I'd put "the Earth and not hyphenate
    • Done
  • outside of temporary existence in stars—its, rather than of
    • Done
  • (described below Organic compounds section). —I don't like this. I'd put in a note, or at least put the section title in quotes
    • Note made. Yeah, I am sort of threading a needle (we have been back and forth on having CF4 in this section).
  • oxygen is at oxidation state +2) —perhaps formal oxidation state? We know it's not really ionic
    • Good. Done.
  • The discovery was touted—touted seem too informal
    • Reworded and made active voice.
  • Streptomyces cattleya—italics for binomial

Thanks. Keep the pass through going!  :-) 98.117.75.177 (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal[edit]

  • You should use some {{quote}} template for the Nobel citation. Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added one. If it can be made better, please help us, this techie stuff hard on me.
  • For the sake of structure, CF4 should be discussed/mentioned in the nonmetal fluorides section. Nergaal (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added something. (Please note, we've had it before and been asked to rip it out...starting to get on the merry go round. Please tweak the wording if you want.)

-Please carry on. Seeing you go through the thing and appreciate the front to back work.108.162.44.194 (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-The Barret 1967 paper covers the details of the violent phase transition (click DOI and see last sentence of abstract...is more in the paper itself). Ref was one sentence down (now duplicated) to both sentences. Need someone to fix the formatting glitch (fn numbering).

I removed it because it seems to be a case of TMI. Having a note there might work better and be less distracting to a casual reader.
OK. I put it in a note.
  • I am pretty sure that the bottom animation has the wrong caption. Nergaal (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a citation for the caption.

Hawkeye7[edit]

What a great article. Very impressive. I have read through the historical and industrial sections. My only quibble is with this bit:

Karl O. Christe discovered a purely chemical preparation of fluorine gas. However, he stated in his work that the basics were known 50 years before the actual reaction. The main idea is that some metal fluoride anions do not have a neutral counterpart (or those are very unstable) and their acidifying would result in chemical oxidation, rather than formation of the expected molecules. Christe lists the following reactions as a possible way:

There are two awkward bits here: "or those are very unstable" and "Christe lists the following reactions as a possible way". For the first I would suggest "or have ones that are very unstable" - the grammatical awkwardness being about "those". The second changes tense from past to future, and the use of "possible" makes it sound at first reading that he suggested rather than discovered it. I suggest something in the active like like "Christie's process was:"

But these are just quibbles. I think that it is really good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picked me up big time with the compliment. Aussie Aussie oi, oi. Made the changes, tweak more if needed.108.162.44.194 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber[edit]

  • Agree with using atorvastatin and fluoxetine in the article - the trade names are receding in popularity as generic versions multiply anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think current state of readers is what matters and many more recognize the 3 brand names than the generic names, but I met you halfway and went the parenthetical route.
  • This phase is transparent and soft with significant disorder of the molecules. - dunno what that means (but I can guess) - link or explain?
    • I assume disorder is your sticking point. We don't have a good blue link for this and I can't do an easy quick explanation. The way for me to really handle this is more slickly with a picture of the xtal structure. (perhaps a diptych of the two phases). Is a very nice nice diagram of the disordered cubic phase in one of the science papers (I think Pauling). Shows molecules rotating (better than the KCN diagram below from Wiki). I need some significant help in getting that diagram sketched (or an equivalent, not sure if a rights issue for us to just recreate it...as it is diagrammatic) as well as just copy of the article (I don't hold it any more). I have tried in the past but not gotten it done. Either people said it was too hard or Matsci gave it a try but I don't think he had the right paper for the diagram and his image really did not look good.
KCN disorder. The diagram I am thinking of for cubic F is even better as it shows diatomic molecules wobbling
Actually I thought that crystallographic disorder is a notion that many users will probably not know. I tried to find an appropriate wikilink but failed. I strongly suggest to have some sort of wikilink for those outside of chemistry (although I bet there are many organic chemists that will probably not know either). Nergaal (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone start a stub, then. We all think one is needed. I gave a reference to a review (in note). We can build a para long explanation pretty easily. could get lots of incoming links from articles like KCN.71.127.137.171 (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some folks willing to help with this (can't remember who now as I've not buffed chemical articles meself...) - need to think/jog memory...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added an explanatory footnote--if we got a diagram, Cas, not even sure if we would show it in this article. I had a centered table of alpha fluorine and the phase diagram earlier, but had cut THAT, based on desire for lower image/text ratio from another critic. If I had the picture would definitely use it in the spinout article, though. See here for an earlier attempt to get the diagram made. MatSci made an attempt for me too (see Commons), but he didn't do it right...it lacks the illustrative impact of the 1970 Pauling diagram.108.162.44.194 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link to diagram of beta-fluorine: [6]. 98.117.75.177 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cube with spherical shapes on the corners and spinning molecules in planes in faces and elsewhere
Solid fluorine's beta crystal structure: the corners are F2 molecules that are disordered by rotations to any angle; other locations have molecules that are disordered in planes.

Axl[edit]

  • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "In the universe, fluorine is rare, for a light element." Why not "for an element" rather than "for a light element"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it is not rare, for "an element", but only "for a light element". In general, light elements (say through iron) are more common than heavy elements in the universe because they are formed in normal nuclear fusion of burning stars rather than in rare nova explosions. See discussion in article body. If it's not good enough, than I can add some explanatory note or work on the text with a sentence or two of explanation: "In general, elements are more common the lighter they are...blabla..."71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument, but this depends on the meanings of "light" and "rare". You have now defined the "light" elements as through to iron. (I assume that "light" is an acceptable shorthand for "low atomic mass".) The table in "Origin and occurrence" shows that fluorine is indeed rarer than its neighbours on the periodic table. But at what level is an element classified as "rare" in general? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources make an observation of relative rarity, Axl. I didn't invent the observation. It's not some...digital threshold, but also a true, pertinent, commonly noted insight. Can check the sources in article (one is online) and here are more:

...This abundance is much less than those of its immediate neighbors...the interesting thing about fluorine is its extreme rarity compared to its neighbors

An Element Apart...For one thing its rare....It's like a shack stuck among mansions.

[Actually just rephrase it. Something is making you uncomfortable, so just change it. ;-)]

71.127.137.171 (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would rather that we reach an agreement, perhaps a compromise. How about "In the universe, fluorine is a relatively rare element... "? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. For one thing, it's a more direct construction. Lower in body, we can have the details of the caveat. (done)
I have simplified it even more in lead to just the ranking. In body I added some more explanation and a reference. Whole kerfuffle has been additive.71.127.137.171 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "The other half is converted to hydrogen fluoride, a dangerous acid which is the precursor to most synthetic fluorochemicals." Surely the "danger" depends on the concentration and on how it is handled? Perhaps "strong" rather than "dangerous"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is NOT a chemically "strong" acid. It is chemically "weak". But it is much more dangerous than the strong chemical acids. Please read the section on the burns. A British man had a small burn and had to have his leg cut off and then died anyway (even after taking immediate actions). A huge amount of 19th century chemists died or were poisoned or blinded (see note in history). I'm not over-egging the pudding. "Dangerous" is a simple one word descriptor for HF. By using it, I am able to have the lead summarize a subsection of the article. (Of course proper handling avoids injury, but that's a consequence of the danger, not a change to it.) It really is nasty stuff. I will slop around concentrated nitric, hydrochloric, sulfuric in a heartbeat. Think nothing of a jar of aqua regia in an open container by the sink that could get nocked over. But HF? Treat with respect.

I mean, it's not anthrax bacteria. You can use it...and it is used in industry and labs. I was in a lab group that used it a fair amount. But still we had two major accidents where we almost had a very serious injury. You can use it, use it, use it...but then that one time you get it on you...bad news. I definitely am more scared of the bottle with HF on it than I am of the concentrated mineral acids or ceramic temperature ovens.

A strong acid it is not, but deadly it is...HF has a long history of dangerous behavior...(podcast, first minute)

71.127.137.171 (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my mistake. It has been many years since I studied A-level chemistry. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat, I don't mean to bludgeon you. I come armed with huge knowledge after playing with this article so long. No problem, with skepticism and intuitive concerns. It's how I engage also.
  • In the lead section, paragraph 3, we have "aluminium" [British spelling]. In "Characteristics", subsection "Atomic structure", we have "picometers" [US spelling]. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is in American English (just its history as well as confort factor of the two main authors). For element names, there is a negotiated settlement across all element articles (maybe even all chemicals articles), to use the IUPAC names. So the Brits get aluminum and caesium and the Americans get sulfur. If you want, I can dig up the talk pages and policy and all that from the Wikiprojects. 's true though.  ;-)

71.127.137.171 (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"So the Brits get aluminum." Don't you mean "aluminium"? ;-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overpaid, oversexed and over here. ;-) 71.127.137.171 (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Occurrence", subsection "Universe", paragraph 1: "One science writer described fluorine as a "shack amongst mansions" in terms of abundance." That's a stupid analogy. The difference between shacks and mansions is not just size. Is the author implying that the build quality of fluorine is lower than that of the other elements? Given that the preceding two sentences already describe fluorine's scarcity, this sentence adds nothing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Occurrence", subsection "Universe", paragraph 1: "Any fluorine created within stars is rapidly eliminated through strong nuclear fusion reactions." What is the meaning of "strong" in this context? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess it means likely to uccur because of cross sections and avaialbalbe reactants...but then rapid sort of already covers that. I tried to reword and just cut the strong. Please take a look at ref 15 and see if you want to tweak the explication. Basically little fluorine gets made cause the buildup reactions just sort of skip it. And the what does get made is zapped readily.
I don't really like the addition of the new sentence, especially the abbreviation, but I suppose that the meaning is clear. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there are two reasons why so little F. (1) normal reactions don't make it, (2) what does get made is prey to immediate reactions with H, He (very common in stars) to zap it away. However, we say that is fine as long as reader understands. I got the impression there was confusion, so I spelled it out more. If you want to rewrite, please do.208.44.87.91 (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Occurrence", subsection "Universe", paragraph 2: "In Wolf-Rayet stars (blue stars over 40 times heavier than the Sun)." Shouldn't "Wolf-Rayet" use an en dash rather than a hyphen? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • sorry, my laptop was missing that key.  ;-) Fixed.

[Please carry on, doc. I see you going through it in detail and appreciate it. I hope it is a little fun/interesting to you, too.208.44.87.91 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)][reply]

  • Would it be reasonable to explain why fluorine is more common on Earth than it is in the universe in general, or is that beyond the scope of this article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably. I would need to research and add new references. I believe the relative concentration has to do with compound (i.e. mineral) forming tendencies. Why there is more F than Ne on Earth for instance. It could also be interesting to compare to crustal oxygen.208.44.87.91 (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think I can get this done. I looked at a few references but was not finding enough to really talk about concentration of fluorine. Undoubtedly has to do with rocky planet formation and compound forming habits (versus volatiles). But I just can't find the sources to really explain it that way. If you can get someone to do it, great. I give up.208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is an implication but not a clear explanation. Anyway, this isn't so important for the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead section, paragraph 3, states that cryolite is a "manmade inorganic fluoride". However "Occurrence", subsection "Earth", implies that cryolite does occur naturally. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until the mid-80s, the natural sources were the commercial sources. Now, the main mine is depleted and industry relies on synthesized cryolite.
The current text is better. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Occurrence", subsection "Earth": "the alkaline earth fluorides precipitate out of water." What are "alkaline earth fluorides"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explained this.
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Occurrence", subsection "Earth", last paragraph: "One form of fluorite, antozonite, has an ozone smell (suggestive of fluorine) when crushed." The statement implies that fluorine smells similar to ozone. However the article "Antozonite" states that ozone is formed by chemical reaction when the fluorine is released into the air. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simplified to "suggestive of fluorine". There are some sources that say it smells like fluorine, but also a 1937 source that says it smells like fluorine's reaction products (HF, O3). (which opens a whole can of worms on what just released fluorine smells like). Added the more recent ref that just says fluorine smell. I think as stated now is simpler story and the "suggestive" is enough of a caveat.208.44.87.91 (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "History", subsection "Later developments", I am not convinced that the information about CFCs, Freon & PTFE are directly relevant. However this isn't a major point. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cut one para in response to your comment (1970s CFC concerns). Rest, I think belongs there. Teflon story in particular is commonly included in popular histories of fluorine. Every element is different, but this one a lot of it's story is around compounds and the development of the fluorochemical industry.71.127.137.171 (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox help[edit]

Could someone please fix the issue Wehwalt raised with the reference12 at bottom of infobox? And the fact/unit problem (see article talk)? I can't edit the template. the gnome-owner of the template is pissed at me since he has been bloating the thing for the last while and I want it tightened up...but just ignore that kerfuffle and make the two simple fixes, please.208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspensory muscle of duodenum[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback as to how to improve this article to GA status. Some areas I've identified include:

  • Lack of proper citations.

I'd value some feedback.

Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just had a quick look at the article:

  • A good explanation of why it is referred to as either a ligament or a muscle (I feel very strongly about this, since it nearly drove me mad when I started with anatomy).  they are synonymous according to multiple sources
  • Inclusion of these alternative names in lead if there are any more; suspensory ligament of duodenum perhaps??? (An if there are any; redirects from these names are also good... it won´t help with GA status, but still...)  thanks

Best of luck with the undertaking. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! I can't promise this'll be included tomorrow, but it will before the nomination... LT910001 (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to GrahamColm. Hello, GrahamColm, It's a pity our paths haven't crossed before. I heard you described as a "poop doctor" on WikiMed (an auspicious title, to be sure!) and assume that means gastroenterologist. I'm planning on getting to work on this article soon. In order to reach GA, excluding the issue with citations and finding an in vivo extra image, do you have any suggestions as to what would constitute adequate broadness? LT910001 (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm a virologist. This does not exclude me from this peer review of course, but lack of time does. Graham Colm (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. No worries then. Am closing review. LT910001 (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KFC[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it up to FA status. It needs a good third party perspective to give it a good copy edit and flag any other problems I may have missed.

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Lightbreather (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some pronoun confusion in the second paragraph of the History section. "His father died when he was six years old, forcing his mother to work at a canning plant, and leaving her eldest son to care for his two younger siblings." Was Sanders the eldest son? Suggest restructuring the sentence, or breaking it into two sentences. Lightbreather (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've sorted this one.Farrtj (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is kinda clumsy: "Originally using his own dining room table, in 1934, Sanders purchased the larger filling station on the other side of the road and expanded to six tables." Suggest this, or something like it: After four years of serving from his own dining room table, Sanders purchased.... Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done!Farrtj (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest replacing longer words with shorter words, longer constructions with shorter ones. For instance, instead of "dissatisfied," I would use "unhappy." Instead of "the 35-minute duration it took," I would write "the 35-minutes it took." My background is in business and news writing - not academic - so I always go for brevity. I think that's a good idea when writing for the average Wikipedia reader, too. I'll make the couple of changes I just suggested and leave it to you to decide if you'd like to make similar changes throughout your article... which is very good so far, BTW. Lightbreather (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you think that brevity is best I don't disagree per se. I always write in a more academic style, perhaps because that's my background. Yes, I give you carte blanche to make the changes you see fit.Farrtj (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I here you, and you can change back the one paragraph I changed without hurting my feelings. It's definitely a style thing. If I thought I were writing only for college-educated readers, I might choose academic - but possibly not even then. Simple is not only easier to read, it takes less space! Lightbreather (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now switched them all to "US" to bring it in line with "UK".Farrtj (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sentences of the second paragraph of the Operations section are a little clunky. I had to read them two or three times and I'm still not sure that I get their exact meaning. "As of 2012, there were over 18,000 KFC outlets in 120 countries and territories around the world: 4,400 in China, 9,000 internationally and 4,600 in the United States, with China accounting for 49 percent of revenue. Outlets are either company owned, operated using joint ventures with local partners or by franchisees."
I think the first sentence needs to be restructured or broken into two sentences. The second one... maybe it's as simple as putting a comma after "partners"? I can think of a couple other ways to rewrite it, depending on what it's supposed to mean. Lightbreather (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.Farrtj (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think I've done as much as I can do on this article at this time. I spent this morning finishing reading it. I made some changes, which I hope I've documented well enough in the edit summaries - but if you have questions, please ask. I did a lot of work on the "Controversies and criticism" section. I think it's better sometimes to have an article "outsider" work on those kinds of things. It was a bit wordy in places, and used some charged language, too, which I tried to tone down a bit. That brings up one of my final, overall suggestions, which I'll list next. Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest you use simple verbs like "said" and "asked" more. Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest you pick American English or British English and edit throughout. (Examples: "criticise" v "criticize"; using singular or plural forms for organisations/organizations. If you go with American, a company or organization is a single thing. "KFC was..." and "Its campaign was..." - not "KFC were..." or "Their campaign was....") Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "Yum! Brands" with just "Yum!" in most instances? Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have done where it is appropriate.Farrtj (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penultimate line in "International" section needs work.
  • "Promotional tie-ins" and "Sponsorship" sections are kinda out of scale with some of the other sections. Merge, maybe, or develop more? Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged these small sections.Farrtj (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good idea, unless/until the separate sub-topics are more developed. I merged the two short paragraphs and renamed the sub-section "Promotional tie-ins and corporate sponsorship," which is more focused than "Other." Also, the Brand Z sentence seems out of place there, but it seemed weird up there alone at the top if the Advertising section before. Where better to place it? Lightbreather (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing about KFC in popular culture? The Colonel and/or KFC have been on The Simpsons and South Park, and my son says it (KFC) was recently on The Colbert Report. It's not always complimentary, but it would be a tasty counter to the dryer elements of the article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't enough raw material to justify an entire section.Farrtj (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the couple of things added don't make it better now. Maybe to add to the to-do list? I'm sure there's stuff out there, but for now, I'd remove the little bit that was added. Lightbreather (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Thanks for coming to peer review KFC! I'll try my best to affect the changes. I don't like to cross out other people's suggestions, so for clarity's sake, would you strikethrough suggestions when you think they've been sorted? You strikethrough by placing example either side of the text.Farrtj (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I will put a  Done checkmark next to them, so they're still readable. Is that OK? Lightbreather (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I'd rather you didn't do that. The build up of ticks produces lag on useless old laptops like mine! Farrtj (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! OK. Lightbreather (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KamaGames[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because It is my first expirience in writing an article and I seem to mix up some things- 1.do I make referencing and links correctly, 2. if I connected the article to other links on Wikipedia, why is reffered to as 'orphant' and 3. what sort of article are called secondary sources? 4. how do I know which sources of info are perceived as unreliable? I would really appreciate some help.

Thanks, Nadia Mitro (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nadia Mitro! It's lovely to meet you. As far as a first article goes, this is not too bad. When citing sources, we try and use secondary sources. These are sources that are not "first-hand". An example is if you claimed to your friend that you plan to open a business. Your claim is a "primary source", because you said it, and your friend's is a primary source, because they were directly involved. A better source to use would be something like a local newspaper that reported on it, or what someone who is not directly involved says. Another example is here: WP:PRIMARY. A secondary source is written by someone who's not directly involved.
What is reliable? Well, that's hard. Imagine you are buying a car. The salesperson will tell you about the good points, hopefully truthfully. However when making your choice you probably want to consult some magazines that tell you about the cars. In your article there are a few references that are straight from the companies that make the product, such as press releases. These aren't reliable, because the company wants to portray their product as good as possible. A more reliable source would be another news organisation reporting on the event. A reliable source is not a primary source.
I hope this goes some way to addressing your questions and wish you well on your wikitravels. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cucurbita[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently achieved Good Article status and we were advised by a couple users to take it to peer review and then attempt featured status. I am going to ask four users who have been helping to participate in this peer review as well as someone I recently discovered who seems knowledgeable about medical and pharmacology issues. Thank you for your assistance, HalfGig (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, these are my notes, check at least the last one:
in the taxonomy section cultivar groups are listed as synonims of species-level taxa and is not that so, even if you put a table later in other section it is confusing.
You mean the section I call "species" or the taxobox? The ones in species are not synomyms according to Nee. I discuss the different views on Cucubit taxonomy in the article.HalfGig (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not synonyms, but it looks like so, it's confusing. You should find a way to say those groups are "inside" the species taxon. --RoRo (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the disagreements about how to handle Cucurbit taxonomy is confusing. Many of the references simply don't agree, that's why I picked on and saw there are disagreements.
It looks like I didn't express myself enough, I said it "looks like" pumpkin group is a synonym of 'Cucurbita pepo and people can interpret that section that way. --RoRo (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also "cultivar group" is not the same as "variety" or "subspecies", a cultivar group groups cultivars based on morphological traits indepently of taxonomic origin. For example "butternut group", "zucchini group" are more correct than variety name.
You need to be more specific here about where in the article you're talking about. This again could be due to different views about Cucurbit taxonomy. I used the taxo per the refs I used. HalfGig (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No there aren't different views about cultivar groups. I'm not sure about the causes but some people prefers variety or subsp. names for cultivar groups, but they are still cultivar groups. Paris (1986) and after that Paris (1989) defined those 8 cultivar groups of C. pepo with a cultivar group name and a variety name. I don't know the backstage about this practice, but cultivar group names are still more correct. If you insist about variety name you can put those both, but not variety name alone. Cultivar groups can hybridize and if they still have the morphological traits of the cultivar group they are still on the cultivar group, but if a plant descendent of two cultivar group parents don't have the morphological traits, that plant does not belong to that cultivar group. Cultivar groups is a way to delimit plants based on horticultural needs and not phylogeny. And a "zucchini" is defined because of the shape and flavor of the fruit, not because the parents it came from. In zapallito group it looks like the author first defining it (Millán 1947) didn't know the origins and he put a taxon name for that group. Now we know zapallito are cultivars from pre-columbian times, all with the same morphological traits, and all derived from C. maxima subsp. andreana, but from different lines between that species, so they are independently originated cultivars and because of that it's more correct to call them with a cultivar group name: zapallito group. You can find the links on the es:wikipedia talk. --RoRo (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Los zapallitos de tronco de Sudamérica extratropical" only shows up on JSTOR and I did add the tranlator to my browser but it say the page is already in English (as it's an English web site) even though the article is in Spanish, so I can't do anything with that article. I will work on other things on es.wiki but I'll need a few days to get through it. HalfGig (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you should check the International Code of Cultivated Plants for cultivar groups taxonomy and definition. --RoRo (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before the table you should say there are more C. pepo cultivars that can't be associated with any of these 8 groups, it is in the referenced literature.
Which reference and which cultivars are you talking about? HalfGig (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paris (1986) or maybe Paris (1989), the author of the names. I don't remember he put an example of a cultivar not fitting on any of those groups. --RoRo (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Paris ref already in the article from either of those years.HalfGig (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really, well it should, becase he is the first author of the names and in 1989 described them a little more. The papers are online: Paris, H. S. (1986). A proposed subspecific classification for Cucurbita pepo. Phytologia, 61(3), 133-138 Paris, H. S., 1989. Historical Records, Origins, and Development of the Edible Cultivar Groups of Cucurbita pepo (Cucurbitaceae). Economic Botany 43(4): 423-443. I added these images in Commons if you want to use them, they are from the first paper. I uploaded them in spanish but are easily modificable.
There are C. maxima groups not mentioned here that are important in South America, as zapallito group, triloba group, and zipinka group, their description is accesible online at Millán (1947) Los zapallitos de tronco de la América extratropical. Darwiniana.
Much of this is in Spanish too. I would like to add something on them with good sources if in English or in Spanish if someone can translate for us. I don't have the language skills to read or translate any non-English language. I found one good source in English for each of them and have added them. HalfGig (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok what about it: when you finish your work I will read that part with Millán (1947) at hand and add something if neccesary. --RoRo (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do what I can the next few days. HalfGig (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are collecting information about Cucurbita on the es:wikipedia wikiproject talk page, if you want to take a look to the photographs listed and to the linked papers. A member promised to upload a zipinka photograph soon, and we are looking for the rest of the photographs lacking. We are still trying to match information from common names (as they are found for example on sites like the argentinian Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, oriented for non-biologists, or on sites about horticultural statistics) with information about taxa. You will find there other groups too. --RoRo (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd need to be careful about switching between variety" and "cultivar group". I'll go take a look at the info on es.wiki, but I have to admit my foreign language skills are horrible. HalfGig (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC) The links are all in Spanish. I'll need a translator to use that material. HalfGig (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google Chrome can translate foreign-language pages in situ while preserving all their functionality (see Google Chrome#Automatic web page translation). I'm sure other browsers can do the same. I use it all the time and it's become indispensable in my research. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people say translators work well for translations between common languages as english and spanish. For example I use Firefox and I have an extension (Tools - Add ons - Extensions - choose one) called Quick Translator 1.0, but I don't use it much. --RoRo (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another item: I have Robinson and Decker-Walters (1997) Cucurbits at hand (I think it is the most cited classification of the economic Cucurbita), and for C. pepo it uses for reference Paris (1986), defining the 8 cultivar groups you already have. It describes them and describes the most spread cultivars on each. It recognizes 3 horticultural groupings of C. moschata in Northamerica: Cheese, Crookneck (C. moschata Crookneck), and Bell. It says the most widespread C. moschata, 'Butternut', is a Crookneck (but most of the times its neck is straight). My note: I used to find it as a cultivar group (Butternut group), it looks like now there are many hybrids and local deformations of the original 'Butternut'. For C. maxima it cites classification of Castetter (1925) and describes groups: Banana, Delicious, Hubbard, Marrow (C. maxima Marrow), Show, Turban. It describes the most widespread cultivars on each group and a widespread cultivar not belonging to these groups. The book is too North America centered but I already pointed you to some papers about South American groups. --RoRo (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) In the C. pepo table, what if we change "common name" to "cultivar group"? 2) can you get me page numbers for the groups you mention from the 1997 book "Cucurbits"? HalfGig (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes it looks like those are the cultivar group names. You should say they are "cultivar groups" and link that word.
2) Pages 71-83. Send me an email if you don't find the book. --RoRo (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm ready for you to take a look at the article again. A lot of the Spanish pages I tried to use the translator for did not work because it said the web page was too big. HalfGig (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Chemical constituents from Zad68[edit]

Hi HalfGig, fine work bringing along this article. I reviewed the Chemical constituents section as requested, here are my notes:

Sourcing[edit]

(I always start by looking at the sourcing, I think it's the most important thing.)

  • Yadav 2010 - Green tickY - 2010 MEDLINE-indexed review article, looks like a good quality source and used appropriately.
  • Burrows 2013 - Green tickY - Burrows is a toxicologist and is university-affiliated. The publisher is Wiley, well-established for academic and medical works. Looks like a good quality source and used appropriately in this section.
  • Tallamy 1989 - Green tickY - Tallamy is a PhD and univeristy affiliated, he is an ecologist. Looks like a good quality source and used appropriately in this section.
  • Chen 2005 - Green tickY - 2005 MEDLINE-indexed review, looks fine. Normally we might complain that 2005 is too old per WP:MEDDATE but the information being sourced is very basic and unlikely to have changed.
  • Fergusen 1983 - Red XN - 1983 case report, per WP:MEDRS should not be used. You already have Burrows 2013 to support this, if that source supports the whole statement then please just remove Fergusen 1983.
  • Andres 1987 - Green tickY - PhD at Univeristy, looks OK as used.
  • McAuslane 1996 - Green tickY - PhD, univeristy-associated, writing in area of strength, looks OK as used.
  • Preedy 2011 - Green tickY/Red XN - Series of review articles, Academic Press publisher, looks like OK source. But, I am concerned that the content is overstating the anti-cancer effects. MANY things are toxic to cancer cells but have no meaningful health effect in humans (see this XKCD comic!). I would need to see the cited part of the book to confirm.
    • Cut the cancer, problem solved.HalfGig (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barbieri 2006 - Red XN - Primary source, improperly used, you really cannot use a primary source like this to make a general statement.
  • Hou 2008 - Red XN - Primary source, improperly used, you really cannot use a primary source like this to make a general statement. And again, the anti-cancer effects are probably being overstated.
  • González 2001 - Red XN - Primary source, you should be able to find a secondary source for this, doesn't the USDA nutrient report cover this?
  • USDA nutrient report - Green tickY
  • Mayer 2010 - Green tickY - looks OK.
Prose[edit]
  • I'd rename the section from Chemical constituents to something a little more descriptive of what the section contains, like Health and nutrition
      • This rename is probably correct, but it exacerbates the overlap with the Uses section, which of course includes food for humans, and medicinal uses; there's also an overlap between the two sections as regards insect pests. I'm not sure the sections should be merged, but these 3 overlaps need to be addressed by any combination of merging, renaming, and moving sentences or paragraphs. The topics in there are 1) Curcurbits as food; 1a) food issues e.g. bitterness and toxicity 2) Cucurbits as medicine; 3) Pests and diseases; 4) Chemical composition. Clearly these interact to a degree, because the chemicals affect medicinal uses, some pests and diseases, toxicity and flavour. Hope these thoughts help, but work is clearly needed rearranging the sections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm really stuck on what more to do with this. I did some rearranging, but now I'm really stuck. HalfGig (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, Food/Culinary uses is a well-defined section, so that's #1.
          • The current 'Nutrition and health' is still a muddle; I suggest as above a 'Medicine' section for clarity, to contain only the medicinal properties, guess you can include vitamins as also beneficial in there, so that's #2.
          • The chemical composition you have partly resolved with the Summer squash table, the obvious issue for FA being 'what about all other squashes?' - guess that needs some work. That table only concerns chemicals which are nutrients; you also need something on chemicals which are toxic, like Cucurmosin. Why not have a #4 'Composition' section with 2 subsections, 'Nutrients' and 'Toxins'?
            • There's no way we can include a table on every species, not even just the cultivated species.HalfGig (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, indeed not. Maybe (it needs saying) the other squashes are v. similar in composition to the summer squashes? Or maybe nobody knows; or maybe there are certain small but interesting variations. It would be possible to add one or two more cols to the table if other squashes have been measured in a comparable way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That leaves #3 'Pests and diseases' which frankly would be better separated from the others as I said above. At the moment you have Cabbage and Turnip moths in non-culinary uses ?! - clearly not the right place. Suggest a new section, into which can go quite a bit from the 2nd para of Nutrition and health on discouraging herbivores, silverleaf whitefly and defensive responses. I've no idea why you're telling us about herbivores converting carotenoids to vit A, why is that relevant?
          • I think if you do that it will feel a lot more comfortable. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Excellent tips. I will see what I can do. HalfGig (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general (talking about the article as a whole here), the prose is a bit choppy throughout. The article needs some copyediting before it can go to FAC.
    • I'd need help from someone on this.HalfGig (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "small enough to reduce production costs" - you need a disambiguation or explanation of "production costs" here, as it appears to be a specialized biology use of the term and not an economic one
    • Linked to an article that seems to explain this. HalfGig (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chemical constituents section needs to be reorganized a bit, paragraphs organized by topic with all the related info in the appropraite paragraph, eliminate short paragraphs (under three sentences).
    • Took a stab at it but probably need help here too.HalfGig (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zad68 19:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata[edit]

More later ... Sasata (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The plant stem can grow five to fifteen meters" should give an imperial conversion for this
  • links: subspecies, ovary, variety?
  • link tendril eariler
  • "; leaves alternately arranged on the stem." fix grammar
  • decide British or American English (meters v. metres) HalfGig talk 23:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A search didn't find any instances of "metres". HalfGig talk 23:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went with American since it's native to the New World. HalfGig talk 23:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Pepo" is a specialized term is used primarily" fix grammar
  • "crucial for fruit set." could be made to sound less jargony
  • "Cucurbita are native the New World since" fix
  • link genetic bridge
  • "Modern day cultivated Cucurbita" needs hyphenation
  • "domestication events" jargony
    • Can't think of what to change it to. (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Squash was domesticated first, with maize second and then beans being domesticated," prose sounds a bit clunky
  • pernnials fix
  • link taxonomic
  • "Sixteen of the species were grouped into five clusters with the remaining five being classified separately, not being closely related to another species to form a cluster (species group)" clunky
  • "C. pepo originated in and were domesticated in Mesoamerica. C. maxima originated in and was domesticated in South America." repetitive
  • link oil, protein
  • "but this has been shown not to be the case." perhaps "but this has been disproven".
  • "It was did start to spread", "Groups of of" fix
  • "Cucurbita moschata is native to Latin America but the precise location is uncertain, but it is possibly Columbia." inelegant
  • "It has also been present in Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, and Peru for 4,000–6,000 years. It is also" repetitive sentence beginnings
  • "Its leaves are 20–30 cm wide", "20–35 cm wide" needs imperial conversions
  • "The Cucurbitaceae family has the largest number of different species used as human food than any other group of plants." fix grammar
  • "or the seeds lying within."
  • "Summer squash, on the other hand, have a thin skin, which can be eaten." idiomatic, perhaps trim to "In contrast, summer squash have a thin, edible skin."
  • link cosmetics
  • I think cucumber should be mentioned somewhere in the article (as a well-known, commonly consumed curcubit), rather than as a "See also" link
    • how so? it's a cucurbit (family) but not in this genus. HalfGig talk 17:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culinary: mention that shoot tips are consumed as a cooked vegetable in southern and eastern Africa
  • Production: might be useful to list (as a table) the production of major curcubit vegetables separately by continent (e.g. watermelon, cucumber, melons and pumpkins/squash) with totals at the bottom
  • I think the article is missing information on germination/seedling growth
  • it seems the range of flower morphologies in this group is more diverse than the "Description" section accounts for
  • which plant growth hormones are primarily responsible for determining flower gender, and which regulate fruit set?
  • does parthenocarpy occur in curcubits?
  • There are two images of "regular" pumpkins, perhaps a "massive" one would be an interesting alternative? Also, the description section mentions that "Certain domesticated specimens can weigh over 300 kilograms (660 lb)." but the record for largest pumpkin is far over 1000 lbs (see here, although not a reliable source)
  • not necessary to include publishers and publisher location for journals
    • If I'm consistent in including them, is that ok? HalfGig talk 23:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • page # for ref #29?
    • Can't find a page. This is also covered by ref #27 so I copied it there. Should I delete #29 and move to further reading? HalfGig (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A further reading section is probably not a good idea for an article on a genus. If a source is good, then use it as a source. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure "Oxfordshite" should be Oxfordshire in ref #47 :) And, "Cab International" should be "CAB International"
  • you might want to convert all of the ISBN 10s to the recommended ISBN 13s (here's a handy converter)
  • for ref #57, I'd list the work as "Free-living Cucurbita pepo in the United States Viral Resistance, Gene Flow, and Risk Assessment", the title as "What is Cucurbita texana?", and the author (Hugh D. Wilson)
  • ref #68 (Yadav 2010) has the journal article title in sentence case, unlike the others; same with ref #74
  • How has the taxonomic concept of the genus changed over its history? For an FA I'd expect to have every one of the taxobox synonyms at least mentioned, along with their authors and year of publication. It'd be even better if it had citations to the original publication, and links to those publications where available.
  • why is the type species not given in the taxobox or discussed in the text?
  • "Cucurbita moschata is native to Latin America but the precise location is uncertain, but it is possibly Columbia." the precise location of what is uncertain? Two "buts" in the sentence sounds inelegant
  • "A more recent theory" when is more recent? Who proposed this theory? Is there any molecular evidence to support this?
  • link blood sugar
  • "C. ficifolia is used to make soft and mildly alcoholic drinks" does this mean it's used to make soft drinks? How is it used, as a flavoring? As a container?
  • "and high doses have been shown to be successful in reducing blood sugar levels." high doses of what? High doses of C. ficifolia?
  • "The fruits of some species, such as C. foetidissima, are used as soaps and detergents." used as soaps and detergents, or used in making soaps and detergents?
  • "Cucurbita fruits are an important source for humans of carotenoids, Vitamin A, and rhodopsin, all of which are important to good visual acuity,[4] as well as several other vitamins and minerals." Several problems with this sentence: awkward prose; vitamin shouldn't be capitalized (vitamins are inappropriately capitalized later too, also β-carotene); it is ambiguous as to how to interpret the final clause.
  • what's special about cucurbitin?
    • Added material and book reference. HalfGig talk 17:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pharmacological properties include anti-diabetic, antioxidant, anticarcinogen, and anti-inflammatory." awkward prose; also, this statement refers specifically to pumpkin and this should be stated explicitly
  • please audit uses of "also" and "however" (commonly overused words in writing) and remove or reword those instances that aren't necessary
  • "seed of Cucurbita.[73][74] — notably" punctuation problems
  • "moschata, that is toxic" that ->which
  • link steroid (pipe to plant steroid)
  • in quantities "large enough to discourage nonadapted herbivores but small enough to reduce production costs and detection by adapted herbivores" no need to retain this quote, rewrite in original words
  • "occasional Cucurbita fraterna" should be short-form binomial ('genus name mentioned already in sentence)
  • I get the feeling that the Pests and diseases section is skipping over a bit of important information, like which of the listed pests result in the greatest economic damage? Any common plant virus diseases?
    • I have added material for both of these. (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link defensive responses
  • I think the table would look better if the middle column were right justified and centralized
    • I can't figure this out. I made it look the same as the table in Cabbage. Can you or someone else help?HalfGig (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is so special about Wehner 1987 to be the sole entry in "Further reading", and why wasn't it used as a source?
    • He was in the medical section. Zad68 said the source wasn't good enough for MEDRS, so I moved it to further reading. Per your prior comment, I'll remove further reading.HalfGig (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bodh Gaya bombings[edit]

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

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

Thanks, Bhooshan NPY (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, with the exception of a few copy-edits (e.g. quotations marks that are not closed, capitalised 'police') this article is quite readable. There are some sentences (for example the bomb blasts' descriptions) that can be found elsewhere on the internet, so it would be good to know if they have been copied from here or from other websites. This article is otherwise quite well-cited, and there are no problems with images. I would encourage you to nominate for GA and deal with any small issues that arise in the context of the nomination. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @LT910001:, Your feedback is very much helpful. I have edited the changes suggested by you. Can you please let me know if I have missed anything? Many thanks.----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @LT910001:, Do you have any comments now? Many thanks.-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have no further comments other than recommending you nominate this for good article status (WP:GA?). To do this, you can follow the instructions here (WP:GAN/I). Any problems with the article can be worked out during the thorough GA process. I wish you all the best! LT910001 (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @LT910001:, Many thanks for your comments.-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not qualify for a GA class review, a lot of work needs to be put for it to be considered as a GA. The citations are up-to-date and I haven't found any deadlinks so far. But the article is not broad in its coverage and some sections does not present a NPOV. Please go through Wikipedia:How to write a great article before you nominate it for a GA. 2pennygoat (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Detroit Red Wings award winners[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a) I intend to nominate it for Featured List consideration and b) it is a massive list by my standards with a lot of in's, a lot of out's, and a lot of what have you's. I have done a few FL's recently so I have a general idea of what is required but I still need help with my prose and I am sure there are plenty of little things I have overlooked. Also I have never nominated a list of this size so I am wondering if the prose sections are adequate.

Thanks, Rejectwater (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Rejectwater - many of the images are missing alt texts. I will get to this soon. Rejectwater (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cirt
  1. Please respond, below these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Infobox image caption - interesting info, but leaves me wondering who the guy is in the caption and what year it was that he's holding up the trophy?
  3. Lede/intro is indeed four paragraphs long per WP:LEAD, but lopsided sizes of the individual paragraphs. 1st is two sentences, next is huge, then final two paragraphs are okay size. This could be balanced a bit better for the lede.
  4. Suggest changes to Notes and References for references sect formatting. No need that way for sub sub sects. Just two upper level sects.
  5. Quite well cited throughout.
  6. Image review. I reviewed all images. All check out okay except for two. File:JimmyHowardRW.jpg is missing simple description field info on the page at Wikimedia Commons. File:Red Wings retired Banners.jpg appears to have some tag problems at Wikimedia Commons on its page there, consider fixing the "disclaimer" issue mentioned on that page.
  7. Consider adding maybe one or two more helpful links to See also sect.
  8. Think about adding in-line citations to back up the info given in the image captions. Not necessary. Maybe check prior precedent on similar FLs of this type in sports. Certainly couldn't hurt, just a thought.
  9. Good organizational structure overall.
  10. Please respond, below these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Thanks for your quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia on this topic! — Cirt (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Updated. Let me know what you think.
3. Updated lead somewhat. The information in the second paragraph is all so similar it makes sense to keep it together.
  • I have expanded and reformatted the lead in three balanced paragraphs. Rejectwater (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Done.
5. Thank you.
6. I added a description to the Howard image. The banners image uses an outdated tag. I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to change it as I am not the copyright holder.
7. Done.
8. My thought was that cites in the captions would be redundant as the information is all taken from the article.
9. Thank you. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Looks much better. My only suggestion would be to ask at commons:Commons:Village pump what to do to fix the issues at File:Red Wings retired Banners.jpg. So I went ahead and asked about it, at commons:Commons:Village_pump#File:Red_Wings_retired_Banners.jpg. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saul (Handel)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded this article from a stub and I plan to work on more articles on works of Handel. I would like feedback as to the quality of the article as it now stands and where more work may be needed. Thanks, Smeat75 (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Unfortunately, I don't have time for a detailed review, and will be off-wiki altogether for the next nine days. There's time, however, for me to welcome the article as a useful expansion, and to make a few suggestions:

  • The Background section should be subdivided after the third paragraph. Most of its remaining content refers to the composition of the piece, and should be in an separate section
  • The final short paragraph of the Backround needs to be expanded into a "Reception and performance history" section, including an account of the firat performance (at which you say in the lead the work was well received), a brief summary of revivals in Handel's lifetime, and a short account of how it has fared since.
  • There needs to be a section which discusses the music in more detail, beyond the Winton Dean quote.
  • It is usual for such articles to contain a "Recordings" section.

You may wish to look at Messiah (Handel), not necessarily as a model for this article but as an indicator of structure and the sort of detail that might be included, especially if you were intending to take this article forward to GA or FA. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda Arendt

A good start! General:

  • I suggest to handle the naming of pieces and quotes consistently, for example "Dead March" with always the same quotation marks.
  • I suggest to place the images in the plot all on the right. On my screen, Act 2 on the right of the image for Act 1 looks confusing.
  • Instead of the (always the same) Handel side navbox, I recommend something comparable to L'Arianna. (There's a beautiful navbox at the bottom.)
  • I would include a link to the Bible passage which is the base, 1 Samuel 15 (or whatever it is).
  • There are articles for the Witch of Endor and other characters including Saul himself, I would link.
  • Is there anything on performance history, besides knowing who sang Michal first?

Details:

  • The link to carillon is about those on towers, a bit misleading.
  • "Dramatis personae" - In opera it's simply "Roles".

That's it for now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more general: the titles in the image captions should be italic, and an alt text given. (Click on "alt text" in the box above to the right, if you don't know what I mean.) Speaking of accessibility, did you know that it is a nice service to provide template {{lang}} for expressions in a different language, for example an original title of the Schnorr von Carolsfeld picture? (He should be linked.) It doesn't change the rendition on the screen but helps readers who use screenreaders and more, see documentation. Here is an example how to implement it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your helpful remarks, I will work more on the article in the coming days.Smeat75 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to follow Gerda's suggestions and have added alt text to the images, except for the side navbox, which I don't want to mess with. Could someone please check the alt text I added and see if they are OK, I have never done that before. I'm afraid I can't understand the {{lang}} thing Gerda, do you mean I should translate the Schnorr von Carolsfeld picture caption into German? A lot of the characters, including the Witch of Endor, are linked in what is now the "Roles" section, is that OK? And there is a "Recordings" section Brian, there are so many I could not list them all. Performance history is going to be difficult, for Handel's lifetime there are records, after that I am not sure where to find references for performance. Thanks again to all for their help. I will be continuing to work on the article.Smeat75 (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley

This is excellent as far as it goes, but I think you need additional sections on critical reception (then and subsequently), and performance history. Were there various critical editions of the score?

  • It would put the piece in context if you mentioned that Jennens compiled the libretto for Messiah.
  • The Dead March isn't an invariable fixture at state funerals in the UK.

That's all for now. This article has the potential for GA, but needs a bit more work. Tim riley (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

I agree with the comments above and have a few of my own to add. This is well done, but I think would still be a bit short of GA in its current state.

  • I think the Background section should be split into several sections, as noted above.
  • I think a "Composition" section could start at "By 1738, Handel was experiencing some difficulty in maintaining support for his Italian opera seasons in London and he collaborated with Charles Jennens for the first time."
  • It was not clear initially to me that the original text written here was that of "Saul" Jennens wrote an original English text based on Biblical characters, especially designed to provide opportunities for the sort of music Handel composed.
  • Composition could use some more details, if they are available. When in 1738 did composition begin? How long did the composition take?
  • Needs a ref "Handel eventually saw the matter the same way and placed the Hallelujahs where Jennens wanted them."
  • The last sentence of Background could be the nucleus of a critical reception section.
  • What was the commercial success of the work? Was it revived and if so, how often and when? Is it still performed today?
  • Per WP:HEADER could it just be "Dead March"? Also "Selected Recordings" should be "Selected recordings"
  • It is funny that the march is said to be played at British state funerals, but the two examples given are American politicians (albeit very well known ones). Could some examples of British funerals using it be given?
  • Selected Recordings needs refs
  • References should immediately follow punctuation - some have a space between the punctuation and the 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. (This is a general warning I give in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Whistleblower[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Featured Article status. The Whistleblower is 2010 film about human trafficking in post-war Bosnia. The article was recently promoted as a Good Article, and I would like to know what steps need to be taken for it to meet FA criteria and would appreciate any suggestions or comments.

Thanks, 1ST7 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelstan[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Æthelstan was the first king of England, and I think the article on him should be FA. As a first step, I am asking for comments on improving it before nominating for GA. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank[edit]

Just some copyediting comments: - Dank (push to talk)

  • "confirming his prestige": I don't know what this means.
    • Amended. OK?
  • This isn't important to me, but FAC usually requires consistency on for instance "tenth century" or "10th century".
    • This because I prefer tenth, but another editor prefers 10th and changes my wording. Is there any preference which is best?
      • If anyone objects or reverts, and I think you're saying that they are, then you're stuck with whatever style on this was already present in the article (unless it wasn't consistent, in which case current editors can choose, and you should initiate a discussion if other editors disagree with your choice). I'm not entirely on board with the approach or the content of WP:MOSNUM, but as part of our MOS, it's more or less "the law" at FAC; see WP:CENTURY. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with social order, especially theft": with social order, especially the prosecution of theft (or curtailing of theft, or whatever his concern was).
    • Amended. OK?
  • "His legal reforms bear comparison with those of his grandfather, Alfred.": What's the comparison?
    • Amended. OK?
  • "the invasion by the Great Heathen Army": "an invasion ..."
    • I do not like "an invasion" as the Great Heathern Army is the name given to the army which invaded in 865, so I have deleted "the".
  • "Alfred died in 899 and was succeeded by Edward. His ...": More often than not, "His" beginning one sentence will refer to the subject of the previous sentence (when there's a choice). "His" isn't wrong here because Alfred died, so most readers will assume you're not still talking about him, but the better choice here would be something like "Edward took the throne when Alfred died in 899. His ..."
    • Amended. OK?
  • "Æthelred died in 911 and was succeeded by Æthelflæd as Lady of the Mercians.": I don't have a suggested fix here, but "as" humorously implies that Æthelred was the previous Lady of the Mercians. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amended. OK?

Thanks for your help. Any further comments welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You made some very good choices, and I've made a few tweaks. Feel free to revert if I didn't get your sense or if you prefer something else. I'll have more comments at A-class, if you want to go that way. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I assume that as A-Class is close to FAC it will be better to go for GAC first. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PocklingtonDan[edit]

I am going to give the article a read through now and post any comments here. I do not intend to make any direct edits to the article myself. My comments will all be very minor, and feel free to take any/all of them with a pinch of salt or ignore them completely. They are a second pair of eyes, the observations are not necessarily valid:

  • Image caption "Penny of Æthelstan" - I think it is worh expanding this slightly to make it clearer, such as "Penny coin minted under and depticting Æthelstan"
I need to look into this further. There was a much better coin illustrated, but an editor insisted on replacing it with one from his own collection, and I did not want to get into an edit war about it. It is not entirely clear which Æthelstan the better coin relates to, but it was photographed at the British Museum, and as it happens I am going there tomorrow, so I will see whether I can check it out.
  • "Successor Himself" in the infobox.This is slightly confusing and I don't know if "none" or similar might be more appropriate?
I think 'None' would be even more confusing. I have deleted the 'next line' before 'as king of the Anglo-Saxons' so that it follows straight on. Does that make it clearer.
  • "His half-brother Ælfweard may have become king of Wessex, but died within weeks of their father". I think the wording here is slightly ambigous and open to multiple readings, eg "you may be bigger than me, but I can still knock you out" versus "you may be bigger than me, but I'm not certain".
The situation is confusing, as explained further down. Ælfweard may have been chosen as king in Wessex, and it may have been as king of the Anglo-Saxons or only of Wessex. Is my amended wording clearer?
  • "There is very little information about Æthelstan's mother, Ecgwynn, and she is not even named in any pre-Conquest source" It is not clear what conquest this refers to, since this is the first mention of it in the article.
I have linked conquest to the Norman Conquest.
  • "while others argue that allegations that Æthelstan was illegitimate were a product of the dispute over the succession, and that there is no reason to doubt that she was Edward's legitimate wife" This appears to be uncited.
Done.
  • "organised a new ordo (order of service) " As someone unfamiliar with the context or period, I'm not sure what an order of service is, can this be clarified a little?
I have clarified by changing to 'religious order of service' Is this clear now?
  • "a certain Alfred plotted to blind Æthelstan" This is very confused and unclear. What does "a certain" refer to in this context? Can you be clearer and state "a jarl called Alfred" or "a bishop called Alfred" or similar? Also, to blind him? This seems very odd, do you mean this literally? If you mean to actually blind him, what's the story here? Is it not far more normal to plot to kill someone? Was this a common Saxon tradition? It feels unclear
Done. It is not known who Alfred was, and I have added that he was an unknown nobleman. Blinding was a way of making someone disabled and therefore ineligible for kingship without committing murder, as explained in the source. Edward the Confessor's brother Alfred was blinded, presumably for the same reason, and it was common in the Byzantine empire. The Empress Irene even had her own son blinded when he threatened her power.
  • "Æthelstan can hardly have expected an invasion by a grand alliance so late in the year" I think this needs clarifying to the average reader, stating that campaigning season in medieval period was generally in fair weather seasons only for reasons X and Y and so this was atypical
Done

Many thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will do further reading and comments later this weekend PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dudley. I'm happy with the all the tweaks/explanations above. I will continue working my way through this article over the course of the next day or two. Nice work by the way! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments by PocklingtonDan[edit]

  • I think that "he made generous gifts to the tomb of St Cuthbert, including a stole and manciple" the words stole and manciple need explaining or wikilinking, especially since they are not terms in general modern usage and the latter term is defined on wikipedia as "a person in charge of the purchase and storage of food at an institution", which is surely not correct in this instance!
I have clarified. Manciple was a typo for maniple.
  • "The invasion was conducted by a combined land and naval force" I think this needs clarifying. A naval force is one that makes battle at sea, an amphibious force is a predominantly land army landed by sea. Was there any naval battles, or expected naval battles? If not, "amphibious" or just a description that some of the army was moved by sea might be more appropriate.
I have changed to by land and sea. There is no evidence of naval battles.
  • "system of tithing, sworn groups of ten or more men" do you have a quote for this? Both tithing and frankpledge seem to refer to number of households, not number of men
This is correct. The article on tithing states that the original tenth century meaning referred to men, not households.
  • "The later codes show his concern with threats to social order, especially theft" It would be nice if it was possible to determine from the sources exactly what was meant by theft here, since obviously this covers everything from pick-pocketing to failure to pay for goods, and even presumably cattle-rustling, brigandry and smallscale raiding. I'm left wondering why theft was felt to be such a problem and exactly what sort of thefts the legislation was meant to prevent.
I have clarified that he was concerned with robberies, but I am not sure how else to deal with this. I think theft is thought to be a major problem in almost all societies.
  • "Æthelstan died at Gloucester on 27 October 939" Is there any more information on this? Unless I missed it, there is no preamble int he article about his advanced age or ill health etc?
I think his death was probably unexpected, but there is no source for any comment on this point.

I think those are the only points I can pick up on a general readthrough that need clarifying still. I'm afraid I don't have time currently to perform other work here such as checking sources etc. Hope this was of some small help in improving the article for general readers. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a better image for the coin and added fuller information about it.
Thanks very much again. Are you happy with my amendments? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dudley, all looking good to me - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Film Award for Best Supporting Actor[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to drive the article towards FL.

Thanks, Franky (Buzz me) 17:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon State University[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… of a dispute with multiple users over whether Oregon State University can be considered an Oregon University System flagship university in accordance with Wikipedia's labelling of flagships. Note the lack of verifiable information affirming flagship status as compared to the University of Oregon's claims verified by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education (see page 5 of UO mission statement presented on the talk page.)

Thanks, Ckere (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review process isn't intended to be a forum for resolving an article dispute between users. Please read the introduction above to see if you want to continue. Praemonitus (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of St Andrews[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like comments and suggestions relating to the content. What should stay what should be removed.

Thanks, Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry this PR hasn't been replied to in so long. I would suggest significantly removing the list of alumni to the associated list page, and also removing the list of colleges and instead providing a link to Category:University_of_St_Andrews_halls_of_residence. If you are considering GA, several sections of this article are uncited. Overall I find this article quite pleasant to read, with some lovely pictures, a nice structure, and a little long with this lists. I could certainly see this article being promoted to Good Article status in the future. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Rodgers[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been awhile since the past GR which I went inactive on (Won't happen on this time) and I would like suggested changes to get this article up for a Good Article Nomination.

Thanks, SKATER Speak. 00:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nea Salamis Famagusta[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am aiming to take it to Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Thanks, Xaris333 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Chincoteague, Virginia[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm planning to bring this to FAC when my current nomination clears and would appreciate comments. Enjoy.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • A superb image of the pony swim! I suppose it's out of the question to have it any bigger?
Happily, and I will hide behind you when people complain. Do you have any views on whether a bit of the right side and the top can be safely cut, or leave well enough alone?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely leave it uncropped. Marvellous stuff! Tim riley (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They are not known to have lived there, as the island lacked suitable soil for their agriculture" – the construction of this sentence slightly bothers me. I think perhaps replacing the comma and "as" with a colon would make it work better.
I think the two parts are related enough a semicolon will work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setting and pre-European use
    • I may be alone in this, but from the moment I began reading the page, I was itching to get to the bit – which I knew would be there – about the origin of the name of the island. I wonder if you could find it in your heart to slip in a short sentence in the lead for the benefit of any other readers who may be afflicted with my obsession with derivations? Quite understand if not.
      • And now added, I see. Thank you, sir. You've made an old man very happy. Tim riley (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly old, I am sure. But thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antebellum period (1776–1860) – the phrase "Antebellum period" meant nothing to me. Is it in common use in US histories? Its import is easily worked out from the dates, I admit. I just mention the point, as a furriner.
It's a pretty standard historical term used uniquely with respect to the American Civil War, Antebellum period (probably not worth a link) . The years will make sure those alien to Our Shores will still get the benefit of the meaning of the caption. Since there was a fair amount of matter on the Civil War and its aftermath, it seemed a logical place to break.
    • "to harvest the bounty of the sea" – rather purple prose, perhaps, unless it's an indirect quote
Toned down.
    • "The first post office arrived" – do post offices arrive? (Shades of Dorothy's house in Wizard of Oz.)
Only if you have an influential congressman ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked.
  • Civil War and after
    • "In 1876, art student Howard Pyle..." – pony penning is mentioned twice in this sentence; I think I'd make the second one just "penning".
Played around with that and neighboring articles. Just not many good synonyms.
  • Causeway and carnivals
    • "Whealton submitted the winning bid to build the causeway as well as gaining the charter for his company" – I struggle with this. You say the charter was to build the causeway: where does the additional winning bid fit in?
I've clarified. The charter was really to operate it. So he would get the profits from building it plus the profits from running it.
    • "have occurred every year since" – I often bleat on about policing such open-ended assertions. Are you confident that this statement has a decently reliable chance of remaining true for the foreseeable future?
It's the biggest event on the island, although I've never been to it (allergic to mobs). If it was cancelled, it would be major news, and the Chincoteague article would be edited, and I daresay this one as well. It's the moneymaker for the fire department (which appears very well funded, from my observation) and the hotels charge premium prices. It's not going anywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the causeway was purchased by the state and the toll removed" – first we've heard of a toll. Do we know what Whealton and his company charged?
I haven't been able to find this out from the usual sources and google, still looking.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, as part of the above matter re Whealton, I've made it clearer from the start this was to be a toll road. If the traffic is not aggravating (usually it is not), it is a very pleasant drive, incidentally.
  • Misty and tourism (1946–present)
    • "The bridge to Assateague is at the east end of Maddox Boulevard … Many souvenir shops and other tourist enterprises were built along it." – Along the Boulevard, I assume, but am perfectly prepared to be told they were along the bridge, à la old London Bridge or the Rialto.
No, though the old bridge seems to serve as a fishing pier today. The Chincoteague Museum (where I took those oyster container shots) is the nearest establishment to the bridge, with the McDonald's in a prime position. Clarified
    • "it featured in an answer and question on the game show, Jeopardy" – I'm sure this makes perfect sense to those who know the show, but to the uninitiated, answer before question looks damn' odd.
I'm inclined to let it stand. The link to the game show will suffice, I think.
    • "less expensive accommodations" – accommodations plural?
Changed to "property".
    • "most of the oyster-shucking houses closing in the 1980s" – but you've told us earlier that the oyster trade went phut in the 1950s.
Well, it did, but the oyster shucking houses continued as best they could (I guess processing for the cans you saw). According to Mariner, they were importing raw oysters from the West Coast to keep going. Plus apparently the name "Chincoteague oyster" still had cachet and so they would import out-of-state oysters, let them rest briefly in Chincoteague waters, and then sell them, especially in local restaurants. Tourists, you know. Quite a place these islanders live on. And to think, the oyster was once their world.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delicious! (Always look to the talk pages to find Wikipedia's best lines.) Tim riley (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1989, the town expanded to annex…" – this bothered me in the lead and bothers me here. Presumably some higher authority than the town council's was needed for this annexation. I think we need a few words on who was consulted and who approved the action. (It is, I don't doubt, perfectly possible that this will be immediately clear to American readers, but it looks odd to an English eye.)
I can tell you, but it's twenty years as a Virginia attorney that is giving me the answer, the source does not say. The Town of Chincoteague sued Accomack County seeking to annex unincorporated land in its county, and a three judge panel decided, as is usual, that the annexation should proceed. I do not actually have a source for that, so would probably have to ring the Accomack County Circuit Court and see if they are willing to give me details over the phone from their computer. There is an interesting article about it here, but I am much more likely to be interested in it than you, shop talk and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit more in the source. I'll clarify.
If anyone else raises the point it might be worth some more rummaging in the archives, but for myself I rest content with the above - thank you. Tim riley (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I loved this article. Your demure juxtaposition of the twin horrors of a nudist beach and a McDonald's made me chortle, and I smiled admiringly at the elegance of "uninterested in shooting the wildlife except with cameras". – Tim riley (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted that you did. Chincoteague is a nice place, and if you are not there on the weekend, relatively quiet even in summer (not counting the pony days).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done or responded to all of the above I think. Thank you for the review and the kind words. I think the ponies will help at FAC. Herd instinct.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TCO[edit]

"Feedback is a gift". Here's a couple pennies. Do the article however you like, just saying what might help the reader.

1. First sentence is too long and has some low value words. Don't confuse us with mentioning town and island both (of same name) and then we wonder why one is not blue linked. Just say "island town". (we can get into the nuances of town and island later but don't hurt your first sentence which otherwise evokes romantic images of Indians and gets the story moving. Cut United States also.

I will tweak it but if I don't use US, I get accused of parochialism by international reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. The geography is interesting but confusing and not well shown in your diagrams (and a fair amount of discussion touches on it). The whole Assateague versus Chincoteague. Maryland/Virginia border, Eastern Shore, town with the rail line, etcetra). I actually used Google Images to find reasonable maps to orient myself. The 1916 map is useless (even if you improve nothing, the article is better by just cutting it). The Virginia map, why do we need to see all the counties of Virginia? (also would prefer a better indicator than the red dot, but this is a nit). The detailed map of Chincoteague is actually too blown up to really orient yourself...at a minimum need something to show the relation to the shore and to Assateague: [7]

I recropped the source. How is it now? I realize it would be nice to have an image showing Franklin City and Greenbackville and all that. Who is good at making PD maps these days.

3. The infobox has a lot of almanac information that is about the current town (as if the article was for the town, not history of it). This is really an article that would be better sans infobox. (You can still have two images without an infobox, just get a collage created.)

Really only one, and I think making it big is justifiable. I've axed the infobox.

4. (+) The horse picture looks great. Very man from Snowy River driving the brumbies.

Indeed.

5. Consider (just consider) to do an initial section "Geography" that is more introductory and explains the formation of the barrier islands along with the current political boundaries. It will make it easier for the reader to follow the rest of the flow. You can have a map down in that section (map that you have had made for the purpose, not just using what you have now) that is displayed large, centered. (For the lead, I think a more "icon like" small map that just shows VA and the location is fine for orientation and then the big horse pic, maybe almost like a species range map in simplicity).

I am wanting to stick with the human history, to ensure it is reasonable in length and scope.

6. Break all the paras that are 200+ words, to improve readability.

69.255.27.249 (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already looks a lot better.208.44.87.91 (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I sorta think it needs more work than the other two guys. Why such a long lead (especially second para) for such a small town? I like your minimalist leads on the plays. This reads more like one of those leads where they do too much of the chronology meat of the story.

Also, I advise to have an introductory sentence to explain what the heck Chicoteague is. Will be less tangled than how you have the sentence trying to get the action going along with all the where is Chincoteague details in parentheticals. Like, "Chincoteague is an island town of Virginia's Eastern Shore, famous for wild horses, the Chincoteague ponies. The human history of Chingoteague starts with the Indians. Pocahantas used it as an oyster bar. Bla bla." You can then make the last para more chronologyish.

You have two big sections with no images. Can't you do anything here? Artifacts, paintings, maps (made custom but showing the story, timeline, data chart, etc.?) Think. Or the big oyster jar, can it move up?

The alternation of images is annoying given we get squeezes. I recommend to go to more right side. Also move the locations around within sections a bit more to space them out and get less squeezes.

That depends only on screen size. On one of my deveices it works well enough; on the other (wider screen), although images appear opposite each other, there is a decent amount of text in between and it isn't an issue. We tend to be less worried about images being opposite each other nowadays because of the variety of screen resolutions and the difficulty in ensuring an article is "ideal" on all of them. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

208.44.87.91 (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TCO, I think you need to work on your approach a bit. Just saying "I sorta think it needs more work than the other two guys" is not calculated to appeal to the experienced FA writer who has gotten positive reviews of the article. Pride of authorship, conformation bias, call it what you will. I know you are the big iconoclast and all that, but surely you can do better than that? Yes, sometimes you have to go into the Big Cheese's office and tell him his pride and joy sucks, but I imagine you would not do so with bluntness where anything else would serve.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, I've added a couple of images to have something in the early sections. The alternation of images is usual and is likely to attract adverse comment should we do vary too far from it. I think the length of the lede justified, a "History" article always includes more facts and so calls for a longer lede. I have , however, added some mention of the ponies as suggested, in the opening.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TCO's comments here seen and mostly acted upon. I think this article needs to percolate a bit more so it won't be next up at FAC, I'll run two-cent piece which needs to get through because its 150th is next year.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SchroCat[edit]

Like TR, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this—very pleasant and enjoyable. Very few bits to pick up on something this well put together, but a couple of queries:

Colonial Chincoteague

  • "[ mulatto]": Any reason for the space after the square bracket?
No, that's just a kludge. I want it linked and bracketed and if you put three brackets on either side of a word it won't link. Please feel free to fix.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done – took a few attempts with different fixes, but the nowiki tags seem to work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misty and tourism

  • "Chincoteague supplied few shellfish anymore": this feels a bit awkward to me, but I'm not sure why and I'm not sure how it could be improved! Feel free to ignore if you're happy with it.
It's a change of writing tone. I will play with it. The problem is "anymore".

A very pleasant read indeed—please drop me a note when you go to FAC. Pip pip – SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I enjoyed writing this article. Thank you for reviewing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass in B minor structure[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am passionately in love with the topic (pictured on top of my talk) and would like more independent views, to make it as good as possible. This is my first PR request.

Thanks, Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

An article like this is far outside my expertise, but here are a few passing comments:

  • You've placed most of the notation graphics following subsection headers to the left; MOS:IMAGELOCATION says this can cause problems.
  • Thank you for having taken the time, I read your comments (to this version) once, find them all helpful and will comment (sometimes not) under them without signing.
Image location: I am all for right, don't like to see it broken every day for Today's featured article, said so many times. In this case I thought that everything written follows the music, but I happily changed.
  • Shouldn't translations (such as "Agnus Dei" (Lamb of God))) have the translated parts in quotations ("Agnus Dei" ("Lamb of God"))? I don't see a guideline on this
  • Normally probably yes. - Agnus Dei is a very well known term, I would not put it in quotation marks - even hesitate for the italics -, and then the translation shouldn't have quotation marks, no? Perhaps no translation?
    • Agnus Dei in particular may not require a translation, but some of the others (e.g. "Credo in unum Deum" (I believe in one God) ) probably do. I had thought translation of terms normally appeared in quotation marks, but since I can't find a guideline saying so, I won't push it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible to use {{ill}} to create interwiki links to foreign-language wiki articles; for example, the Italian wiki has an article on Auf, süß entzückende Gewalt, BWV Anh196. You can create a temporary link thus: {{ill|it|Auf, süß entzückende Gewalt, BWV Anh196|Auf, süß entzückende Gewalt}}, which appears as Auf, süß entzückende Gewalt, BWV Anh196 [it]. The magic part of this is that if anyone creates the English article, the template will automatically stop displaying the interwiki link, as if it were never there.
  • Thanks for the hint at the Italian! I used {{ill}} in other cases.
  • Is there a reason Bach's name is in bold in the infobox?
  • Yes, there is, it's a template question for {{infobox Bach composition}}. It was not bold on top of the picture, as in {{infobox opera}}, but reverted by Nikkimaria.
    • I didn't realize it was the infobox itself doing that. It seems strange to me, as I thought being an infobox field was highlight enough. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I have time, I will pursue that topic further, at the template talk. As in opera, I had "by Johann Sebastian Bach" above the image, until it was reverted.
  • I'm not sure the parts of the work should be bolded, according to MOS:BOLD. They're not terms being defined.
  • I reduced the bolding to redirects.
  • I think the infobox image lacks impact ...
  • It's hard to illustrate this work. The modest original title by the composer has great impact, imo. I liked our poster.
    • What about File:Bwv232-credo.jpg used in the "Credo in unum Deum" section? It's creating a lot of white space there. I think it'd be a much better infobox image, as it shows the actual music, rather than a mostly blank page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, but will wait what others may say. I like the title page at the beginning and the autograph where the text relates to it.
  • I now rearranged the pics, also plan to write more about the Et incarnatus, which will reduce the white space further.
  • Are you aware of {{music}} for producing time signatures? Not that I'm saying you should use it, just that you may like to.
  • I am aware, and find commontime too big for tables, see?
  • "Gregorian chant" and "Sanctus" are each linked twice in the lead. There appears to be a lot of duplinking throughout the article. Are you aware of User:Ucucha/duplinks?
  • The lead probably needs an extra look at the end of the procedure, it was the last thing written. I changed the two you mentioned. - Several movements have redirects pointing to them. A reader coming in there should not have to go back to the beginning.
  • "he composed it as a complex symmetric structure": should that be "as a" or "in a"?
  • Language subtleties are not for me to answer ;) - He created a symmetric structure.
    • Okay, if you didn't have a particular reason to use "as a", I'd change it to "in a". Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The Mass "represents Bach's last major artistic undertaking" ": according to whom? Is there a reason why this is quoted and not paraphrased?
  • It's sourced where it appears. I don't dare to paraphrase such a sentence ;)
  • "For several movements their base is known, for some others it is lost but the score shows that they are copied and reworked." I'd reword this aomething like "The bases for several movements are known, for others they are lost but the score shows that they are copied and reworked."
  • done
  • "affekt" is linked, but could it not be given a short explanation?
  • I hesitate, because it's in the middle of an already long structure. Here and in general: this is a specialised article, most readers will be familiar with terms related to Baroque music and Mass composition.
  • "the Sanctus is scored for six voices, SSAATB, and the Osanna": I assume SSAATB is the six voices, rather than in addtion? Maybe put the formula in parentheses to make it clear?
  • done
  • done
  • RexxS used to do that for me. I will see what I can learn.

My break's over. I'll take another look later. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much, this was a step forward already! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2

  • Did you know that I am delighted about your diligent looking and commenting (at this version). It is also helpful to know if the article makes sense to a reader without special background.
  • "where sacred music "borrowed" from Italian opera": is there a reason "borrowed" should be in quotes?
  • If you think it is good enough without just remove them away.
  • "More likely, Bach sought to create": I assume Rifkin went through a number of other possibilities before this quotation, but in the context of this article "More likely" is out of place. Maybe replace with "... likely"?
  • I removed "More", but think it would make sense, - "more likely" than the composition for a specific occasion, in that sense, in place, no?
  • ""kind of specimen book of his finest compositions in every kind of style, from the stile antico of Palestrina in the "Credo" and "Confiteor" and the expressively free writing of the "Crucifixus" and "Agnus Dei", to the supreme counterpoint of the opening Kyrie as well as so many other choruses, right up to the most modern style in galant solos like "Christe eleison" and "Domine Deus""": these double quotes withing double quotes should be converted to single quotes, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations within quotations
  • done
  • "For several movements, scholars assume": scholars assume what?
  • I reworded it completely.
  • "The Gloria is structured in symmetry as a sequence of choral movements and solo movements, arias and a cental duet": is that "central duet", or a technical term I'm not familiar with?
  • typo ;) - please correct the next such find right away, with a "?" in the edit notice.
  • ". The first is opened by a chorus followed by an aria, closed in the last section in symmetry by an aria followed by a chorus, the middle section alternates choral music with solo." I'd have "the middle section" as a separate sentence.
  • tried a ";" - it's the structure of the whole movement, should be one idea. Question is how much of this should be present at this point, how much where the part Gloria begins. Some repetition will be needed for people coming in to these redirects.
  • "The continuation of the thought, "Et in terra pax"": why the bolding?
  • because it has it's own No. in some editions, - I made it an extra header, hesitantly, because the transition from one to the other is truly one of the miracles of the work, only understood if you come from the Gloria
  • "The length of an eight-note ... of "heavenly" three eights": should these be "eighths"?
  • yes
  • "the idea of thanks to God and praise of his creation": I think we capitalize "His" (though I'm not religious myself)
  • This depends on who "we" is. If I quote from the King James version of the Bible, I capitalize, but I don't in normal text or the translation of something that doesn't (here German and Latin). Interested what others think.
  • "is a melody in even tempo that raises gradually": I think that's "rises"
  • yes
  • ""propter magnam gloriam tuam" (for your great glory) ... und verkündigen deine Wunder" (and proclaim your wonders)": I think "Your" might be capitalized as well
  • as above

I'm going to take a break here and come back again. My technical understanding really doesn't go beyond guitar-magazine analyses of prog rock, so I'll have to skip over that stuff. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments[edit]

A couple of general observations:

  • Wikipedia articles should primarily be written for a general readership, rather than for those with existing expertise in a subject. With this thought in mind, I have reservations about the anonymity of the title. Of course, those versed in music will be aware that the B minor Mass is J.S. Bach's, none other, but many others will not know this and may be misled as to the article's intended focus.
  • Thank you for looking! I am not sure if I understand the question(s). The article for the general readership is Mass in B minor, without a qualifier, - and I am happy every time I link that it is short and does not need a pipe. The title of this should follow, no? --GA
  • My point is that if the article's title was, say, Structure of Bach's B minor Mass, then all readers would know immediately what the article was about. Your present title may not mean much to readers other than music lovers, and even they may be a little confused by the title. as I admit I was for a moment. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My idea was that the search function should present it when you look for the piece. At the moment it is consistent with The Creation structure, but it could be with Structure of Handel's Messiah, if we don't mind the extra characters each time it is linked to. This article name plus movement name is the link to a given movement, as editions don't agree on movement numbers, and a movement number 3 would not even tell you in which section of NBA I you are. I tried to keep the article name short. Redirects are fine ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a quick glance, there are presentational issues, first with the seven-paragraph lead (which includes a bullet-point list). The lead should comply with the requirements of WP:LEAD. Then, the later text appears to be heavily over-provided with illustrations from the published music, but this has created a multitude of white spaces which give the text a very fragmented appearance and does not help readability. Are all the illustrations really necessary?
  • Lead: it will be the last thing to be developed. Normally I would not present a bullet-point list there, but in this unique case it seems to me a way to present (in bold) Bach's original titles of his four books and their (unusual) relation to the normal five titles of the mass.
  • When you do modify the lead, you should incorporate into the first paragraph a summary of why the structure of this work is of particular importance or interest, e.g. the extent to which it is unique in church music, or how influenced the character of later formal religious works. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The incipits are taken from the list in the German Wikipedia where they are within the table of movements. It was the same here in earlier versions, but I felt that in that position they blow up the space of the table and (more important) are not near to whatever is said about the music. They are no illustration but more a visible source, which will tell anyone who can read music or even knows this music what the text is about, text which can only very humbly approach "the master". --GA
  • The great majority of your potential readers will not be able to read music, and the presence in the article of 30-odd incipits etc. will not help them to understand the article. My recommendation would be to reduce these examples to an absolute minimum, perhaps four or five cases where a simple, significant point can be clearly illustrated. You have set yourself an extremely difficult task in attempting to produce an article of a technical nature that is at the same time accessible to the general reader; I am not entirely sure how possible this will be, but selectivity of examples an illustrations will be an important factor. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's wrong to address those who can read music also, and provide Bach's music visibly. There are free scores, but it always takes an extra click to get to them, and you don't see music and something written about it at the same time. Much more could be said about each single movement, and none of them is unimportant ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The white space could be reduced if the incipits were shown smaller and/or without caption. The latter was already discussed, see talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Sorry I've left this for a while. I've done some stuff with the tables for accessiblity, including breaking the table into four, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. I guess this messes with sorting, though. Another option is to include the part names in another column of the table (using "rowspan"), but that would make the table even wider than it already is. Which would you prefer?
  • There are some places on the table where I'm stuck:
    • "The movement numbers follow the Bärenreiter editions of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe, first in a consecutive numbering (NBA II), then in numbering for the four individual parts (NBA I)": So, NBA II is the numbering for the Mass as a whole (from 1 to 23), and NBA I is numbering for the individual parts (Missa 1–12, Symbolum Nicenum 1–9)? If so, then aren't the "No" and "No2" headers in the table (now tables) backwards?
      • They are backwards insofar as I prefer the numbering from 1 to 23 as more unique, and as their later version. The other, former approach is listed second, although/because in history it was first. The table as it is now is better suited to that one.
    • Either way, it's not obvious at first glance what "No" and "No2" refer to. Would it be appropriate to relable them "NBA I" and "NBA II"?
      • You could say "NBA II" and "NBA I", it would make the table again a bit larger.
      • done
    • What's going on with "Et expecto"? I clicked through, but couldn't find an explanation. Is it a typo? If not, can they not somehow be merged into one row?
      • I don't know what you mean? The words are composed twice, different scoring, different parody situation.
    • Why are "Kyrie", "Gloria", and "Credo" in bold?
      • They are headings in the "normal" Latin mass, not a single movement only but the beginning of a part.
    • There is the comment "likely" under the "Source" header for many of the movements. Likely what?
      • Short for "It is likely that this movement is a parody, but we have no knowledge about parody of what."
    • Are there no "No2"s for Sanctus?
      • No, because that edition considered it one movement, in spite of a different time.
  • ———Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for more help, and take all the time you need. It took about a century from composition to first performance ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please think about the table once more. I would really like if for example "strings" was one column where you could easily compare where he uses a viola, where not, and if readers could see following the two adjacent columns if a movement is solo or choir, important for the structure, - both without having to find "where's this column" from one of Bach's four parts (which don't correspond to the normal five parts of a mass) to the next. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tables[edit]

Thank you, Curly Turkey, for improving the structure table! I tried to take Brian's comment, eliminated the complex bullet list from the lead and tried a table, - only: I don't know which mistake makes everything appear bold (and have no time now ...). The line below Sanctus should not be there, if that can be done, - I would not know how. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. The problem was starting the lines with a "!"–it makes the whole line a header, I guess. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably ;) thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Assault Weapons Ban[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a contentious topic that hasn't been peer-reviewed in six years. It should probably be listed under several categories, but since it's about politics, I'm starting with social science. The 1994 ban expired in 2004, so it could probably go under history too or next (though there are existing state and municipal bans and ongoing talk about a new federal-level law).

Suggestions for review: WP:NPOV, WP:MOS, WP:CONTROVERSY (or WP:CRITICISM?), WP:BETTER... or what you're good at!

Thanks, Lightbreather (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um...article is already under review (or has been reviewed just two weeks ago) read: Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_5#ANI_notice Thanks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The archived discussion you linked to was started on Oct. 1 as an ANI notice and turned into an informal review that lasted only two days (until Oct. 3 - three weeks ago). Of the 12 editors who participated, eight have been active on this article in recent months. Of the four others, I thought Calathan's comments scroll down to paragraph that begins, "I noticed this article." were especially good, but no-one acted on them. (I would've liked to but was stepping back for a while.) I was really looking forward to hearing more from Drmies, but maybe she got busy and had to drop her generous offer?
At any rate, the peer-review request started today is more formal and may, it is to be hoped, bring some fresh, outside commentary. Lightbreather (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I made a specific suggestion (to make it a one-woman job, to be gauged afterward), and I think one person didn't like that idea and no one else took me up on it. There were plenty of editors weighing in, many of them seemingly very capable, so I didn't figure that the article would suffer from a lack of attention. I suggest that you ask the specific editors whose suggestions you thought useful (I only made one or two, I believe) to incorporate them and others into the article. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just a misunderstanding, which is easy when communicating solely in writing. I was looking forward to seeing your edits, but I figured you'd gotten busy elsewhere. I did not want to pester you. I know at least one editor is reading the article now, but there isn't a limit on how many people can respond to a review request... is there? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from StarryGrandma[edit]

I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it.

Like many articles on laws this one need more organization and needs more information about the provisions of the law. The article omits mention of a very unusual provision in this ban, that the Attorney General was required to do research on the effects of the ban on crime, on a strictly specified start and end date, and issue a report to Congress.


Review
  • The lead paragraph needs to mention that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not ban owning assault weapons in the United States. Not all readers will be familiar with US policies on gun control.
  • The article needs a short origins, history, or background section to put this law in context. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 has a short statement of background. This part of the law needs something like the one at the start of the brief summary of the first National Institute of Justice report. See the reference list below.


Criteria of an assault weapon
  • The first sentence is very straightforward but has 6 references. If those references are for the whole article they could be in a references section at the end. Otherwise the references should be next to the material for which they are the source.
  • What was the former US law referred to in the first paragraph? This section needs the reference to that law or some other source for this material.
  • The list of banned weapons would look better as a table than a bullet list. Try to minimize bullet lists in articles. The 1999 brief summary from the NIJ is a good reference for this.


Provisions of the law
  • Add a reference to the text of the law. See list of references below.
  • Go through the provisions in order, putting the ban on manufacturing and sale of newly manufactured weapons first. The "higher prices sentence" should be moved to a section on the effects of the ban and needs a reference.
  • Don't use the word flowchart in the first description of the ban. Readers might think the law included a diagram rather than just a list of characteristics. Flowchart has come into use recently in talking about weapons bans, but doesn't seem to have been used in 1994. Give an example of showing why the word flowchart can be used to as a description of determining what weapons are affected by the ban.
  • Include that the ban did not apply to the approximately 1.5 million assault weapons already in civilian hands.
  • The law required modification of serial numbers to include manufacture date.
  • Next describe the provision on large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
  • Next describe the provision for a study and report by the Attorney General.
  • Lastly put in the provision that the ban would expire in 10 years.


Compliance
  • The contents of this section don't reflect the title. This should go into the effects section.


Expiration and effect on crime
  • Rename this "Effect of the assault weapons ban" or "Impact of the ban". There was research into the effects before the expiration of the law.
  • Go through the reports and research in a chronological order like that of the section on efforts to renew the ban. I've listed the National Institutes of Justice reports and the response in the reference section at the end. The required report to Congress was made in 1997.
  • Be clear about the source of the reports. The first NIJ report was done in response to the requirement in the law. Both NIJ reports were funded by the Department of Justice to study the effects of the federal weapons ban.
  • The paragraph on Lott's books needs rewriting. Put his research into the section in chronological order. Be careful about saying his was the "first" at any point. It sounds promotional and would need a reference for this to include it. You would also need to add that by this time Congress had stopped the Centers for Disease Control from funding research on gun violence.


Text of the bill 103-322:

"Public Law 103-322 Sept 13, 1994" (PDF). United States Congress.


Summary of first NIJ research report:

Roth, Jeffrey A. (March 1999). "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban" (PDF). National Institute of Justice Research in Brief (NCJ 173405). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)


Journal publication of first NIJ research report:

Koper, Christopher S. (2001). "Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation". Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 17 (1): 33–74. doi:10.1023/A:1007522431219. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)


Journal criticized for publishing the report and rebuttal by authors:

Kleck, Gary (2001). "Impossible Policy Evaluations and Impossible Conclusions: A Comment on Koper and Roth". Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 17 (1): 75–80. doi:10.1023/A:1007574415289.

Koper, Christopher S. (2001). "A Priori Assertions Versus Empirical Inquiry: A Reply to Kleck". Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 17 (1): 81–88. doi:10.1023/A:1007526532127. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)


Effect on gun availability and prices from NIJ funded research:

Koper, Christopher S. (2002). "The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban on Gun Markets: An Assessment of Short-Term Primary and Secondary Market Effects". Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 18 (3): 239–266. doi:10.1023/A:1016055919939. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)


Second NIJ research report: (Note that this one never got published anywhere.)

Koper, Christopher S. (June 2004). "An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 - Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

StarryGrandma (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU, StarryGrandma! Excellent, thorough assessment. I will print it out and study it in detail, and begin to work on it with the other editors ASAP! I'll keep you updated. Thanks again, and ever at your service. Lightbreather (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
VERY THOROUGH! Thank you very much, StarryGrandma, it is clear that you put a great deal of effort into this. I am sure that your suggestions will go a long way toward improving the article. Good Stuff! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and what a large amount of excellent recommendations! North8000 (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catalytic triad[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just updated if from being a bit of a stub but my knowledge comes mainly from proteases, so input from other enzymologists would be particularly useful. Additionally, perhaps chemists may have some input as to why the use of a triad is so common an active site construction.

Thanks, Evolution and evolvability (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image Lake[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in bringing Image Lake to GA status, but I would like some feedback on the article before proceeding.

Thanks, — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 00:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LT910001[edit]

Thanks for your edits to this article! This article certainly reads very well, and is illustrated by some beautiful pictures. For GA nomination, I'd note the following (please take with a grain of salt!):

  • Broadness: the article doesn't make much mention of the ecology of the area of animals/insects/plants/trees that grow here. I don't know enough about the local indigenous history, but an expanded mention of relevance to the indigenous persons of the area might be warranted.
  • Lead and description: relating to the above, I feel this article would benefit from an expanded description of Image lake, for example, features, wildlife, surrounding geography etc.
  • Readability: the article is impacted by having a lot of proper nouns, almost every sentence having 1-2 capitalised references. Suggest decapitalise compass directions, geographical epochs, and Wikilink (even to red links) the first mention of local geographical structures.
  • Other than that, verifiability, neutrality and images are excellent.

I'd certainly encourage you to nominate for GA when the article has been expanded a little. I hope this advice is useful! Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Sladen[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it could do with input from the community.

Thanks, Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LT910001[edit]

Thanks for your edits to this article! It's very well-reading and thorough. I really like some aspects of the article, including the way it's written, and its comprehensiveness. I think it could however improve in some aspects:

  • Could write about the roles in a more discursive way, so that it doesn't feel as much like a list.
  • The unreferenced sections need citations.

Overall I think this article is of good quality, with the first two points addressed I'd encourage you to nominate it for good article status, and undergo a more thorough review there. I hope this helps! Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian civil war[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is well sourced and encompasses the geographic whole of the topic in question. I was wondering what else could be missing and if it needs to be written better. As for images, I'm not sure where to get free images.

Thanks, Lihaas (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wells Cathedral[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because extensive work by many editors has brought it up through GA status to its current state where I feel it is nearly ready for a FA nomination. The architecture and history of the building over many centuries is fairly well covered, but is there anything which is missing or any MOS issues still outstanding?

Thanks, — Rod talk 14:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

I'll need two goes at this. I've made a few minor amendments, mostly of typos, which please check to see you're happy about. First lot of comments:

  • General
    • Capitalisation – you need to be consistent about capitalising (or not) church job titles, notably bishop and dean. Of course Bishop So-and-So or Dean Such-and-Such need capitals, but "the bishop" or "the dean" should be in lower case.
      • I have attempted to standardise these but only found one occurrence of each which was in upper case where it wasn't the individuals title or the name of a building etc - If I've missed any please point them out.— Rod talk 18:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you agree on the general point I'll go through again and amend any stray caps if I run across them. Probably no point laboriously mentioning them here, as long as you're happy for me to deal. Tim riley (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd be happy but there are some specialist architectural and historical terms which take upper case as proper names which some well meaning editors have changed in the past.— Rod talk 07:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • I don't know that I'd include the current bishop and dean in the opening para. With all due respect to the Rt Rev and Very Rev gentlemen they are transient figures in the history of the cathedral, and they're mentioned in the info-box alongside the lead. There is a question of WP:DATED here.
      • I have moved these from the lead to the Ministry section.— Rod talk 18:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Scheduled monument" – the capital S seems wrong here. I note that the word is not capitalised in the relevant WP article.
  • Seat of the bishop
    • "despite much lobbying of the pope in Rome by Jocelin's representatives" – the thought "where else?" rather comes to mind; perhaps rejig as "despite much lobbying of the pope by Jocelin's representatives in Rome"
      • I prefer your version and have used the text you suggested.— Rod talk 18:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "like the cathedrals of Chichester…" – you might consider putting blue links here
  • Construction
    • "quire and retroquire" – unusual archaic spelling not used elsewhere in the article
    • "the Retroquire" – capital letter really wanted?
      • I'm hoping that User:Amandajm will comment on this as I have a memory of this previously being discussed.— Rod talk 18:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, and removed some capitals from Chapter House etc. Some early books have a convention of always using caps for parts of a cathedral, West Front etc. But it is tidier not to, unless they have names that are specific, as at Lincoln: the Angel Choir, the Dean's Eye etc. The only one that really requires a capital here is Lady chapel, because it refers to "Our Lady". Do we want it to have one capital letter or two? Is it a chapel called the Lady Chapel or is it a generic Lady chapel? Amandajm (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Personally, I prefer caps for both words in "Lady Chapel", but the WP article is "Lady chapel", and I think it's probably right to follow suit. Tim riley (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tudors and civil war
    • "From 1508 to 1546, eminent Italian humanist scholar" – the omission of "the" before "eminent" is either tabloid journalese or an Americanism. Either way, it is regrettable in so English an article.
    • "The dean was Dr Walter Raleigh, a nephew of the explorer Sir Walter Raleigh" – seems anomalous to pipe the dean's "Dr" but not his uncle's "Sir". With "Sir"s I find the eye travels more smoothly over the prose if they are piped.
    • [Barrett ran him through – nothing to do with this review, but I'm curious to know what happened to Barrett. Did he get off or was he punished?]
      • I've never looked at this before but according to this 1838 book he was taken to assizes, but found not guilty and given a local estate. The same passage is quoted in this 1837 book. However these accounts have been questioned (see DNB entry).— Rod talk 11:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for indulging me. Very interesting. Tim riley (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1660–1800
    • "but popular support led to his acquittal" – not just his, IIRR. Didn't they all get off?
  • Ministry
    • "Daily services including – should this read "include"?
      • I've reworded this as we had "daily including" twice close together in subsequent sentences.— Rod talk 08:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a most enjoyable article, and I'm looking forward to doing part two of this review. More soonest. – Tim riley (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for you help so far.— Rod talk 08:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exterior
    • The first para has a lot of statements before we get to the first citation. Are all the statements of the first three sentences covered by ref 76?
      • I've added another ref.— Rod talk 08:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • West front
    • "West fronts in general …" – this seems wholly authoritative, but could do with a citation, I think.
    • "but these do not indicate the location of the aisles, but extend well beyond them" – too many buts. I suggest "but these do not indicate the location of the aisles, extending well beyond them".
    • "The west front at Wells … The west front at Wells" (in first para) – beginning successive sentences. I suggest omitting "at Wells" the second time.
    • "they constitute the finest display of medieval carving in England" – that's a helluva statement from one citation. I'd be more comfortable with "in so-and-so's view they constitute etc"
  • Crossing tower
    • "which was burnt down in 1439" – it may just be me but this phrasing suggests that someone did it deliberately. If, as I assume, it was an accident, I think I'd omit the "was". Ignore this if you think I'm talking nonsense.
  • Cloisters
    • "none, however, are proven – We have an excellent Wiki-colleague User:John who is first among several reviewers (I am another, Johnny-come-lately to the cause) who wages a campaign against "however", and nine times out of ten I think he's right. In my view this is one of the nine, and we could lose the "however". The sentence will be stronger without it, I think. (There is another debate to be had about the merits of "proven"-v-"proved", but that's for another day, perhaps.)
      • My grammar is not strong enough for this debate (either however or "proven"-v-"proved") and I would welcome input/advice from others.— Rod talk 09:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed to "Explanations for their construction at these secular cathedrals range from processional to aesthetic" as suggested by User:Eric Corbett
  • Restoration
    • I'm not persuaded that Cathedral Architect and Clerk of Works to the Cathedral need caps, particularly as chief conservator isn't capped.
  • Choir, transept and nave
    • "and are "brutally massive" and intrusive in an otherwise restrained interior" – I think you really need something on the lines of "according to Walter Plinge…" before this ringing statement.
      • Again I'm asking for help here.— Rod talk 09:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapter House
    • Perhaps lose the duplicate link to Alec Clifton-Taylor here?
  • Lady Chapel and retrochoir
    • "not symmetrical about both axis" – the plural of "axis" is "axes". Rather unfortunate, as it has one thinking of sharp implements, but there it is.
    • "non-supporting ribs known as "lierne ribs"" – it's a bit late to be putting the term in inverted commas, as it has cropped up extensively earlier in the text. Perhaps move the explanation of the term to the first mention?
    • "Medieval" – capital needed?
  • Misericords
    • [Particularly fine pictures in this section, if I may say so.]
      • I spent several hours (with permission) crawling around on the floor, lifting seat cushions to find loads of sweet wrappers etc., with and without flash & trying different exposures. They are not easy objects to access for pictures as the position and lighting are a challenge.— Rod talk 10:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They may have been carved under the master carpenter John Strode" – this sounds rather painful for the poor man. Perhaps "carved under the direction of …"?
    • "over-riding" – the OED doesn't allow a hyphen and prescribes "overriding", but perhaps other dictionaries disagree.
  • Fittings and monuments
    • A couple more phrases with initial capitals that I think you might want to reconsider: Chapter Seal and Bishop's Throne
  • Voluntary Choir
    • The choir spends the first two sentences in the singular and then becomes plural for the rest of the para. I think this works all right, but I just mention it for you to satisfy yourself that you are happy with it.
      • Again my grammar is too weak to give a definitive answer.— Rod talk
        • User:Eric Corbett has reworded this (along with a load of other copyediting) - do you think this is resolved?— Rod talk 20:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are in safe hands chez Corbett. He is one of WP's indispensable editors, and this article will be the better for his edits. Tim riley (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            You're too kind Tim. We each only do what we can. Eric Corbett 21:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Library
    • "The Chapters' earlier collection" – I wonder about the possessive apostrophe here: ought it to be Chapter's, or are you referring to successive Chapters?
  • In the arts
    • "Joseph Mallord William Turner" – I'd be inclined to pipe this as J M W Turner, or even just Turner. I think he's eminent enough to be recognisable by surname alone, à la Beethoven or Picasso.

This is a fine piece of work and a most enjoyable article. Please let me know when you take it to FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

I was too lazy to break down my suggestions as Tim has done, so I made my suggestions in this series of edits. In summary:

  • I dislike "while" as it carries an overtone of simultaneity. Where this is not the case, I prefer to avoid it.
  • shifted -> moved
  • With the Norman conquest -> Following the Norman Conquest
  • I greatly dislike sentences like "Designed in the new style with pointed arches, later to be known as Gothic and introduced at about the same time at Canterbury Cathedral, the church was largely complete at the time of its dedication in 1239." In this case I reordered to a more traditional sentence structure as "The church was designed in the new style with pointed arches, later to be known as Gothic and introduced at about the same time at Canterbury Cathedral. It was largely complete at the time of its dedication in 1239." The information is already complex enough without making the reader work so hard to extract the meaning.
  • "before finally settling at Wells" I prefer to avoid using "finally" as history is still running. It could be that next century they will relocate this to Slough, you never know.
  • lead -> led (past tense)
  • Clarify that Peter Price is retired
  • Remove "a number of" throughout; zero, negative nine, pi and the square root of minus one are all perfectly respectable numbers. It's usually better to say "a few", "several" or similar.
  • "The west front at Wells has paired towers, but these do not indicate the location of the aisles, extending well beyond them. The west front is in fact a screen." -> " The one at Wells is a screen; its paired towers do not indicate the location of the aisles, extending well beyond them." Shorter, clearer, and we lose "in fact". Everything recorded in our articles should be factual.
Response: We have just said there are three forms 1. following the nave and aisles 2. with paired towers, 3 a screen (Exeter for example) The facade at Wells has two towers, BUT screens the actual form of the building. The present edit simply states that it falls into the "screen" category, which is misleading, as it has two towers. Besides which, I have an extraordinarily strong aversion to jamming whole sentences together with semicolons. If used for that purpose, the they must be used for effect. (unless it is a legal document.
  • Two instances of 1300s replaced with 14th century; please clarify whether this is correct. The 1300s could also refer to the decade from 1300-1309, so is best avoided.
  • "the carving of the foliage is notable for its variety and vigour, " -> "the carving of the foliage is varied and vigorous"; of course it is notable else we would not be noting it!
Response The carving of the foliage is notable for the degree of liveliness and vigour. Stiff leaf foliage is usually vigorous, or it isn't stiff leaf. I don't drop in words like "notable" without reason. IN this case, it is more than usually lively and vigorous. They are "noted" or "known for" that characteristic.
  • "The carvings at Wells are not both typical, however, as one has wings and appears to be wearing clothes." -> "One of the carvings at Wells is unusual, as it has wings and appears to be wearing clothes." State a positive if you can rather than a negative, shorter is better and "however" should usually be avoided.
Response The wording is careful. There are people who insist that it is a Sheela na Gig. However It is not simply "unusual"; it is anything but "typical"> (Note punchy use of semicolon to emphasise contrast in two statement....) It probably isn't a Sheela na Gig, but the article is the wrong place to argue that point.
  • "Moreover" is also always worth trying to do without
  • "Many of the subjects are simply depictions of animals" -> "Many of the subjects are depictions of animals". I haven't seen them but I very much doubt they are simple or that it was simple to carve them. This is another word to avoid where possible.
  • We don't need Bishop of Bath and Wells in the See also as it is already mentioned and linked in the article.

Just one remaining issue for me; why are the images formatted in a non-standard way with upright tags? It makes them display awkwardly large at some resolutions.

Response The reason that they are tagged "upright" is that I have been advised that this formatting is preferred for ipads, mobiles etc. It is more effective than sizing them by the number of pixels (250px etc). I have had my son check it out on his mobile, and he can view those images without any problem. Amandajm (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:IMGSIZE it is usually preferable just to leave the images as unforced "thumb"s. This allows logged in users to set their own image preferences. I have looked at this article on three monitor settings and while there is no problem seeing the images on the smallest monitor setting the images definitely overwhelm the text as they are currently formatted. --John (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a super article, I enjoyed reading it, and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. I might even try to visit it next time I am in Southern England; it sounds fascinating. --John (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your time and effort. I think the chances of a relocation to Slough are slim to say the least, but otherwise all your comments are valid, and hopefully I will be able to learn from them to improve my editing.— Rod talk 21:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was intended as a joke, with no disrespect to Slough intended. Thank you for your work in writing such an interesting article. --John (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you to everyone who has identified issues during this peer review. The comments and responses to them have definately helped to improve the article. Further discussions are continuing on Talk:Wells Cathedral and I am hopeful that everyones contributions will mean we are soon able to nominate the article for FA status.— Rod talk 10:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen (Megadeth album)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering nominating this article to be a featured article. However, I would like to receive feedback as to the quality of the article as of now, and what kind of improvements will be necessary to bring it up to FA-quality. Thanks, L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vic Rattlehead

I'm not sure whether it is an official criteria, but adding some sub-section titles might be useful for better navigation. It will help the common reader find a certain information without going through the whole text. Another idea would be to cut off the reviews that are not mentioned in the prose (Artistdirect and The Boston Phoenix for example) and to put the grades from Metal Forces and This Is Fake DIY on their place.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trees (poem)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This article failed at FAC a few months ago, mostly because of the useless "not engaging prose" comment (which I can't do anything with without specific instances to revise) and because one editor read too deeply into the article and thought it gave negatively undue weight to criticism and parodies of the poem (I don't see it...but we read what we want to read). I'd like to bring it back for FAC in the next few months. Thanks, ColonelHenry (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I have no particular issue with the substance of the article. My comments arise from a thorough reading, and are mainly concerned with prose, punctuation and presentation matters.

Lead
  • "that August" is a bit abrupt; consider "in August of that year" followed by a comma
  • "Kilmer's work is often disparaged by critics and dismissed by scholars as being too simple and overly sentimental, and that his style was far too traditional and even archaic". The second part of the sentence is not grammatically conjoined to the first. I suggest: "...and his style is considered far too traditional and even archaic".
  • I am assuming that Eddy, Merrill and Robeson sang their own versions of the song rather than as a trio, and it may be as well to clarify this, e.g. "performed at various times by..."
  • Lead citations: I question the need for these, since all this information is cited in the main text. The direct quotations in the lead could easily be replaced by brief paraphrases, particularly the quotes from Kenton Kilmer which are given in full early in the article and are cited there.
  • Whatever you do about the quotes, I would avoid the editorial comment "Ironically".
Mahwah: February 1913
  • Maybe "Background" would be a more appropriate title?
  • "on the southwest corner of the intersection of Airmount Road and Armour Road" – perhaps overdetailing?
  • The blockquote should be more specifically attributed to Kenton
  • "alluded to by Kilmer's son" – unnecessary wording: there is only one notebook under discussion.
  • General point: descriptions such as "journalist and Kilmer researcher Alex Michelini" are somewhat clumsy and difficult to read. This format can work when the description is one or two words, but becomes awkward otherwise. One alternative format would be "Alex Michelini, a journalist and Kilner researcher". (Note later: "Rutgers-Newark English professor and poet Rachel Hadas..." - sounds like several people.
Kilmer's inspiration
  • Perhaps just "Inspiration"?
  • The somewhat magisterial statement that forms the basis of the brief first paragraph needs to be attributed as well as cited. Is it possible to combine this with the second paragraph?
  • "Both Kilmer's widow, Aline, and his son, Kenton, refuted these claims..." – you need to clarify that "these claims" refers to those of the "several communities" mentioned earlier in the paragraph. This is not completely clear at present.
  • The continuation of the sentence, "and by Kenton in his memoir" is not grammatically consistent with the earlier part
Scansion and analysis
  • To avoid repetition the first two sentences could be merged: "'Trees' is a poem of twelve lines, all but one of which has the full eight syllables of strict iambic tetrameter".
  • I'm not sure about "Despite its..." at the start of the second paragraph. "Personification" and "anthropomorphic imagery" are not specifically associated with complex rhyming and metrical schemes. Alternative: "Deceptively simple in rhyme and meter, Trees is notable for..." etc
  • Is it possible to give Winchell a more informative description than "scholar"?
  • Incidentally, I wonder about Winchell's "anatomically deformed" comment. I can't see what he based this on.
Publication
  • The word "publishing" in the first line looks unnecessary, given that it occurs again later in the same sentence – which incidentally is rather too long, and could do with a split somewhere.
  • I'm not sure that "successful" is the right word to describe a poem. I imagine you mean that it was well received by critics and public; if that is the case, perhaps you should say so (as I see you do in the next paragraph - some rearrangement of content, perhaps)?
  • In the second paragraph, "staked" is definitely the wrong word. "staking your reputation" means risking it. I think "based" is the right term here.
  • "...ranks the first two lines of "Trees" as 26th out of 50 lines in an assessment of the "most quoted lines of poetry". Too much repetition of "lines": delete nthe middle one.
Popular appeal
  • "Kilmer was said to have "rediscovered simplicity" – who said it?
  • "it appealed to both her students' "romantic attitude towards nature" and their appreciation of life" – "her students" needs to be "their", otherwise then syntax is wrong. In any event the sentence is rather too long as it stands, and could beneficially be split.
  • Are the words "considering this sentiment" necessary? I can't see what they add. And again, the sentence which they front seems to go on and on.
  • Two cases of "According to..." in the same paragraph.
Critical reception
  • "both" in the first line is redundant. It makes it sound as though Kilner only had two contemporaries, and the phrase makes perfect sense without it.
  • "and suggested that his style..." → "and have suggested that his style ..."
  • Aiken characterized Kilmer as ... "pale-mouthed clingers to the artificial and archaic." The plural "clingers" doesn't work. Perhaps insert "among the"?
  • "Kilmer is considered among the last of the Romantic era poets..." By whom?
  • "a style often criticized today..." Too vague. "Today" is meaningless in an encyclopedia article, and we need some indication of the source of these criticisms.
  • "In the years after Kilmer's death..." Correct me if I've overlooked it, but I don't think Kilmer's dates have been given in the article, so it's unclear when "the years after Kilmer's death" are.
  • "grew with it" → "changed with it"
  • You need a comma after "Understanding Poetry"
  • Winchell doesn't need repeat of description and full name.
Refuted claims regarding inspiration
  • I am confused by the second paragraph, which says that "the claim involved a large white oak on the Cook College campus (now the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences), at Rutgers University." It doesn't say who made this claim, though from what you say it wasn't the university, with which Kilmer does not appear to have been connected. Nor is any basis for the claim indicated. Thus it is not clear why acorns are being planted from this tree all over America, it seems.
  • In the Davenport quote there is a pair of square brackets surrounding a comma. Are they meant to be there? If so, what is their function?
  • "It appears that..." is not encyclopedic usage. This opinion needs to attributed to a reliable source, if it is to remain. The same applies to "likely was derived in some way"
Musical adaptations
  • "This setting had been performed and recorded frequently in twentieth century, including (list of names)". Needs "by artists" inserted before "including"
  • I think "Rasbach's setting" rather than "Rasbach's song", and was performed on" rather than "appeared" – and this is another example of a super-length sentence.
  • The second paragraph is, in my view, unhelful to the article as a whole. Do we need this level of detail, who said what in what kind of voice etc, in an article which is essentially about a serious poem? Since you have a section devoted to parody, you are in danger of overweighting the article with lampoon and burlesque. In my view this paragraph should either be dispensed with altogether, or if not, reduced to a short sentence within the parody section.
Parodies
  • The presentation is ruined by having two quote boxes which squeeze the text, the latter trailing on to create an ugly white space. One quote box is I think enough.
  • Whether you retain one or both, the provenance of thse quotes should be given in the box, rather than just a citation number, in the manner of a caption to an image, so that the reader immediately has the context.
  • Delete the redundant "alike" from the first line, and the "with" a few words later.
  • "Further, ..." I can't see why what follows is "further".
  • The third and fourth paragraphs seem to form a continuum and could be combined.
  • In the final paragraph we again have the problem of over-detailing of trivia, to which I alluded earlier in the review (the gratuitous "as well as its 2006 director's cut" seemed a particularly unnecessary point of detail)

I have not looked at the references. I hope that thes ecomments will prove useful to you. If you have any questions,or wish me to look again at aspects of the article, please ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because even if the article is marked as a good article, I thought that we could take it to the next level. I would like to discuss about what needs to be done, or what should have been done to the article to make it to a featured article.

Thanks, Blurred Lines 23:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I can't promise I've got time for a full peer review, but here are some thoughts anyway. These all focus on possible expansion; if these are going to make the article too long, look into splitting the article, with good summaries in the main article. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The international broadcast section is poor. There are some citation needed tags, and some "unknown"s. This can't be all there is, either. I find it hard to believe that it's not shown in Spain or Germany, for instance. Are those in non-English speaking countries dubbed, or do they just have subtitles? It's not a great article, but, still, look at the amount of information in Non-English versions of The Simpsons.
  • Looking at the other media/merch sections- The section on the crossovers is poor- half-line paragraphs are not ideal. There's not a lot of information on some video games, but there are on others. There must be more merch- clothing? Lunch boxes? All that sort of thing. You mention only some of the books.
  • I'm assuming there are going to be some scholarly sources out there- we really should be using them if possible. Infuriatingly, Google Scholar is clogged with those awful Wikipedia print-off books, so I couldn't really find much there, but a quick poke elsewhere has resulted in a few potentially interesting hits. See this article, for instance.

Crystal Defenders[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm attempting to get it to GA class. Was wondering what areas seem lacking, confusing, or need better wording. If anyone could give me some advice, that would be great.

Thanks, Lucia Black (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LT910001

  • This article is well-cited and has no issues with images.
  • Prose is quite well-written but I think this article may need some expansion and re-writing to get to GA status. I'd encourage you to have a look at the other GA-nominated game articles (Wikipedia:Good_articles/Video_games#Video_games).
  • I'd point in particular to the "Gameplay" section, which does a good job of explaining what gameplay elements are present, but unlike other video game-based articles doesn't provide an explanation of why these elements were included or how they fit into the overall context of video games.
  • I feel some integrated quotes from developers or reviewers would improve this article
  • Some references to normal video game design (eg tanks, healers, etc.) may help provide some context to the jargon-heavy text, which may not be very discernible to non game-players, and I'm not quite sure how this relates to the encyclopedic nature of the game other than as a list of features. For example: "A new rock-paper-scissors element was added. Soldiers can attack ground troops, but can’t hit flying ones and are not effective against pudding enemies. The Archers can attack Ahriman enemies and Black Mages can hit pudding enemies. Players can restore health with White Mages, boost attack with Bishop, and Paladins that shield a line from advancing enemies."
  • This is just a list of my personal thoughts relating to GA review, and I hope they are helpful. This article certainly can make it to GA, but I'd encourage you as a first step to have a look at some other GA-nominated game articles and work from there. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responce Thank you for everything. Yes i have intended to add development and interviews, but for such a simple game, its quite difficult to find. I don't think there's any interviews for it that i know of. The game is rather simple, but i will do some expansion to it with some clarifying the gameplay and removing the jargon.Lucia Black (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. V's thoughts

  • Expand Reception. Two or three moderate-sized paragraphs would be great.
  • I think you should ditch that huge release table in the middle. All of the release dates and platforms can be located in the infobox.
  • No need to have much info for the sequel on this article. Put in a main article tag for it and perhaps keep any development info for the sequel. If it's a redlink, that's ok.
  • Do we need so much Japanese in the lead?
  • I know the game doesn't have much of a plot, but can we include some more info about the setting? And that it's based on FF.
  • No mention is made in the article about tower defense.

It's in a bit rough form right now, but it has potential. Reviewers are a great source for pretty much all sections. IGN especially has a lot of info for games. — Mr. V (t – c) 11:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Vantine84: I will attempt to expand the reception to at least 3 paragraphs, thank you. Unfortunately, know, not all release dates can be found in the infobox. it may seem that way, but not all chapters (W1, W2, W3) were released at the same time. example: the original Crystal Guardians released separately. Unless you want me to move those chapters up into the infbox aswell, i personally would find it too much. There's is no other main article to put the sequel in. And i suppose we don't need the japanese for the sequel, but both Crystal Defenders/Guardians should stay.
Anything here, that you disagree with?Lucia Black (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucia Black:It may make the infobox huge, but even that would be better than that huge unwieldy table right in the middle of the article. The infobox can be auto-collapsed anyways. It's my opinion that a few sentences about a sequel are fine, but it's not in this article's scope to contain any more than that (even if there is no article for it), as the sequel is a different game. — Mr. V (t – c) 07:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Vantine84: Maybe you're just unfamiliar with these type of articles. For example Final Fantasy IV: The After Years and Final Fantasy Dimensions both have tables. I'm not going to remove them, because compared to those articles, it's not as "unwieldy" as you make it out. The idea is to show initial release, the table helps show when later chapters were released. I'm not going to budge on that.
And if there was enough information for its own article, i would move it somewhere else, and have a brief summary. But unfortunately there is no other place to put it. But i have seen other articles that do the exact same thing when a sequel isn't notable. So i can't really help you here. This all seems like personal preference.Lucia Black (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kinky Boots (musical)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the article is a worthy article for a GA nomination however it is incomplete. It needs issues addressed such as missing seattle cast and style of music used, however i would appreciate the article having a peer review to show any further issues that needs addressed prior to a further nomination. It failed for a variety of reasons at last GA but I'm sure there are other issues not included in that need addressed. Blethering Scot 22:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blethering Scot 22:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]

I looked in to the article because User:Ssilvers pinged me, as we have worked together on many musical theatre articles, and at WP:FAC.
  1. It is unfortunate that the article was nominated at Good articles without first going through peer review.
  2. There is a good deal of off-topic personalization on the talk page; in the best interest of the article, that should stop.
  3. There is a competent peer review already on the talk page, from Ssilvers, who knows the requirements for top content in the musical theatre realm as well as anyone.
  4. I concur with Ssilvers that there is no reason for an album track listing to be included in the article; it duplicates the musical synopsis, while adding nothing new on an album that might have its own article, if it becomes notable.
  5. On content, perhaps sources have not addressed this and if that is the case, there is nothing that can be done, but from reading the article, one cannot discern how this production-- with marginal reviews-- won the Tony for best musical. (My money was on Christmas Story, so perhaps I'm biased :)

Summarizing, before re-approaching GA, I hope the off-topic personalization on talk will end, the Cast album section will be removed, Ssilvers list on talk will be addressed, and please explore whether there are any sources discussing why this show took the Tony for best musical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That last is an interesting question, SandyGeorgia. I didn't see A Christmas Story, but I thought that Matilda was far more impressive in every respect than Kinky Boots. Most surprising was that Lauper won for best score, as Matilda has a really excellent score. I'm sure that there must have been articles written after the Tonys (held on June 9, 2013) discussing what the critics thought of the awards panel's choices. On a personal note, thanks for the comments above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on Matilda -- I hope a source can be found that discussed how this production won the Tony, but if nothing is written, nothing you can do about that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be misremembering, but I thought I read articles before the Tonys that indicated the likely winner would be Matilda ... that may be one thing you could search on for relevant commentary about Kinky wrt best musical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy, keep in mind that by the time of the Tony's Kinky had won all the notable best musical awards for which it had been nominated (Drama League and Outer Critics Circle). How far before the Tonys do you mean? Matilda had been the favorite before awards season, but I am not sure about by the day of the Tonys.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few British press stories that indicated the nationalism side of the story. Having seen Matilda about six times in both countries and Kinky Boots twice i would say Matilda was probably more deserving but Kinky Boots couldn't be called an unworthy winner and there is a lot of hope in the Uk that it will transfer over.Blethering Scot 15:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What part of independent do you not get. This is unreal. Blethering Scot 16:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Blethering Scot[edit]

The peer review is massively incomplete.

  • There were plenty of positive reviews for the show as well, we seem to be more focused on the negative ones.
    • I'm responding to this for Tony's benefit, as Tony seems to be doing the work to modify the article in response to the comments here. Wikipedia articles about musicals tend to be promotional and fan-crufty. We need to give a balanced view of all the reviews, positive, mixed and negative. We need to resist the temptation to be promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't include type or style of the music and why they choose not to use music from the movie.
    • I am rarely the person to make any commentary on musical style because I don't understand music at that level. I.E., this is outside of my area of expertise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You do not need to comment, you just need to look at your sources that discuss the film, and see if they say anything about the film music. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't include enough of an over view of the cast.
    • Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I would agree that the Productions section should discuss casting, if possible -- that is, why the particular cast members were chosen, and what the critics thought of their performances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is not long enough.
  • Why did they choose Kinky Boots a movie that didn't do overly well at the box office and then change the focus of the musical from that.
    • A good question, that I imagine critics and commentators have written about; however, they did not change the focus much; the musical is more similar to the film than most musical adaptations of films, so I think Fierstein's quote that we already have pretty much covers the second half of your comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since when is movie box office a serious consideration for theatrical adaptation. I can't remember the last Shakespeare play to lead a weekend box office.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a fair question as to why they chose to adapt a film that was not popular. Some of the articles must have discussed this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Currently, the article presents the fact that Roth was intrigued by the possibilities of adapting the movie and that Mitchell agreed. There was little discussion of what makes good material for an adaptation just the fact that they agreed that this was good material.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, I agree that we now explain her motivation sufficiently, at least for GA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also there are errors in the synopsis which is an issue thats been highlighted several times.
    • Can you be more specific? Or, better yet, fix them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cast album should not be removed as i am totally against having a separate article as suggested by Ssilvers, when the host article is not large enough to need splitting into sub articles. There is enough notability for a separate article but sub articles are a wast of space unless the main article is huge and needs splitting as a link still needs provided. I will certainly do that or to be honest Ssilvers should since it was his suggestion, but a merge back is a possibility.Blethering Scot 16:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images of Sands and Fierstein do not add to anything that cant be achieved through text alone. They also look highly out of place. If they were photos that had some link to the production then yes they would be beneficial but for now they are not. This was raised at GA in a small way but not addressed.Blethering Scot 17:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to the battleground mentality. How can i work with someone who made allegations against me but won't justify them. And as clearly we cant work together at all what do you suggest we do as we both want to improve this article, i suspect more me than him but the point stands.Blethering Scot 17:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't all the talk page stuff at Talk:Kinky_Boots_(musical)#Thoughts_about_the_article_at_this_point be listed here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was added before peer review, which was supposed to be independent. I would rather they were kept separate with everyone posting the issues they feel need fixed here and then they can be systematically worked through. You add your thoughts too, and I'm sure @Ssilvers: will add the ones he thinks are not already covered above. Obviously given the tensions here we are best to discuss all points and collaboratively come up with a way forward.Blethering Scot 20:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

B. Scot, I was asked to look at the article as well. Will you accept my word that my views will be entirely independent? By way of disclosure, Ssilver and I have worked on a number of articles together, but we've also had some conflict. But if you do not think I am neutral, I'm not certain what help I can be. I have not yet read the article and only glanced at the back and forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinions would be appreciated.Blethering Scot 12:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK here goes. The prose seems fairly good in general but needs tweaking in spots. I have not looked at the matters under discussion, this is simply my comments after a run through (well, the first half, I'll get back to you later or tomorrow with the remainder). Then I will look at the other comments and may have a word or two on that, depending if I think it will help.
Lede
  • The sentence about Billboard might do better later on in the lede, possibly after the sentence about the premiere.
Background
  • The first paragraph could be organised better. It really repeats the information about the struggling factory, needlessly.
  • I certainly have no objection to copying quotes. You need not include the "he said", which just lead to nested quotes, which are a pain to deal with for the reader in my opinion.
  • "the blues album Memphis Blues," possibly one of the blues could be deleted, most likely the first one.
  • I'm mildly grumbly at Lauper deeming South Pacific part of her youth, as it premiered four years before she was born. Unless you are minded to tweak the prose, nothing to do but let it pass.
  • I don't know your age, but personal listening devices were not always popular and it was once common to hear your parents' albums and that would make it a part of her youth.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think my parents had a few cast recordings, but they very rarely played them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Synopis
  • It may be over detailed. And it may need a rewrite for clarity. For example, the whole issue of who Simon is, is not made very clear until later.
I have tried to streamline and clarify it. I don't have a script, but I prepared this plot summary shortly after seeing the show because no one else had stepped forward to put in a plot summary. It certainly would be a good idea, if anyone can obtain the script, to review and refine it. The show is purposely coy about who (adult) Simon is until much later (it's supposed to be a surprise), so I tried to follow that idea. I hope the clarifications to the plot summary have addressed this. Again, if anyone can refine the plot summary, please go ahead and do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the young Black lad's" If this is a reference to Simon's race, it is not usual, at least in my experience, to capitalise black. Also, you may hear objections from those who do not like the term "black". Unless he's from the Black Country? Midlands, after all.
  • In the opening scene, Simon is a young boy (about 10 years old in that scene), and yes, this refers to his race. I've now made it lower case. Is there a better term for us to use instead of black? They're in England, so we can't say "African American". Tony, do the reviews say "black", or if not, how do they describe Simon's race, if at all? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beats me. All I know is the British invade and go on after me for using "black" as a noun.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just took a very quick look. Porter said: "First of all, Lola is black. ... What I love about the story is that it's the black person who ends up rescuing the white people." Rex Reed said: "Wild black london performer". LA Times: "Lola, a flamboyant black drag queen". New Yorker magazine: "a black drag queen". CBS: same. Wall St. Journal: same. Hollywood Reporter: quoting lyrics from the show: "I’m black Jesus, I’m black Mary". MSNBC: "...context of a black man versus a white man". So, his race is important. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was your search term? I had searched on (Kinky Boots Simon Black) and did not find much. What do you want to do with these search results?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It currently says that Simon grows up "in a black family". That's a little indirect, but I guess it is ok unless someone has a clearer way to say that he is black. But Wehwalt should note that I checked, and English dictionaries use the word "black" to refer to persons of African descent (and sometimes other dark-skinned people). -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lauren's crush seems rather in the middle of things there, can she be introduced earlier (if we have met her) and her idea about niche marketing may be less jarring.
Lauren is not prominent in the story until that point. I'm not sure when she is first seen, but if I recall correctly, she is pretty much only in crowd scenes until then. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to introduce her better. As for the script, I did not see it on Amazon, but possibly there is a playbill with a synopsis?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had the Playbill and used it in writing the Synopsis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so to speak". I would avoid the need by avoiding the pun.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although the lede says it is based on a true story, via the movie, the article never quite gets there. This should be simple.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
W, can you give Tony some suggested language for this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again, the discussion in the background section should be adequate.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next tranche, sorry so short but I'm fairly worn out. The rest should be today. Pointless to have it sitting in my sandbox.

Production history
  • Perhaps it should be stated a little more clearly that the Illinois tryout program was for Broadway shows to have their tryouts in Chicago.
  • I think this is clear now. Looks ok to you, W? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think tryouts should be at least implicitly defined in the same paragraph where first used, possibly by moving the term "pre-Broadway run" to close proximity with first use. Try to use it naturally, not as a definition.
  • While I'm sure there were no major changes among the various producers and so forth between Chicago and Broadway, it still might be better to mention the "laundry list" of various functions in connection with Broadway, not Chicago. Possibly it should be its own paragraph.
  • I did a re-org of the section that I think addresses this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the June 9, 2013 Tony Awards, Kinky Boots had trailed its box office competitor, Matilda the Musical, in popularity. " Popularity? As measured by …?
  • If you look at the next WP:IC, you will see that the first paragraph contains the following: "“Kinky Boots” now attempts to catch up to the box office popularity of its chief competition at the Tonys, “Matilda the Musical.”"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clarified further by changing "popularity" to "sales". -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can something be said about ticket prices, including the premium ones?
  • Tony added something, although there are sources for ticket price/sales info that some people know how to access. I don't know how. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks! I clicked on the grosses archive, and it gave me the cumulative gross to date, which I added to the article just now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I would prefer for the Playbill Vault link to go back in. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • "she felt challenged to have to write songs for different characters" this phrasing is a bit opaque. I suggest the rewrite have no more than one "to".
  • I would name the opening number when you mention it. As it is supposed to be a company song, presumably that explains why it is sung by fair crowd.
  • "The musical uses a twelve-member orchestra consisting of keyboards, percussion, bass, guitars, reeds, violin, viola, cello, trumpet, and trombone" There are 2x keyboards, guitars, and reeds, so I get 13 instruments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some instruments are doubled. In this case, the reed player plays several reed instruments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the remainder. I still haven't looked at the issues in dispute, though I am aware of the cast album questions.

It appears that there are no longer any "disputes", although Tony and I disagree about the Awards section. The discussion about this is on the talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • There seems something of a logical disconnect between the first sentence and the second. Modify the first to make it lead into the second better.
  • Done.
Cast album
  • I am concerned that with the back to back non-prose sections, that what is below it may not be seen by the reader. I do not think the track listing fully necessary, but I am aware of the feelings. Could it be done in a text box to the right of the "Cast album" prose?
  • I've moved the cast album material to a section further down called "Recordings", created a separate article about the album (Kinky Boots (Broadway cast album)) and added a cross-reference. When other recordings of the show are released from other productions or studio recordings, they can be added to this recordings section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reaction
  • The first two sentences both begin with "upon".
  • Why is the (lengthy, favorable) Brantley quote given a prominent position above the "mixed reviews"?
  • I'm a bit taken back that we have to wait until the end of the article to learn the play is set in Northampton.
  • In the synopsis, we say that it is set in the English Midlands, during "hard economic times", which is, I think, the key information. I'm not even sure if Northampton is mentioned in the script. In any event, I don't think that naming the town is going to help readers interested in the Broadway production. If a West End production opens, and they specify Northampton, it may be helpful to British audiences, and we can make a point of specifying it in the synopsis then. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was really more taken by the last-minute mention, which I agree was unneeded. That's fine.
Awards etc.
  • "The Off-Broadway and Original Broadway productions" The caps here look a little odd to me, and the first term probably needs a link. Is Chicago considered Off-Broadway? Our article seems to limit it to NYC.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. Chicago is not off-Broadway, it is regional. So, this should just say "The original production..." since it's the tryout and Broadway transfer of the same production. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give it another read over, I hope over the next day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm way behind and a bit under the weather so it may be a little bit of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Like Sandy, I was asked by Ssilvers to contribute to this review. My knowledge of stage musicals is slight, so my comments will tend to concentrate on prose and presentation.

Lead
  • I am not sure that the lead is long enough to fulfil its role as a summary of the entire article.
  • I'm also concerned about the numerous lead references. If the lead is a summary of all the main points in the article, then surely these cited statements are found in the main text, and cited there.
  • "Kinky Boots entered the 2013 awards season as the underdog but emerged as the victor". I'm not sure that this statement will mean much to the casual reader; terms like "underdog" and "victor" imply some degree of formal competition. From what I can gather, Kinky Boots won more awards than was expected, and more than any other show. Why not just say that?
Background and creation
  • First paragraph – a kind of mini-synopsis - is unnecessary and should be removed, after the words "of the same name".
  • Good catch. I agree with this, and will go ahead and do it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about the sequence of events described in the second paragraph. Some parts of the story seem to be missing: what induced Roth to send Mitchell the DVD? After Roth sends the DVD, Mitchell is enthusiastic, and hopes (his "wish list") that Fierstein and Lauper will make it into a stage musical. Then, Fierstein approaches Lauper seeking a collaboration... Something is missing. When, and by whom, was Fierstein approached?
  • If you look at the source and search on Roth you will see the name Roth appears in the article once. There is nothing further about Roth other than that she sent the DVD to Mitchell. It is implicit she was trying to bend his ear to consider an adaptation, but nothing is said.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could at least say that she had worked with Mitchell before if that is true, and I think there is an explicit statement in one of your refs that Mitchell actually hired Fierstein. Can you find that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some tweaks based on the sources, and I think the story flows a lot better now. We don't say why she approached Mitchell, but I think we covered the most important bases now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his wish list" etc is magazine-style writing, unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Suggest simplify to "he sought to engage them to create the musical"
  • The fact that Lauper had performed on Broadway in The Threepenny Opera is a bit of a non sequitur to the information that Kinky Boots was her debut as a musical songwriter.
  • Clarified that the reference to Lauper in Threepenny Opera is aimed at showing that she was not entirely a theatre newbie. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fierstein said that there are..." → "Fierstein acknowledges..."
  • Why are the words "about the saving of a factory" in quotes?
  • Who is responsible for the quote that begins "At its core..."?
  • "Lauper's inspirations ranged from South Pacific and West Side Story of her youth as well as Aaron Copland's "Appalachian Spring" to contemporary entertainer Lana Del Ray." Clumsily put. Lauper was born in 1953, grew up in the 60s and 70s, so neither South Pacific nor West Side Story were really "of her youth". Appalachian Spring (which should be in italics not quotes) dates from 1944–45.
  • Close repetition of "reading".
  • "She gauged the material from the balcony during previews" Aren't you jumping ahead, to talk of previews at this stage?
  • Fixed. This was a mistake caused by conflating two different thoughts in this article cited. Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the verb "workshopping" mean?
Synopsis
  • "Simon also grows up in the Midlands, but the young black lad's strict father is puzzled by the boy's high spirits". This sentence is misplaced, having no connection with the rest of the paragraph. It's not particularly useful information, only causing confusion at this point, and I suggest you delete it.
  • Well, the opening number is a scene comparing the young (maybe 11-year-old) Charlie and the young Simon, and sets up their contrasting lives, including their contrasting races, showing young Charlie to be traditional, serious, hardworking and conservative, and young Simon to be, um, hard-dancing, and fascinated by his mother's red high heels, which displeases his father. So something needs to be said. I tweaked the language; does that help? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charlie's father dies suddenly, and he hurries home for the funeral..." Unfortunate placing of pronoun! Suggest reword along the lines of "When his father dies suddenly, Charlie hurries home..." etc.
  • You need to be consistent in the pronoun you use for Lola/Simon. You use, at various times, "her", "him/her" and "him". I'm not sure of the sexual etiquette but if "Lola" is a drag performer rather than a transsexual I don't think "her" is right. "Him/her" seems unnecessarily awkward; I suggest "him" and "he" all the way through is the most appropriate
  • Good idea, but the show is predicated on Lola being the preferred persona, both onstage and off (except in a few specific scenes), so I went the other way, with "her". -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd preface the sentence beginning: "Lauren, who works in the factory..." with the words: "Back in the Midlands,..."
  • "especially the intimidating Don": these words belong nearer the beginning of the sentence, e.g. "Some of them, especially the intimidating Don,..."
  • "blows his top" is slang
  • "He asks if Don has fulfilled Lola's wager by accepting Lola. Lauren explains that, no, the person that Don has accepted ... is Charlie!" No idea what that's about.
Chicago and Broadway
  • "Kinky Boots was considering taking advantage..." I think you mean the show's promoters were considering taking advantage etc
  • "The original production was rehearsed at the New 42nd Street Studios in New York City in September 2012 before beginning its pre-Broadway run at the Bank of America Theatre in Chicago, on October 2, 2012, which continued until November 4, 2012." Too long, convoluted, and grammatically dubious
  • "Rockwell had been nominated" – for what?
    Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the stuff in the second paragraph of this section is background – the credentials and awards of the people staging the show, rather than anything to do with the production history. Consider re-siting it.
    I moved the stuff about the creators to Background, but kept the stuff about the director and designers in Productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that keeping the critical reaction apart, separated from this section by several tables of information, is a good idea. My first reaction was to assume that there was no critical reaction to the Chicago performance and a single NYT review of the Broadway performance. You should seriously consider reorganising the article to keep connected information in one place.
  • I moved the production history section down to fix this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Previews had originally been scheduled to commence on March 5, but were moved forward two days on December 13, 2012,[27] which was 10 days after ticket sales had begun." Is this worth reporting? It seems like petty detail.
  • I have commented it out and suggest that Tony delete it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, "The Broadway performances run 2 hours and 20 minutes, including one intermission."
  • Yeah, I agree. That's a pretty standard running time for a Broadway show these days, so not a very enlightening statement. I'll let Tony make the cut. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, would you respond, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4: Kinky Boots requires italics.
  • The sudden information about the show winning six Tony awards is disorientating. No prior information has been given about nominations, categories etc. This detail is given in a later section, which does not help the reader at this point.
  • "The show continued to be one of the top draws on Broadway that month" What month?
  • Fixed by deleting - this article only said that many of the big shows were selling well. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • "a New York Times critic said:" Why not name the person?
  • "connectedness": I don't think the word exists; the noun is "connection". If Lauper used the term, it should be in quotes and attributed.
    • It is most definitely a word. WP has both connectedness and Social connectedness. I can't find the word any more, but it should probably be restored with a link to the social kind if it was a direct quote.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, I want Ssilvers to take a look at this. this version of the article included the term followed by a WP:IC that used the term in a quote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that connectedness is a horrible word and should normally be replaced with "connection", but the point is moot. Here's what Lauper said: "Having to write songs for different characters, you have to be part of every minute of the show and you feel more responsible, I guess. Theater is ... [a] real team experience, and when the show is frozen you look at each other and feel this connectedness I have never felt before in my life." The first sentence is of interest to encyclopedia readers, but the second is not: the fact that Lauper felt "connected" to her collaborators is not of any interest, and the phrase has been deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cast album
  • I share the view expressed earlier in this review that the track listing is superfluous, given that it follows an almost identical listing of the musical numbers. Nor do I think think that the album cover adds anything to the article, or that its non-free use is tenable. It essentially duplicates the lead image, for which fair use is of course reasonable.
  • Jack removed the superfluous material, and I moved the cast album description to a separate section called "Recordings". -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reaction
  • Just one press comment on the Chicago run?
  • "When writing for The Guardian..." Delete "When"
  • Introduce "Derek McLane", don't force your readers to use the link to find out who he is.
  • Having said that, I can't work out what he means by "it is not uncommon for repeat choreographer/set designer collaborations to result in intriguing innovation like Kinky Boots's conveyor belt dance scene." Can you elucidate?

That completes my review. I've not checked out the sources, but I think there's enough work here to be getting on with. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks for your comment and they are appreciated however I am wondering just how many people @Ssilvers: has approached which is starting to look like a rather high number. Certainly unusual or almost looking for sides in my opinion, anyhow i agree re the image on the cast cd so i will remove it. It adds information the musical numbers does not such as overall run time of the music, running order of the cd and track length. Its encyclopaedic information. Excluding this whats your opinion on creating sub articles when the main article is appropriate, not at too long a length and the info is notable. Personally creating a sub article is a last option whether notable or not and looking through there are equal numbers that have the track listing to including in a sub, obviously thats if they have at all but not all articles we have are at even a remotely decent standard never mind including everything. Ill Not stand in @Ssilvers: way if as he suggested someone does, he creates a good quality article which adds something we wouldn't be able to house in main article, but just feel a sub article is an easy way out because you don't like something, not because its necessary. Obviously the image may be something that could effect a GA but the content in my opinion would not. Blethering Scot 20:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks more to me like he has called in old, experienced hands with whom he has interacted and whom he feels "know their stuff". I don't play politics, I'm a content contributor. My contributions to musical theatre on WP are pretty much limited to R&H, but I have a nodding acquaintance with the subject. As a thought, you might want to strike your comments about Ssilver's intent. All of us who have reviewed the article at his request are old hands here, who it would be well to have as friendly resources.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt:The fact he told every one to read the comments then look at the Peer Review was an attempt to lead, if he had said just comment on peer review then that's different but he didn't. I will not be self striking the comments as I fully stand by it. He's Made accusations against me that we're unfounded and every attempt to ask him to come to my talk page and discuss civilly have been ignored. I don't think it was a case of old hands but simply a group of editors who one way or another he felt were highly likely to agree with his comments which he asked then to read before comenting. That's disgraceful in my view as attempting to influence a discussion is not on. The discussion should of been allowed to continue for another few days to allow some other more neutral editors to comment. All I wanted was an article that was likely to pass GA to be quite honest after dealing with this editor I no longer care whether any Musical Theatre articles get Ga as I don't want anything to do with him. However I will be keeping an eye on Ga's in this realm to make sure they actually meet the criteria and aren't lead through. Blethering Scot 13:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This PR seems to have died down. It did lead to great improvements in the article, which I now think is in striking distance of GA. Are there serious unresolved issues with this PR?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony, many of the points above say "done" or "fixed", but some do not. Would you please indicate, with respect to each of the ones that do not, whether you think they are resolved? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • SandyGeorgia, Blethering Scot, Wehwalt, and Brianboulton are the people who need to state whether they are satisfied enough with the progress that this can go to GA. They are the parties who enumerated concerns. I listed no concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pinged to this discussion by the notification system, I am no longer watching as my comments were brief and general, and addressed early on. As to Ssilvers' request, no TTT, it is up to you to say if you have addressed Brian's concerns so he can revisit to say if he is satisfied. I believe it is you who is going to GAN? There is no reason to make the reviewer task harder than need be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. folks. There are probably a few more things to do but not more than can be reasonably be handled at GAN. Add Talk:Kinky Boots (musical)/GA2 to your watchlist so that when someone starts it you can follow along.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Adud al-Dawla[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to get it to Good article status.

Thanks, HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr Gangrene

There are some issues of style and grammar that were mentioned in the last Good Article review which have still not been resolved, and some that I have spotted myself:

  • "On May-June 979". Please change this to something else. It's either "in May" or "in June" or "on" a specific date. Similarly, "on October/November of the same year" and "On August/September 971"
  • It would be nice to have English translations of "‘Aḍud al-Dawla" and "Azod od-Dowleh Panah (Fana) Khusraw" in the lead section. And the same goes for other instances where mentioning a name seems important: "The dam irrigated some 300 villages in Fars province and became known as Band-e Amir." OK, so what does that mean?
  • "14 jumada al-awwal 364, d'après Ch. Bürgel et R. Mottahedeh, ibidem." You forgot to translate something from the French there, I think.
  • "Under him the kingdom a spell of prosperity." There is a missing word.
  • "On September 16, 976, Rukn al-Daula, the last of the first generation Buyids, dies." Should be "died"
  • "and quit mentioning his name during Friday prayers." The word "quit" sounds rather informal.
  • I have to admit my ignorance of Middle Eastern naming conventions, but his name should probably be spelled in a uniform way throughout the article. I see instances of "Adud-Dawla" and "Adud al Dawla" without the hyphen.
  • You don't need to link to other articles every time a term is mentioned. The rule of thumb is to link a term only the first time it appears in an article.
  • "All this activity has greatly expanded" — "has" is superfluous
  • "of an pre-Islamic civilization" --> "of a pre-Islamic civilization"

(Edit: forgot to sign Dr Gangrene (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Fixed all of the problems except one; strangely i can't change the name of the article to simply Adud al-Dawla. It says this when i do it:

You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.

Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move.

Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Josve05a

List of bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets in Test cricket[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to go to FLC with the best version of this list. Look forward for your comments and suggestion.

Thanks, Zia Khan 23:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cassianto[edit]

Seen your request on Sarastro's page, so thought I'd drop in.

  • "Taking over 300 wickets across a playing career is considered a significant achievement in Test cricket." -- Who considered this?
  • "Achieved" used in close succession. Could you think of another word?
  • "As of August 2013, Sri Lankan bowler Muttiah Muralitharan..." -- Definite article would be better.
  • Didn't get you? Zia Khan 14:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definite article would be: "As of August 2013, the Sri Lankan bowler Muttiah Muralitharan..."
  • I think the second image looks awkwardly placed.
  • I don't think a full stop is required within the image caption.
  • A complete sentence should have a full-stop, I think?! Zia Khan 14:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave the technical stuff for someone a bit more technically minded. -- CassiantoTalk 11:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 14:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, looks like a good little list this! -- CassiantoTalk 15:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias[edit]

  • The flags are in breach of MOS:FLAG, which states that the name of the country should be provided alongside the flag.
  • The flags also mess up the sorting: the players should list alphabetically by surname.
  • The "tiebreak" criteria should be specified: why does Lillee appear ahead of Vaas?
  • The key is missing a number of the column titles, and some are labelled incorrectly: (Ave, Avg for example).
  • As the title of the table is "Bowlers who have taken.." I think the row scopes should be the bowler, not the number of wickets. Harrias talk 12:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above concerns have been sufficiently addressed, I guess. Zia Khan 05:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rejectwater[edit]

  • What is a wicket? Being able to understand this term is critical to being able to understand the article. I don't think a wikilink suffices. I really have no idea, and I doubt I'm the only one.
  • Many of the date ranges in the Period column are not formatted properly. See WP:YEAR.
  • "Ref(s)." should be "Ref(s)" (no period) and I imagine included in the key as well (there are several columns that have an unneccessary period after the column header).
  • Image alt text. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples. Rejectwater (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, thanks for the review.Zia Khan 05:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Thanks for the message! Zia Khan 02:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PA clan[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just created this and there don't seem to be any other pages dedicated to describing a whole enzyme superfamily. I hope that, with input of other users, that this could reach good article status and act as a template for further superfamily pages.

Thanks, Evolution and evolvability (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LT910001[edit]

Fisrtly, thanks for improving this article! I'm not sure if it would be ready for GA just yet. Unfortunately I can't give very specific advise, as I only know about enzymes in general terms, but things that could be improved for GA include:

  • Fixing the large image size that runs over the size of the screen (you use this below already, for the other large image), and moving this to the end of the article (this may be personal preference, however the majority of panoramas are provided lower, so that text can be seen at the start)
  • I don't know enough to comment about what should be added, but this article feels very short and you could perhaps expand it by adding some sentences explaining or elaborating about the structure or evolution of the virus.
  • The 'evolution' section doesn't make reference to the evolution of the enzymes
  • A 'history' section could be provided to enhance broadness.
  • The lead could be lengthened to help reflect the article's content a bit more.
  • All "e.g." should be removed, and the parentheses integrated into the text. If these are retained, specific examples of which bacteria/viruses could be mentioned.
  • Making sure that all paragraphs have citations.

I hope that helps. Having written these comments, it feels like quite a lot. These are just some suggestions, so feel free to take them with a grain of salt. It's great that you've been working on this article and I wish you all the best in your wiki-travels. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the input, it's exactly the sort of help I needed. Even though I've seen so many wikipedia articles, starting to edit is still a learning curve. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I started on this article as a way of getting my head around the early history of the North Eastern Railway. It is also covers the building of a large section of the East Coast Main Line, the story of George Hudson and the rapid developments and changes in travel that the coming of railways brought. I'd like to think this could be an FA.

Please comment, thanks, Edgepedia (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bhtpbank - I'll have a more thorough read, but I got lost early on during a quick read as I could not see how all of the early railway companies came together to form this company. This leads me to believe that they may be peripheral or not well explained. Bhtpbank (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'm drawing a map for the next couple of days. If you're still stumped in a couple of days I'll look to see how I can improve the article (that railway companies changed name doesn't help). Edgepedia (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS if you're still stumped, take a look at [8], which I was working from. Perhaps something like this (excluding the Y&NMR and LNR) needs to be in the article? Edgepedia (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be a good addition, and explains at-a-glance what is in the text. Bhtpbank (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have done that, and I will check the diagram by reference to a book that in my library, but I will not be able to do this for a few weeks. I have also emphasised the early railways in the lead, mentioning some of them, so that the reader doesn't come to the section on say the Brandling Railway and wonder how it fits into this article. Edgepedia (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After I've checked the diagram, I'll replace it with an .svg. Edgepedia (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I'm going to be around, but busy over the next few weeks and therefore it could take me a couple of days to respond to comments. Edgepedia (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC) I'm away most of this weekend until Sunday afternoon. Please comment! Edgepedia (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. -(t) Josve05a (c) 03:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am aware of that program for automated suggestions. In detail
  • I'll have a look again at the lead over the next few days.
  • I don't see the 3% guideline in the current version of WP:UNDERLINK. Is there anything specific that needs linking and isn't?
  • I don't see any problems with the captions. Any specific comments?
  • I have considered adding an infobox to the article.
  • I'm not finding guidance regarding the use of '&' at the linked MOS:SECTIONS

Edgepedia (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Gibbons[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Stella Gibbons's fame as a writer is based, fairly or not, on her first novel, Cold Comfort Farm. The book pokes memorable fun at the "rural novel" genre popularised by writers like Hardy, D.H. Lawrence and Mary Webb, and has been described as "a landmark of parodic writing". Her career extended for half a century and she never had another success like it. Yet she wrote plenty of good, readable stuff – 22 other novels, many short stories, four books of poems - which has almost vanished from memory. She doesn't even warrant a personal entry in the Oxford Companion to English Literature, although her one famous book does, as for unfathomable reasons does Clive of India who never wrote a thing. However, Stella was content with her lack of fame, shunned the literary establishment and led a blameless life in North London – in complete contrast to most of my subjects, who tended to lead tempestuous if not dissolute lives, with scandal ever lurking near. Comment will be most welcome on any aspect of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt. First tranche.
  • Lede
  • "throughout her life she privately considered herself to be primarily a poet" I am dubious as to whether the semicolon is appropriate as it stands, but it might work better if you changed the first three words (if the source will justify) to "thereafter,"
  • Given her fellowship, do we add the postnominals anywhere?
  • It's not usual to display postnominals for literary, as distinct from public, honours. Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one-work novelist" I would pipe this to one-hit wonder but your approach may differ. Incidentally, I had never heard of either her or her book. But it's always gladly learn. And is it her or her works which would be accepted into the canon?
  • I'm not too keen on the suggested pipe. You are right that it is her works rather than herself that would be part of the canon and I have reworded accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "however" combined with the "though" in the final lede sentence might be a bit much on changes of direction. I would strike the "However".
  • Family etc
  • In view of Charles Sr.'s infidelities, I would stress that the six children you mention were born to his wife, whom I would name. If true. These Victorians.
  • "The atmosphere in the Kentish Town house echoed that of the elder Gibbons's household," While you mentioned the rotating bed assignments, you did not lay the other matters at Charles Sr.'s door. Do atmospheres echo, as a rule?
  • Figuratively, they do (echoed = repeated)
  • "He was charitable to his poorer patients, and imaginative in finding cures, but made life a misery for his family. " Consider striking the first comma and the word "a".
  • "Day School" is a pipe someplace? day school is little more than a definition.
  • "She initially found it hard to adjust, from the haphazard learning methods of her governesses to the strict discipline of the school, and found many of the rules and regulations oppressive." Were her governesses's methods learning or teaching? Also, my experience is that you usually adjust to something. The "from" reads oddly. And does having the double barreled "rules and regulations" add anything? Why not just rules?
  • Student etc
  • "recalled in an interview late in her life" suggest striking the word "her".
  • Journalism etc
  • "In May 1926 Maud Gibbons" You spelled her name "Maude" in the only other usage, in which you did use her maiden name. Possibly you might want to place the name (either coming into the garden or the Bea Arthur role) again midway between the other two as I did have to look back to see who the lady was. It seems to be a family affliction in any event, as "Louis" is varied as "Lewis".
  • "as an editorial assistant at the women's magazine The Lady. " I do not care greatly whether there is a comma preceding the title. But in what appears to be an identical situation regarding The London Mercury in the preceding paragraph, you use a comma.
  • Cold etc.
No comments. I shall have to order a cheap copy via Amazon.
You will not regret it, Wehwalt! But you have to get your copy of Diary of a Nobody first. Tim riley (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Touche, haven't bought that yet either.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Established etc.
  • "herself a former Prix Étranger winner" this is the only time in this paragraph you refer to the writer, rather than the work, as the winner.
  • I think it's acceptable to refer either to the book or the author as the prize winner. The author wins it for the book, or the book wins it for the author – depends how you want to view it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "worked regularly" for some reason this strikes me as odd. I would reverse the order of the words.
  • " He later served overseas, mostly in Cairo." I would strike "later".
  • "the middle of the Second World war " Capped that way in original?
  • " In her Lady days, in a review of the writer's biography," Inelegant
  • "From 1986 onwards, Gibbons experienced recurrent health problems, not helped when she resumed smoking in the middle 1980s." Can this be rephrased so as to avoid the double date?

More later, seems your regular outstanding work, and a bit tongue in cheek.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the remainder.
  • Writing
  • "end in Austen-like marriage celebrations" Really, what is meant here is that the principals pair up and go two-by-two to the altar, I suspect. I suggest a minor rephrase to focus on the fact that everyone's getting hitched, as the reader might thing that what was meant was some especially festive celebrations.
  • "Gibbons's writings on everyday life, however well observed," The thing is, the "well observed" means to be referring to "everyday life" but textually it refers to "Gibbons's writings on everyday life".--Wehwalt (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this helpful range of comments. As usual, if not noted you can asssume your points have been addressed in or close to the way you suggest. I hope you will get to the book, although I'm not sure how well this kind of humour will cross the Atlantic. (The Church of the Quivering Brethren should go down well in the southern states). Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Well, we shall see. Sometimes British humour is funny to me and sometimes it is lost on me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley

(I hope Wehwalt will feel at liberty to push these comments of mine further down the page to make room for his subsequent tranches in due course.)

  • Lead
    • "the same level of critical or popular success" – crisper without "level of" perhaps?
    • "such that" – so that?
  • Family background and childhood
    • "girls' Day Schools" – I understand why the capital letters, but I think they'll attract flak at FAC. (And indeed I see they have come under scrutiny above.)
    • You might possibly take a scythe to some or all of the capitals within the last sentence of the section.
    • I think the school society names may be justifiably capitalised, though I agree about the hon sec. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Journalism and early writings
    • "Byline" – the OED (I sleep with it under my pillow, which is bloody uncomfortable) requires the hyphenated form "by-line". Collins follows the OED. Chambers, per contra, gives only "byline". I think the hyphens have it, but you are wholly at liberty to demur.
    • "Lily Langtree" – a double whammy here: you mean Lillie Langtry. (Afterthought: WP's guidelines say I ought quietly to have corrected this myself, but cf. Confucius: "there is no pleasure like watching a good friend fall off his roof".)
    • I plead guilty, m'lud, to "Langtree"; about "Lily" I'm not so sure. The name (which in any event was a nickname) is often spelt thus, including in the source I used. But I think the balance of works favours your spelling, so I have altered. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found "Jane Austin" and contented myself with a snarky edit summary.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the shame, the horror! Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cold Comfort Farm
    • "a rational, bossy London heroine" – do you think we might attribute this quote in the text?
    • "earthy regionalist" – earthy regionalists?
    • "Emily Brönte" – it's in a quote, but I am prepared to bet five bob that Hammill has Emily's dots in the right place – over the e and not the o.
  • 1930s
    • "Cooke points out that" – a bit tendentious; perhaps "comments" or "observes" would be more neutral
    • "not to expect that Bassett (1934) repetition of Cold Comfort Farm" – is there a "would be a" missing here?
    • "prewar" – this time it's Collins that omits the hyphen. The OED and Chambers require it. I just mention it. Up to you, natch. Same comment applies to "postwar" later.
    • "my comorants and gulls" – I believe I have occasionally seen cormorant spelled without the first r but does Gibbons do it as quoted?
  • Postwar years
    • [Obiter dicta: "bought a bookshop in the Archway district of London" – a bleak and desolate hole! I can't imagine he made much money running a bookshop there.]
  • Late career
    • "Light on C.S.Lewis" – a space between second initial and surname?
  • Bibliography
    • The MoS isn't wild about the sub-heading "Bibliography" within articles: Wikipedia:Layout#Works or publications, "because it is not clear whether it is limited to the works of the subject of the article". I think this is fair comment, and I go for "Works" or "Publications" when I remember, though I think I too have transgressed from time to time.
    • In the main text you mention The Rich House (1941) but it isn't in this here biblio. And there is also The Swiss Summer (1951) to be put upon the list.
    • oclc numbers – some missing from the list. I'll be happy to add them if you'd find that helpful.
      • Added one. I could not find the original editions of the others listed at Worldcat, not even CCF. If you have another means of finding the OCLCs I'd be very grateful if you would addthem. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all folks! A most enjoyable article, and I learnt much too. The balance of sections is judicious, you have done all that can be asked in the way of illustrations (how one envies people like her who remain stunning looking into their old age!) and I don't see how the piece could be much better. On to FAC, when I trust you will flag it up on my talk page. – Tim riley (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your efforts – I don't know where my articles would be without you. Assume I have followed your advice except as noted, and I will let you know when I take it forward. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: I clicked on your link to the Glasgow Herald article (most enjoyable) in which it is mentioned that a good chunk of the Gibbons oeuvre is being reissued. The same thought struck me when trawling for OCLC numbers for the first editions: I kept bumping into recent reissues. Scope for a line or two on this modest renascence? Happy to rummage in the publishing lists if that would be of use. Tim riley (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for finding the missing oclcs. I have added a couple of sentences to the "Reception" section, reporting the Vintage reissues, which I think is sufficient to indicate the mild revival of interest in SG's works. I don't think we need more; do you? Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and, Tim, while you're about it, would you adjudicate on a comma question that arises in Loeba's review, below? It's in the "Student years" section of her review. Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Sadly, with no ellipses errors for me to pick up on, I'll have to pick up on some other pieces in this very readable and enjoyable article. It's been some years since I read Cold Comfort, but I had no idea of the author's history or other works.

Family background and childhood

  • "the fourth name, by which the boy was always known": not sure the comma is needed here?
  • "a turbulent one, tensions arising from Charles Gibbons's": perhaps "with tensions"?
  • '"sexual swapping" within the family circle': I'm probably being dense here, but are you saying that it was incestuous adultery?
  • That's not in the source, from which I'd guess that Grandad Gibbons, who was only 20 years older than Telford, fancied his chances with the womenfolk of his son's generation, and that within that generation there were some exchanges of partner, but I don't think that incest can be implied. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an issue with it, but I am sure someone will comment on the use of "however"...
  • I have redrafted that part of the lead, but will be sure to carry out a "however" audit before it goes to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second tranche:

Journalism and early writings

Cold Comfort

  • "trade of earthy regionalist such": does the source have singular or plural "regionalist"

Final bite of the cherry to follow this pm. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one final tiny question, as my few other points have been captured by those above:

Writing

  • Any idea on who—apart from Austen—was an influence on her work, and on who she influenced?
  • There are few references, in the thin gruel of criticism that is available, to suggest particular literary influences. One critic mentions some similarity in the short stories to the style of Katherine Mansfield, but that's about all. In CCF, of course, Gibbons parodied various styles, but that's not the same thing. I will look around to see if there are other plausible suggestions as to stylistic influences. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely read, as always. Please drop me a line when you go to FAC. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, will keep you informed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba comments[edit]

What do you know, the lady was practically born on my [future] doorstep! Well not quite, but I could walk to Malden Crescent in about 15 minutes, which is pretty damn close (as is Holly Lodge). Anyway, this is great stuff - along with your lovely prose, I felt like I got a real sense of Gibbons life, writing style, and personality, even though it's a pretty quick and easy read. Quite an accomplishment. Most of the comments below are seriously nitpicky and can be ignored if you wish, but I wanted to try and be as helpful as possible.

Lead
  • "She established her reputation with her first novel, Cold Comfort Farm (1932), which won the Femina Vie Heureuse Prize" - Possibly better as "Her first novel, Cold Comfort Farm, won the -- prize and gave her a positive [or something similar] reputation".
  • "and has led some to compare her with Jane Austen" - .. "has led to comparison with Jane Austen"?
  • "The impact of Cold Comfort Farm dominated her career.." - Mention Gibbons by name, since the last female mentioned was Jane Austen.
  • "her works have not been accepted into the canon of English literature partly, commentators have suggested, because of her detachment from the literary world and her tendency to mock it." - I feel like there needs to be something before "partly", maybe "the canon of English literature – partly, commentators have suggested, because..."
  • I wonder if the sequel to CCF could be mentioned in the lead? It's interesting that she tried to repeat its success but even this failed. Maybe, "none of her remaining 22 novels, including a sequel to her debut, achieved the same critical or popular success."
  • I am something of a minimalist as far as lead details are concerned, but I'll give this idea further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Childhood
  • "according to Laura Webb, Stella Gibbons's daughter, "sexual swapping" within the family circle" - We're given a lot of names to digest in this first paragraph, maybe the daughter's could be omitted at this point to ease the load? IMO we may be given a bit too much information about her father (ie, the source of his name) and his childhood, but it's up to you.
  • I've been troubled about the "sexual swapping" – it's not relevant to Stella's life, and may become a distaction, so I've eliminated it, together with the marginal information about the origin of Telford. "Laura" will be named later in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fortunately, her mother was a calm and stabilising influence.[6] Until she reached the age of 13 Stella was educated at home by a succession of governesses" - Again, because the mother is the last female mentioned, "Until Stella reached the age of 13 she..."
  • "She picked up the habit of reading from the family bookcase" > "She enjoyed reading from the family bookcase"?
  • If you're pipelinking to Camden Town, I would specify that in the text as well. "Camden" could just refer to the borough.
Student years
  • The UCL image lacks a caption (I'm sure this is a mistake!)
  • "At school, Gibbons had formed the ambition to be a writer" > "an ambition"? And I think a comma after "headmistess" would be helpful.
  • I have actually deleted the headmistress (immaterial detail) Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recalled in an interview late in life that many of the jokes she shared with Gibbons were to find their way into Cold Comfort Farm, along with some of their mutual acquaintances" > "as were some of their.."?
  • "Soon after Gibbons joined the course she contributed a poem, "The Marshes of My Soul", to the December 1921 issue of University College Magazine." - I don't understand this sentence? Maybe I'm being dense, but if we remove the poem name - "joined the course she contributed a poem to the [magazine]" isn't making sense to me.
    • Ohhh I just re-read this and understand what it's saying now (I was being dense). It's the lack of comma before "course" that confused things for me, perhaps add one so that other dense people can follow it better. --Loeba (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My natural prose style is not to place a comma where you suggest, but I will get a third opinion on this. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe current American usage is always to put in a comma after an "In August,…" type opening. It has never been standard British practice: as far I can see, modern usage is add a comma in such cases only when omitting it would break the reader's flow, as in "After meeting Stanley Livingstone went…" where the comma would be helpful, but not in "After dinner I went out", where is isn't. It wouldn't have occurred to me to add a comma in the sentence in question, and I'm surprised Loeba feels the need for it, but it would do no harm, I'd say. – Tim riley (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Journalism
  • "some of which were published later" > "some of which were later published"?
  • Second paragraph uses "byline", third uses "by-line"
  • "particularly her increasing distraction from her work arising from her relationship with Walter Beck." - The three uses of "her" stood out to me and jarred a bit.
  • "he wanted something rather more open" - I'd omit the "rather"
1930s
  • "a budding actor and opera singer a few years her junior" - I'd just say outright how many years, rather than "a few".
  • "It had won against works by two more experienced writers" - Remove the "had"?
  • "It had won" matches "had been awarded" in the previous line. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a collection of fairy tales, was published in the year of her daughter's birth, and was dedicated to her." - Even if we do keep the daughter's name in the first section, I think she needs to be named again here. Also, it seems like she was her only child, which I would emphasise.
Postwar
  • "Throughout the 1950s she continued, at roughly two-year intervals, to produce politely received novels none of which created any particular stir." Feels like some punctuation is missing between "novels" and "none".
  • "During this time he had a brief affair with the actress Sydney Malcolm, for which misjudgement Gibbons quickly forgave him" > "a misjudgement for which Gibbons quickly forgave him"?
Later career
  • "The Yellow House and An Alpha, neither of which, as of 2013, had been published." > "has been published"?
  • The trouble is that when it comes to 2014 (in about six weeks), the sentence wouldn't make sense unless we changed the year – and kept changing it every year thereafter. Not worth the trouble, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reputation
  • Perhaps link to our wiktionary page for bête noire?
  • I'm not a fan of wiktionary links, but in any case I think it is a common enough term that readers will know. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the few publicly expressed negative views on the book" - I fear this may be OR...

Not much to suggest beyond small prose nitpicks, but hopefully that was helpful! --Loeba (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was extremely helpful. Not only did it enable me to deal with some awkward little glitches but it highlighted one or two issues where I was not altogether satisfied, and gave me the opportunity to deal with them.So many thanks indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. -(t) Josve05a (c) 19:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God bless and save us! Can nothing be done to obliterate these bloody bots! Tim riley (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am Dalek. "Exterminate, exterminate...-(t) Josve05a (c) 21:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an outbreak of these things all over the peer review system. It's irritating for experienced editors, but before cursing too loudly it's worth remembering that, sadly, this is all the review attention that many articles are going to get. Brianboulton (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover the above wasn't added by a bot but, I now realise, by a member of the human race, to whom I have apologised on his talk page, cancelling the curse. I got a more forgiving reply than I deserve. Tim riley (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress of Luxembourg[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded it from a stub into a quite substantial article, and intend to get it to Good Article status at some point. Comments on every aspect are welcome, while those on article structure, layout, and missing supporting materials (e.g. pictures) are particularly appreciated. Also, if you think any sections need to be trimmed.

Thanks, Dr Gangrene (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr Gangrene,
You've done a good job, but there are some aspects that'll need work, mostly:
  1. The citations you provide are per paragraph, not per phrase. Inline citations need to be just that - at the end of the phrase they support.
  2. Tone. Some rhetorical phrases like "How were these troops to be accommodated?" are chatty and non-encyclopedic in tone, but the problem's not too widespread and shouldn't be a major issue.
  3. Could do with a thorough grammar & syntax check. I noticed a couple of sentences in which the phrasing and grammar was very clumsy, presumably an oversight.
All the best. Brigade Piron (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have now added more inline citations. After a thorough copy-edit, I think the phrasing and grammar are less clumsy, and have edited for tone as well. Dr Gangrene (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just some copyediting comments: - Dank (push to talk)

  • "the approaches between France and Germany": That may be too long a border for the meaning of the word "approaches" to be self-evident.
I have changed this to "border area".
I have unlinked these.
  • "This domination was thought to be comparable to the dominance": You haven't mentioned a domination (only an "importance") at this point, and we prefer not to use words with the same root in two different senses in the same sentence.
OK, this part of the lead section has been re-written.
  • "thought to be comparable", "historical nickname": Different reviewers will have different reactions to this ... some will call these weasel words, others will say that they're fine, because it's assumed in high-quality historical narrative that we're talking about the consensus of historians. There's no single approach that everyone agrees on, I'm just alerting you to be ready with a response.
These weasel words have now been removed.
  • "unbowed resistance that the Gibraltar garrison offered to Spanish attempts to reclaim it": Heads can be unbowed, but not resistance. Also, this may be stretching a point; see our article on History of Gibraltar (which became Featured about a year ago). "offering resistance to attempts" isn't idiomatic.
This part of the lead section has now been deleted.
  • "It thus had": See WP:Checklist#because. Bottom line: cause-and-effect words are fine when you need them, but it causes all kinds of problems when they're inserted randomly as fillers or segues. Skimming through the text, I see more of these words than you need.
I have gone through the article, it now includes fewer of these filler words, I hope.
  • " 'Gibraltar of the North' ": Use double quote marks per MOS:QUOTEMARKS.
Done.
  • "(French: Gibraltar du Nord, German: Gibraltar des Nordens)": If the purpose of giving the translations is so that people searching for those terms will find this article, that probably isn't necessary in this case. If the purpose is to assert that the terms, and thus the concepts, have credibility in French and German, simply asserting that the phrases exist doesn't make that point, you'd need to say something stronger ... even if it's as simple as "French and German sources also routinely refer to the fortress as ...".
These have now been deleted.

- Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SGGH (talk · contribs)

Hi there. Leaving some comments as requested, though I see that other users have jumped in ahead of me now. Sorry if I duplicate anything.

  • Infobox Military Installation has more fields than are being used here, particularly the map references, current condition (though I appreciate that is easily deduced) whether the remains are open to the public, who built it, what materials etc.
I have added some more fields to the infobox.
  • Slight copy edit for flow in the lead. Therefore rather than thus, and who thought this about the comparison with Gibraltar?
After copy-editing, the weasel words and instances of "thus" have been rooted out.
  • "period of great construction activity" the activity is a redundant word here.
OK, I have changed this.
  • You could get away with merging the last two paragraphs of the lead.
I have added some content to the last paragraph, so it can now stand on its own, I think.
  • The roman section is uncited.
This is now cited.
  • "Castle" is a bit of a generalised title for the second section, perhaps include the time frame? Also it has no references.
This now has references, and I have changed it to "Medieval castle".
  • Same for "Fortress", general title.
Changed to "Development and use as fortress", what do you think?

All in all, however, I think it's an excellent article with a vast coverage. There's a lot of content in here and it covers many areas. You do need to have more in-line citations, rather than just one or two and the end of a paragraph, and there are a couple of paragraphs/sections with no citations. There are a few other copy-edit issues but the users above have mentioned the ones I've noticed, and also the "chatty" line that was mentioned at the top. Other than that, very good. Well done. --S.G.(GH) ping! 15:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thank you very much for your feedback everyone, it is appreciated. I will use your advice and continue to work on the article. Dr Gangrene (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 31 metres, use 31 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 31&nbsp;metres.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), recognise (B) (American: recognize), realize (A) (British: realise), isation (B) (American: ization), signalling (B) (American: signaling).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio González-Gordon y Díez[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope I can take it to GA shortly. I think the article needs to be looked over once good, since I'm not a native English speaker there will probably be some glaring mistakes. Furthermore I'm not certain on what to do with the Honours and decorations section, it's currently half list/half text but that just doesn't seem right. I'm also concerned that the tone of the text is somewhat repetitive: he/his/Gonzalez-Gordon, etc. This is my first attempt at writing a half decent article, so I hope it's any good.

Thanks, Crispulop (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formula, Vol. 1[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA and I would like to further work on it for FA. I know the background may seem short, but that's all I relevant information I could find.

Thanks, Erick (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I just reorganised the Lead to foreground the topic's importance - for me as an uninitiated reader, I wanted to know why this album is notable before getting into the details. See what you think. Depthdiver (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I don't know. See, the thing is, the opening paragraph should focus on what the article is about. And since the background is what comes first, I am not so sure. Compare with my first Featured Article Romances. Erick (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - it's a stylistic thing, i think they both work. I prefer my suggestion because it catches my attention and makes me want to read further - but for someone interested in the topic already, I'm sure it works just as well the original way. I can also see it's nice to have a set of articles on this area with a consistent structure. Go ahead and revert as you prefer. Cheers Depthdiver (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All righty then. I thank you for correcting the other issues at the article. So how is the prose in the article itself? Erick (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the article, despite the fact that it is an unreleased game, still feels in a relatively unpolished state. The gameplay section, and I think the wording of the lead, need a once-over. Plus, extra eyes to look over the development section and add new content if it is available would be more than welcome.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead

  • "and eventually unveiled" - was unveiled

Gameplay

  • You mention the Wildlands without ever saying what they are until the setting section
  • Link Chocobo
  • What is Eradia?
  • It sounds like the world's timer is running out in real time, and by giving Eradia to Yggdrasil, you fill back up the meter, but you never actually say that in the gameplay section, or mention that there is the 13-day timer- this is the first section, so it can't be relying on details that don't get mentioned until the plot section.
  • Re-link FF13 and FF13-2 and Lightning in gameplay; links in the lead don't count towards overlinking.

Characters

  • "via wireless com" (munnicator)
  • " Noel Kreiss, guilty over his role" - feeling guilty

Reception

  • If you're going to have the expand tag on the gameplay section (which can't really be expanded till the game comes out) maybe you should put in a tagged, empty reception section (since it comes out tomorrow in JP.)

Other

  • Refs look good, though Famitsu should be italicized in 38 and the name needs to be flipped in 18
  • Images and FURs are great; maybe add a free one of a developer like is in the other two articles
  • Drop the caps on the external links

--PresN 23:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC

Done most of what you pointed out, I think. I can't really find a developer image from the right time. I also spotted another author name mistake in the references. Glad you found the refs alright. I had a devil of a time finding a few of them. Mind you, I think we're in for a real headache when the story section needs to be written. I've seen enough of the game to know it will need some careful handling to make sure it doesn't do a Final Fantasy VII on us. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! --PresN 20:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/November_2013&oldid=588620911"